Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you @BankFodder, your statement is a correct understanding of my position and I agree, it is actually really what I was looking for in starting this thread, as I too believed that the maximum I could claim for is that which I sold it for, even though this was substantially below market value at the time. And so, this sold value is what I shall be claiming for + the other expenses. @dx100uk I get your point, but this is just not what I want to expose myself to. Unfortunately I was one of the unlucky ones to have my details stolen in the Peoples Energy hack, and in 2020 I discovered that those details had been used to take out car insurance, and that the insured was then involved in a collision and my details were dragged through the mud. Despite Aviva cancelling the claim and treating as though it never were, even though I have the letters from them to say that they have removed this claim from the insurance database, I still get refused insurance and credit products to this day until I send across the letter from Aviva which explains that I was a victim of fraud. So you'll forgive me for not jumping up and uploading my data to a server utility for which I have no control over its retention policy, or where the server is located globally, its legal jurisdiction, or its security protocols.
    • Speeding (Revised 2017) – Sentencing (sentencingcouncil.org.uk)  
    • upload sites dont retain copies and so what if they do... what do you think they are going to do, kidnap your grannies budgie or something..how the hell would any of the info required by us be of any use to them..... stop being paranoid and put them all in one mass multipage pdf.  
    • https://audicam.audi.co.uk/customer/6660055/00cc584e9769699ddba3807a2995032f/59022-13062024 Please let me know if you can access footage 
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Debtor jailed for 6 months for chasing a bailiff with a knife


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3376 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

The following story appears on SCOOP today:

 

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

 

 

 

An angry householder, armed with a knife, chased two court bailiffs down a street whilst threatening to kill them.

 

Arfan Bhatti, 46, who was jailed for six months, was furious when the officials arrived to pursue a £132 debt in relation to a traffic fine from a magistrates court.

 

The bailiffs claim Bhatti chased them for about 100 yards putting them in fear of their lives as he yelled he was going to "stab" and "kill" them.

 

He then went back into his home in Byfield Drive, Wigston, before reappearing without the large kitchen knife to shout and swear at them, as they took refuge in their van.

 

The victims, who had already called for the police, drove away.

 

When arrested he claimed he did not initially realise the two men were court bailiffs.

 

Mr Murphy said the background to the incident related to a £332 fine from Hertfordshire Magistrates, towards which he had already paid £200.

 

A warrant was issued and on March 25 last year the bailiffs arrived at 10am and, despite cars on the driveway, there was no response to their knocking.

 

One of them went to the back door and another went to the kitchen window, where the defendant was seen inside brandishing a large knife – prompting them to flee and one of them dropped his clipboard.

 

Mr Murphy said the victims had told him they were "officers of the court."

 

Bhatti pleaded guilty to possessing a knife in a public place and causing an affray.

 

Judge Michael Fowler said: "I accept it wasn't planned, but you responded to those bailiffs carrying out their duty in an unacceptable way.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree that what he did was waaay out of order it is understandable that after paying off two thirds of the debt leaving only £100 or so that the system is so arranged that sending out EAs sends the debt back up higher than before.

 

I think that is really unjust. And not only because it puts him in the same category as those who haven't paid a penny off their debt. It is because a charge of

£235 just to call on a debtor is totally disgraceful and does not even either take into account the debtors means nor [as in this case] the amount of the outstanding debt. The MOJ should be ashamed of themselves.

Yes the EAs are now laughing all the way to the bank because of such easy pickings. Some of them however [as in this case] will reap the whirlwind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I would want to be an EA, as they will get threatened on a daily basis.

 

The trouble is that the way the EA's act may put some people in a fearful position and they may act as if they are being threatened. Perhaps EA's need to change the way they operate and see if it makes the job safer for them to do.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...