Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the same 3 question on the n180 are asked before the mediation can begin. so you then say ... despite numerous requests dating back over 1yrs the claimant nor their sols have supplied me with requested paperwork to enable me to make an informed decision upon entering into mediation. i therefore refuse. you are doing the same thing again you did last year  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/458251-linkkearns-claimform-old-barclaycard-debt-now-n244/?do=findComment&comment=5232418    
    • I'm compiling a brief list of points to state in tomorrow's mediation call.  it would seem that I have to come to an agreement of some sort. Seeing as most of the defence, lack of genuine paperwork evidence from the claimant, mild threats etc. seems to go in my favour, is it best to mediate for that agreement or to let it run to court?  Short of the 6 year rule playing out, I'm going to have to pay up somehow, so why don't I just end it tomorrow? By paying I mean, not hurling myself off a cliff.    
    • @ReuTheo Thanks very much. Coincidentally, it has now been exactly over 1 year since I sent my parcel with Evri and began my enquiries with them as to where my parcel is (and eventually coming to this forum / starting this thread). I understand how you are feeling. It's why I kept this thread active and detailed, so anyone who reads it, can clearly understand what was happening at each stage of the process, so they don't feel anxious or overwhelmed with the process through MCOL, mediation, arranging for trial, working through the WS / Court bundle, and finally going in front of a judge. The work has been put in so hopefully you (and everyone else) now has a good WS template to use and build the case. I agree the legal language and specifics are not easy to understand at first glance by layman / non-legal persons. What I found useful is reading the WS and researching some of the Acts in my own time so that I could understand the legal speak. This reading / research really helped me to have a clear idea of what the rules/laws are and how they apply to my case (and likely your case also). As you know, this is a self-help forum so you certainly got to put in the time/work to understand your case/argument. It will be worth it in the end (I say this from personal experience - given this time last year, I was banging my head against a wall with Evri and couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel). Above all else, the team on this forum such as @BankFodder and @jk2054 are a tremendous help with getting the WS in the right state and giving guidance. Don't be afraid to ask questions on this forum - it's for your ultimate benefit (even if sometimes the responses seem harsh - don't take it personally. If my experience is anything to go by, it'll help give clarity and maybe even close a potential gap in your case). Good luck with your case.
    • Savers are pouring money into cash Isas as they look to protect the interest on their nest eggs from tax. They put more than £11bn into cash Isas in April.View the full article
    • The stock ended the trading day at nearly $136, up 3.5%, making it more valuable than Microsoft.View the full article
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3390 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Can someone offer some advice please?

 

 

My husband had a dispute with a solicitor and they got a CCJ.

He should have defended the case but didn't and it was ages ago now so I believe he is stuck with it.

 

 

He has been paying them sporadically as and when he can afford to and the debt is now down to £660.

 

He received a letter from an enforcement agency a few weeks ago and ignored it,

he just paid another instalment to the solicitor who had the CCJ and thought no more about it.

 

Now we have had a notice put through the door from this bunch at Andrew Wilson & Co which says they have a Writ.

We have not received any notification from the High Court about any Writ (although I don't know if they have to notify us)

and the enforcement details on the note only mention the CCJ from the County Court as the enforcement details, not any High Court claim number.

 

 

There is however a Writ number at the top of their note but I don't trust this to be anything other than their reference number,

it is just a number, no letters in it as you see in county court claims.

 

We have no intention of letting these people into the house, which is owned by me and not him in any event.

We have revoked their license to enter the premises with a notice in our porch window, which they must have read when they visited today.

 

My husband intention is to carry on paying the solicitor direct as and when he can until the original debt is paid

(they waived the right to interest in a letter to him).

 

What I want to know is what rights, if any these enforcement people have?

Can they take his car if it is on the drive despite the licence to enter the premises being revoked?

 

If we pay the solicitor in full will they have to go away or are we stuck with them now banging on the door every few days?

 

They have added over £1,000 to the alleged debt that they are now demanding, is this legal?

 

My instinct is to ignore them and make sure they can't get in but I need some guidance please.

 

Thanks for such a good and interesting forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what was the old debt all about please

and who is the sols?

 

 

and no they have no right of entry whatsoever

 

oh and be carful reading these freeman of the land sites and these silly

notices to put at you gate or window.

 

 

load of useless twaddle!!

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

but you read it somewhere...be careful of fotl twaddle.

 

 

was there a judgement order for the CCJ

 

 

£XX per week month etc?

 

 

or was it a default judgement for the whole amount?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

judgement for whole amount.

 

They agreed he could pay in instalments as and when but they wanted regular amounts.

He has not been able to pay regularly but has paid sporadically.

They agreed not to add any interest to the CCJ debt.

 

What I really want to know is if he pays the balance now, what, if anything will still be due?

Will he have to pay the bailiffs costs?

They seem awfully high and I have checked what they are allowed to charge and they seem to be adding about £1,000.

 

Can we stop this by paying the original debt to the original solicitor rather than to these debt collectors?

 

He has paid an amount since they sent these guys round and they (original solicitor) kept the money, so we expect they will accept the balance.

 

Will the bailiffs have to go away then?

 

I am not worried about the house or contents because that belongs to me and that can be proven,

we would not let them in anyway but he has a car and there is no finance on it and

 

 

from reading the legislation, it looks like they could clamp it and take it.

 

 

We just don't want to have to play hide and seek with it, s

o what are the chances they will get called off if we pay the original debt in full?

 

Re revoking licence to enter the premises:

I know that there is an implied licence to enter my property.

 

This is what is regularly exercised by people coming to my front door in crossing my property to get there e.g. by the postman.

I know that I am entitled to revoke said implied licence but must do this clearly and unequivocally.

The person then on my land has to leave or be deemed a trespasser.

 

There is case law where a police officer has been told to leave, thereby having his license

to enter the property revoked and has failed to do so and has subsequently arrested the householder.

The conviction that the householder then faced was quashed by the court because the officer was there unlawfully when he made the arrest.

 

I have a sign in my porch window clearly displayed which reads

"Please Note: Any implied licence to enter these premises is hereby revoked by the lawful occupier.

Entering these premises without permission will constitute trespass."

 

I have yet to test if this theory works and hope I never have to

but I was once advised by a bailiff friend of mine that such notices do work and they should take notice of them.

 

I know that after they have taken your goods, it is an uphill fight to prove that it was done unlawfully

but I hope the notice may prove a deterrent if they think I am serious about enforcing it and trust me, I am.

 

P.S. The law is my profession but I do not specialise in bailiffs! Hence my questions on here, I just want some advice from those who have such experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re revoking licence to enter the premises:

I know that there is an implied licence to enter my property.

 

This is what is regularly exercised by people coming to my front door in crossing my property to get there e.g. by the postman.

I know that I am entitled to revoke said implied licence but must do this clearly and unequivocally.

The person then on my land has to leave or be deemed a trespasser.

 

There is case law where a police officer has been told to leave, thereby having his license

to enter the property revoked and has failed to do so and has subsequently arrested the householder.

The conviction that the householder then faced was quashed by the court because the officer was there unlawfully when he made the arrest.

 

I have a sign in my porch window clearly displayed which reads

"Please Note: Any implied licence to enter these premises is hereby revoked by the lawful occupier.

Entering these premises without permission will constitute trespass."

 

I have yet to test if this theory works and hope I never have to

but I was once advised by a bailiff friend of mine that such notices do work and they should take notice of them.

 

I know that after they have taken your goods, it is an uphill fight to prove that it was done unlawfully

but I hope the notice may prove a deterrent if they think I am serious about enforcing it and trust me, I am.

 

P.S. The law is my profession but I do not specialise in bailiffs! Hence my questions on here, I just want some advice from those who have such experience.

 

 

I think I know the case its here several times

but that letter wasn't the reason why it was quashed

 

 

debt collectors yes it would work

but then you don't need it with them anyway as they have no legal powers

bailiffs are a whole different breed I it does not apply.

 

 

anyway just be careful of this freemen of the land stuff.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

judgement for whole amount.

 

They agreed he could pay in instalments as and when but they wanted regular amounts.

He has not been able to pay regularly but has paid sporadically.

They agreed not to add any interest to the CCJ debt.

 

What I really want to know is if he pays the balance now, what, if anything will still be due?

Will he have to pay the bailiffs costs?

They seem awfully high and I have checked what they are allowed to charge and they seem to be adding about £1,000.

 

Can we stop this by paying the original debt to the original solicitor rather than to these debt collectors?

 

He has paid an amount since they sent these guys round and they (original solicitor) kept the money, so we expect they will accept the balance.

 

Will the bailiffs have to go away then?

 

I am not worried about the house or contents because that belongs to me and that can be proven,

we would not let them in anyway but he has a car and there is no finance on it and

 

 

from reading the legislation, it looks like they could clamp it and take it.

 

 

We just don't want to have to play hide and seek with it, s

o what are the chances they will get called off if we pay the original debt in full?

 

 

sadly under the new rules since april paying the debt off to the sols does not dissolve your requirement to pay bailiff fees.

that are legally due.

 

 

the sols have employed the HCEO at a cost of £60

they don't have to inform you

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re revoking licence to enter the premises:

 

I know that there is an implied licence to enter my property.

 

I have a sign in my porch window clearly displayed which reads

 

"Please Note: Any implied licence to enter these premises is hereby revoked by the lawful occupier. Entering these premises without permission will constitute trespass."

 

I have yet to test if this theory works and hope I never have to but I was once advised by a bailiff friend of mine that such notices do work and they should take notice of them.

 

I know that after they have taken your goods, it is an uphill fight to prove that it was done unlawfully but I hope the notice may prove a deterrent if they think I am serious about enforcing it and trust me, I am.

 

P.S. The law is my profession but I do not specialise in bailiffs! Hence my questions on here, I just want some advice from those who have such experience.

 

The notice is of no use whatsoever and in fact, with bailiff enforcement, they are totally ignored by all companies.

 

About 8 years ago Removal of Implied Right of Access Notices were picked up by Freeman on the Land supporters and within months, went 'viral' on the internet. It would seem from research that I have been the only person to write on this subject. The following link is to a thread that I wrote last year and you will see in the opening post that I refer to a further thread that had been viewed at that time over 16,000 times. Both threads have now been viewed approx 30,000 times !!!

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have a sign in my porch window clearly displayed which reads

 

"Please Note: Any implied licence to enter these premises is hereby revoked by the lawful occupier. Entering these premises without permission will constitute trespass."

 

 

This debt is being enforced by Andrew Wilson & Co and they enforce judgments that are transferred up to the High Court for enforcement.

 

A Notice of Removal of Rights of Implied Access (trespass notice) has no relevance either with the enforcement of a High Court writ of Fi Fa and this is because the company (Andrew Wilson & Co) and its' enforcement officers have statutory protection against any claims for trespass and wrongful interference of goods.

 

This protection is afforded by Section 11 (entitled: Protection of Officers) of Schedule 7 of the Courts Act 2003. Furthermore, Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 states that officers executing a warrant are not considered to be harassing debtors and therefore are protected by the law.

 

Accordingly, any legal action for harassment would not succeed where the officer is in the process of "enforcement of any liabilities by legal process".

Link to post
Share on other sites

felthorpe, please take the advice of Bailiff Advice above. The notice is pointless and will not stop the HCEO from enforcing.

 

Coming to the issue, the Notice of Enforcement is sent to allow you to pay the sums due without incurring the additional costs of a visit. The fact your husband chose to ignore it is why you have the problem you have.

 

I would also suggest that it is due to the sporadic payments is why the creditor has chosen to enforce the matter.

 

The correct procedure is to make an agreed payment arrangement with Andrew Wilson & Co and ensure your husband sticks to it.

 

Remember, jointly owned goods (those bought in marriage) can be enforced against so if your husband can clear this up once and for all it wouldn't be a bad idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please post the breakdown of fees / costs added ?

 

As the amount was over 600.00 OS the claimant exercised their right to transfer up.

 

There are two options / solutions here:

 

i) the costs are incorrectly worked out and can be mitigated to reduce the quantum owed

 

ii) the debt is in OH name only ? He has no goods to his name ? Will the car realise the total due ?

 

N

Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband has now paid the balance owing to the original creditor.

 

 

From what I can tell, the creditor has only spent £75 in recruiting the HCEO.

 

 

He has also written to the original creditor saying that the debt is paid in full and he would like acknowledgement that nothing else is owing to them.

We will see what response we get.

They have kept the money paid.

 

 

The charges suggested by the HCEO are way above the amounts set out in the legislation (Taking Control of Good (Fees) Regulations 2014),

does anyone know why this is?

 

 

The amount originally owed was £700.

The HCEO was then recruited.

£40 was paid, the debt was then £660.

 

 

The HCEO attended the property.

The table says £190 for first enforcement stage.

The HCEO is asking for over £1,000.

 

 

The £660 has now been paid, so the debt is clear.

 

 

What is likely to be outstanding and to whom?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, yes the creditor would have paid £60 for a writ of control.

 

By rights, the creditor should hand over your payment to the HCEO. They will take their lawful fees and enforce against you for the balance. Whether the fees charged are correct is something you will have to decide once you've had a breakdown.

 

From what you say it would seem the Compliance and Enforcement Stage 1 fees have been charged. These are due and payable. For a £1,000 debt you would be looking at approx £318 (incl. VAT) and if you add a bit of interest the sums due are around £1,000.

 

This really will come down to whether the creditor is willing to pay the HCEO fees out of what he has had. From experience that is unlikely.

 

Be warned, a further attendance will likely incur the Sale Stage fee which will add at least £594.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...