Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You say that you had some communication with Blue Motor Finance. Did you do this on the telephone or in writing? You should read our customer services guide. It's extremely important. You should try to do everything in writing that way you do do things on the telephone then you should make sure that you make detailed notes of your call and then confirm them in writing. So for instance if you are discussion with Blue Motor Finance was on the phone, you should make a note of everything that was said – including the fact that they said that the matter would have to be investigated because the dealer was prepared to carry out repair – and you should send this to be motor Finance with a note confirming that this was the conversation they had with you. It is very important to develop a paper trail. Otherwise everything becomes deniable. The situation is that if a defect occurs within the first 30 days of ownership of the vehicle then you are entitled to reject the vehicle under the consumer rights act. You have to assert this right by contacting the dealer – and in this case Blue Motor Finance – in writing and point out that you are asserting a right under the consumer rights act 2015 and you are rejecting the vehicle. Tell them that you want arrangements to be made to give you a refund of all costs including any costs or interest which has been levied by the finance company. Don't forget that in this case because you have purchased the vehicle through hire purchase, it is Blue Motor Finance which is the responsible party. That is going to be helpful because if you had had to deal only with Chobham, you would have had very serious difficulties. In addition to writing to Blue Motor Finance to assert your rights, I suggest that you send them a copy of the article from the daily mail which has been linked above and you can draw their attention in your letter to the fact that this is the company that they are dealing with. You can send these messages to Blue Motor Finance by email. You should do this urgently. This weekend. You should also tell Blue Motor Finance that you have now taken advice and that you now understand that the initial statement that the matter needed investigation and that the dealer was going to carry out repair, is unacceptable and actually unlawful and contrary to the short-term right to reject contained in the consumer rights act. Tell Blue Motor Finance that if they will not cooperate immediately in returning all of your money that you will consider legal action against them for breach of contract and also for treating you unfairly country to their statutory duty under regulations developed by the Financial Conduct Authority. You should stop driving the car immediately. How far away from you is the dealer? Frankly you want to get rid of the car as quickly as possible. If you had not had finance in place then we would have cautioned you about this because you could end up losing possession of the car and also not having your refund. However, as you are dealing with a regulated finance company, and of course as the money has been loaned to you and you have not paid a great deal of it back it, your best interests would be in getting rid of the car so that it is no longer your responsibility to maintain, to insure or to generally worry about. If you're confident then you should drive the car carefully to the dealer and leave it with them on their forecourt. Do not leave in the streets. You should photograph the car inside and out so that there is no argument later on as to the condition of the car when you returned it. If you are worried about trying the car then you should tell Blue Motor Finance that you want them to make immediate arrangements for the removal of the vehicle. I was given seven days to organise this at the end of which you will charge in storage at £10 per day. This is assuming that you are keeping on your own property and not on the road. As soon as you have got rid of the car, you should take immediate steps to inform the authorities that you are not the owner of the vehicle. Make sure that when you return the car it is returned with all its paperwork but you should use whatever portion of the V5 is necessary to transfer ownership away from you. Take copies of all the documentation before you hand them back. If you fail to do this and if the dealer does not change the ownership – then you are at risk of some other person driving it in your name and incurring penalties for road traffic offences or parking offences. That will then give you more complicated problems to deal with as you have to try and convince people that you are not the owner and not the driver of the car at the time. You should calculate exactly what this whole thing has cost you. This means all of your out-of-pocket expenses including the cost of going to see the car, going to fetch it, driving it back, any expense of insuring it or anything else because later on we will help you claim all of this back. Of course you will claim all expenses and fees et cetera associated with the finance agreement. As a matter of interest, how recent is the MOT on this vehicle? Who MOT'd it?  
    • Brexit = United Ireland within 20 years.  Arguable possibility.    
    • Please can you tell us about the car you bought - make/model/mileage/price.   What are the surnames of Nathan and of Alex?   What address are Chobham Central Motors using?   As you will see from this website and from the Daily Mail article -  Downfall of car dealer who sold death traps: Chancer forged court papers and refused to pay refunds | Daily Mail Online WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK Ahmed Alwaheeb's firms sold cars riddled with faults - and which sometimes had government recall notices that required manufacturers to fix safety issues - but refused to refund customers.     You have bought your car from a bunch of dealers who don't seem to be very scrupulous about the way that they operate.  However, you have saved yourself by using a finance company.  I think that you may be the first people we have come across who have not paid cash to this company.   Citizens Advice are right that if your arrangement is a hire purchase arrangement then your action will be against Blue Motor Finance -  Home Page - Blue Motor Finance BLUE.CO.UK     Chobham used to be registered with the Motoring Ombudsman but they withdrew after some decisions against them.   The so called Motorcomplaints service which is apparently run by someone called Alex, is in fact part of the Chobham/EMC etc bunch and seems to have been setup to make customers think that their complaint has been reviewed by an independent arbiter - when in fact it hasn't.   The motor complaints service to which you been referred by Chobham and which is apparently run by Alex should not be confused with the Motor Ombudsman scheme which is a legitimate organisation although frankly it's probably not very useful anyway.   All of this has been reported to Citizen's Advice and Trading Standards many times and nothing has ever been done about them.  Even the Daily Mail article failed to prompt any authorities to take any action   Blue Motor Finance are wrong to tell you that they have to investigate first.  The dealer has no right to insist upon a repair as you have reacted and asserted your rights within 30 days of purchase.   You will have to get tough with Blue Motor and we will help you.  
    • Singapore sees its traditional rag and bone collectors as key to its sustainability plans. View the full article
    • its an if not they def will.   then snotty letter time
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access - EU Law perspective


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2156 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

p3t3r wrote:

 

 

The Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access - this is a perfectly valid notice, - my opinion of this is backed up by the ruling from Judge Pugh which is shown earlier in this thread.

The notice is akin to 'No Cold Callers' notices which are supplied by various police forces, councils etc.

 

In relation to bailiffs, the notice is not considered to be valid. Firstly, there is no implied right of access for a bailiff since it is an explicit right. The bailiff has the right to attend the property and as such ignore the notices.

 

IMPORTANT: Anyone relying on this notice to get rid of the bailiff is more likely to suffer financially since they are presumably under the illusion that such a notice would simply get rid of the bailiff. In this instance, the notice is absolutely useless because the bailiff does not have an implied right whatsoever, the bailiff has an explicit right - which is backed up by UK legislation which affords such right to the bailiff. Again, this is backed up by Judge Pugh.

 

So, whilst the notices are akin to 'no cold callers' notices and apply to the vast majority of people, the notices do not apply to people who have a legal right to attend your home. The bailiff has a legal right in UK law to attend a debtors home.

 

The reliance on such notices by individuals can lead to a dangerous scenario since the individual is under the false illusion purported by FMOTL that the notices are valid. Again, to put it simply, the notices are not valid to anyone who has a legal right to attend a home - and this includes bailiffs who are given the legal right to attend a home.

 

Now, turning to a possibility as to how the notice is valid against bailiffs. EU law, ECHR, human rights... Lets take an example of council tax. If a debtor can not pay council tax, then their ability to pay should be assessed by a court. My opinion: If the person does not have an ability to pay, then allowances should be made by the court. In no circumstance should a liability order be granted on a person who does not have an ability to pay their council tax since as this is perverse! There is absolutely no point in instructing bailiffs to attend a debtors home and therefore significantly increase the debt by adding on bailiff fees.

However, in the case of a debtor who can afford to pay but does not pay, then bailiffs should attend. IMO, bailiffs should be used as a last resort against the debtor who refuses to pay where all other possibilities have been exhausted such as deductions from benefits, salary deductions etc.

 

There are IMO various EU laws which would help with the validity of the Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access.

Firstly, the right to a fair trial. There is absolutely no fair trial in the scenario of council tax where liability orders are processed almost automatically, 'rubber stamped' by the Judges. This goes against ECHR article 6, the right to a fair trial.

 

If the debtor has not had a right to a fair trial as defined by ECHR article 6, then the bailiff should be informed of this in conjunction with ECHR article 8, the right of respect for his home, family etc.

 

The debtor should make their case known to the bailiff and the bailiffs client.

 

If the bailiff does not leave the property after being informed of ECHR article 6 and article 8, then it could be argued that the bailiff is in violation of those applicable laws. This is my opinion and until someone actually tests the legality of this in a court, then it is just that, an opinion.

 

A (BBC?) report which can be seen from one of my links in this thread from a few years ago states that the use of bailiffs should decrease since the human rights act. Unfortunately, I feel the reverse has happened in the fact that liability orders are rubber stamped and as such bailiff use has increased rather than decreased.

 

Again,I reiterate that use of such notices are ineffective against bailiffs and other people who have a legal right under UK legislation to attend the home of a debtor. However, as Judge Pugh has outlined, the notices are valid toward those people who do not have a legal right to be at the property.

 

Usage of such notices used in conjunction with that of various EU laws and human rights should IMHO prevent the bailiff from attending the property until such time that a FAIR TRIAL (article 6 ECHR) has occurred. The debtor should then escalate their case using ECHR and EU law in order to provide remedy.

 

Summary: Notice of implied right of access is perfectly valid, but not valid against people (bailiffs) who have an explicit legal right to attend. However, such right should be examined under EU law since I feel that more often than not, article 6 has been violated (fair trial) which would then lead to article 8 violated.

 

EU law / ECHR - This trumps UK law! Whilst people may have an explicit right under UK law to attend a debtors home, this is not necessarily so using EU law.

 

Discuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Above post relates to this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?406801-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access......debtor-loses-in-court-and-ordered-to-pay-bailiff-companies-legal-costs/page10

 

I am unsure why 2 threads are needed and don't know why someone joined this site today purely to create a new thread from the original thread with their first post!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited: it is very strange :/

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am unsure why 2 threads are needed and don't know why someone joined this site today purely to create a new thread from the original thread with their first post!

 

To see if Dodgeball really does want to discuss it. It can't go 'off-topic' now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

wun hung lo, ok, lol, thanks for your explanation... but speaking about a thread title in conjunction with something else is surely not off topic!

 

anyway, i've pretty much said all i have to say about this in the other thread. would be interested in other peoples opinions though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't liability orders issued after a hearing in a magistrates court? For example, debtor receives a summons in the post to appear on a certain date/time to defend the application for a liability order, if they fail to turn up, then the liability order is issued.

 

Therefore in the interests of the Human Rights Act 1998 and ECHR, the right to a fair trail and no punishment without law is effectively adhered to as the debtor has a chance to defend themselves in a court of law?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debtor has a right to legal aid if they can not afford to pay a solicitor themselves.

 

My understanding of council tax cases is that they are completed within just a few minutes, no assessment as to the affordability of the debtor is taken into consideration, - most cases are simply 'rubber stamped'.

 

I have read a lot of information concerning this, some information is coming from 'dubious' site I have learnt of through CAG, but that site seems to suggest that liability orders for council tax are granted even before the debtor arrives in court.

 

ECHR - right of a fair trial - There is no fair trial in the case of council tax since there is no legal aid for this (despite ECHR stating otherwise).

Link to post
Share on other sites
The debtor has a right to legal aid if they can not afford to pay a solicitor themselves.

 

For Council Tax issues? Are you sure about that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
For Council Tax issues? Are you sure about that?

 

yes... from what i've read, council tax is criminal and ECHR says a solicitor should be provided for criminal cases if the defendant can not afford a solicitor themselves.

 

ive also read legal aid is possible for ECHR cases.

 

i have been reading a lot, ill post links when i find them, but i seem to remember reading that one on CAB website

 

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/humanrights/hrr_article_6.pdf that link shows solicitor should be provided for a fair trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's unfair about the liability order process exactly?

 

For what's worth, in over a decade in being involved with council tax disputes, I've never come across a single legal aid funded case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
yes... from what i've read, council tax is criminal and ECHR says a solicitor should be provided for criminal cases if the defendant can not afford a solicitor themselves.

 

ive also read legal aid is possible for ECHR cases.

 

i have been reading a lot, ill post links when i find them, but i seem to remember reading that one on CAB website

 

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/humanrights/hrr_article_6.pdf that link shows solicitor should be provided for a fair trial.

 

Just because CTX hearings are in a magistrates court does not make them criminal. Mags can also sit in a civil capacity.

 

I don't think Legal Aid is available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's unfair about the liability order process exactly?

 

For what's worth, in over a decade in being involved with council tax disputes, I've never come across a single legal aid funded case.

 

There are reminders and a summons sent to a debtor. If they fail to dispute it or attend then judgment is effectively given in default.

 

Not sure why that's unfair either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because CTX hearings are in a magistrates court does not make them criminal. Mags can also sit in a civil capacity.

 

I don't think Legal Aid is available.

 

It's an offence not to pay but the enforcement isn't the same as for Magistrates' Court fines and suchlike. It's rather niche and peculiar.

 

I don't think Legal Aid is available either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's unfair about the liability order process exactly?

 

For what's worth, in over a decade in being involved with council tax disputes, I've never come across a single legal aid funded case.

 

Interesting! That seems to suggest that quite a lot of unfair trials over the last 10 years.

 

The unfairness is that there is no legal representation (which you say). ECHR right to a fair trial states that a solicitor should be appointed if the person can not afford a solicitor.

 

Other unfairness i believe is that there is no valid assessment of the persons ability to pay.

 

Some people refuse to pay council tax (despite them being able to do so) - Other people can simply not pay council tax. Therein lies the unfairness in the fact that the people who can not pay and are struggling to pay are then faced with bailiff action and their debt is significantly increased.

 

Other unfairness is that I have read that all council tax liability orders are rubber stamped. Also, that these liability orders are even made before the defendant arrives in court.

 

--- I am not sure about the last one because i've read a few sites, and one site is FMOTL which i learnt about from CAG. That site is flawed (IMHO), and it is quite possible that I read there that liability orders are made before the defendant arrives in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Liability orders are only "rubber stamped" in the sense that they are awarded in default if the debtor decides not to attend or dispute them.

 

The debtor is warned and then summonsed.

 

By your logic, legal aid should be available for speeding or drink driving etc offences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Legal aid is restricted and only available in very few cases these days.

 

CTX not being one of them.

 

Yes.. Under UK legislation.

 

But ECHR dictates otherwise. As I said, easily googleable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.. Under UK legislation.

 

But ECHR dictates otherwise. As I said, easily googleable.

 

Take it from me, you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't need Google. I've spent years studying EU law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is the leading legal case in relation to legal aid and the ECHR...

 

 

Airey v. Ireland, Judgment of October 9, 1979

 

Applying and expanding upon the right to access to the courts established in its decision in Golder, the Court found that Article 6 (1) also implies the right to free legal assistance in certain civil cases. The Court ruled that the right applies in civil cases when such assistance proves indispensable for effective access to the courts, either because legal representation is mandatory under domestic law or because of the complexity of the procedure or the type of case. Here, the applicant had requested free legal assistance to bring an action for judicial separation because of the unwillingness of her abusive spouse to sign a voluntary separation agreement. Relevant factors included the complexity of the procedure, the complexity of the issues of law, the need to establish facts through use of expert evidence and examination of witnesses, and the fact that the case concerned a marital dispute entailing emotional involvement incompatible with the level of objectivity required by advocacy in court. The Court noted, however, that the right to access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to legitimate restrictions. These include the imposition of financial contributions and that the case be well-founded and not vexatious or frivolous.

 

"26. . . . It would be erroneous to generalize the conclusion that the possibility to appear in person before the High Court does not provide Mrs. Airey with an effective right of access; that conclusion does not hold good for all cases concerning ‘civil rights and obligations' or for everyone involved therein. In certain eventualities, the possibility of appearing before a court in person, even without a lawyer's assistance, will meet the requirements of Article 6 (1); there may be occasions when such a possibility secures adequate access even to the High Court. Indeed, much must depend on the particular circumstances.

 

". . . whilst Article 6 (1) guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their ‘civil rights and obligations,' it leaves to the state a free choice of the means to be used towards this end. The institution of a legal aid scheme-which Ireland now envisages in family law-constitutes one of those means but there are others such as, for example, a simplification of procedure. In any event, it is not the Court's function to indicate, let alone dictate, which measures should be taken; all that the Convention requires is that an individual should enjoy his effective right of access to the courts in conditions not at variance with Article 6 (1).

 

". . . Article 6 (1) may sometimes compel the state to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves indispensable for an effective access to court either because legal representation is rendered compulsory, as is done by the domestic law of certain Contracting States for various types of litigation, or by reason of the complexity of the procedure or of the case."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual position is that a Liability Order will alway be issued unless the person named on the summons can prove that the debt is not owed. For the avoidance of doubt arrears of council tax is a civil debt.

 

If a bailiff is unable to 'take control of goods' and the debt is returned to the local authority then the LA may enforce the debt by way of attachment of earnings or attachment against benefits or by way of a charging order. Only after all of these enforcement functions have been attempted can the local authority consider a custodial sentence. It is at this stage ......and not before.....that the matter progresses to criminal proceedings and the debtor must be given legal assistance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Take it from me, you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't need Google. I've spent years studying EU law.

 

If a person cannot afford legal representation, this can undermine their right to a fair trial, a right which is protected under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act. The right of access to a court must be meaningful and practical, not theoretical. The issue of legal aid provision is a continuous source of conflict between the Government and those who represent some of the most marginalised groups in society.

Quoted from: https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/justice-and-fair-trials/legal-aid

 

 

Right to a fair hearing

Article 6(1) of the ECHR guarantees that every individual shall be entitled to a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations. Article 6 does not grant an automatic entitlement to legal aid in civil cases.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-aid-exceptional-circumstances/70195.fullarticle

 

Council tax non payment is criminal, not civil. ???? I am assuming it is criminal, otherwise there would not be people sent to prison for non payment of their council tax?

 

Article 6 expressly provides for legal assistance in criminal matters

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/government/constitutional_law/fundamental_rights/500299.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quoted from: https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/justice-and-fair-trials/legal-aid

 

 

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-aid-exceptional-circumstances/70195.fullarticle

 

Council tax non payment is criminal, not civil. ???? I am assuming it is criminal, otherwise there would not be people sent to prison for non payment of their council tax?

 

 

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/government/constitutional_law/fundamental_rights/500299.html

 

From your own link...

 

"The ECHR has, however, made it clear that there is no absolute right to legal aid."

Link to post
Share on other sites
From your own link...

 

"The ECHR has, however, made it clear that there is no absolute right to legal aid."

- in civil cases

 

 

Remaining articles above describe there is possibly a right to legal aid.

 

If someone can not afford to pay council tax, then surely the court should recognise that fact and act accordingly instead of rubber stamping a liability order.

 

If someone who can afford to pay council tax and decide not to pay it, then i believe they should go to prison as it is unfair on the rest of society.

 

Non payment of council tax is criminal? I read that criminal cases require legal aid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2156 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...