Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please please help we were miss sold full fibre by EE July 22  Install couldn’t go ahead no equipment sent and no. Survey it was hell  foind out no full fibre in road so we had to go back to cooper no choice we involved. Ceo and they put in a man from customer resolution s  he was vile he told me I had to go to engineers  something very odd about the ex resolution s in bt basically they took my drive up said they Would put ducting in ready for full fibre we have got £ 40 for a hours upon hours phones stress and more told to go to ombudsman  then bill was £35 we called twice told it was that price as they had treated us appalling two weeks later all sky package gets pulled we call again our bill goes to 165 the next two weeks was hell trying to get yo bottom why it’s off our package it was all on in the end I spent a day on the phone  341 mins was the call anyway I got to the bottom it was this resolution man coveting up the other issue another deadlock  to cover it all up  they hide data  ee did so couldn’t get the miss sell in writing I have now only from sept  Basically now we tried getting full fibre and they have found my drive had to be taken up again which has sunk .  The engineer has placed the wrong ducting again under my drive and need s to be taken to again apparently and the pipe sticks up middle of the drive near gate not behind look so odd it’s a big as a drain pipe open to water and it’s below touching the electrical cables to hot tub . I was sent a letter from the ex resolution to say I had stopped the work  I haven’t  it’s so sadistic she covering up for her mate in that team as the orginal install he didn’t check it had been done correctly  I took to Twitter and posted on open reach they ignored me then after 3 calls of two weeks they sent a engineer bt ignored me ceo emails blocked tag on Twitter unanswered then we get someone from twitter send a engineer he written report to say it’s dangerous since we have  had a  letter to say our problem can not be resolved  then a email to say sorry we are leaving and we can’t get into our account Bt will not talk to us ofcom tells us nothing they can do Citzens advice said go to the police  we can’t go back to virgin due so mass issue with them only option is sky  but point is they make out we have canceled we haven’t we have this mess on our drive dangeous work we are in hell  it’s like she covering up for this collegue it’s all very odd I am disabled and they like played mentaly with me open reach say bt resolved the issue no they have not  I recon they have terminated us making our we have  to hide it from mgt  Help it’s hell I don’t sleep we have 29 may we have tried  calling they just ignore me  at first they are so lovely as they say I am then they go to nnamager and say we can’t say anything to you end call  Scared police are rubbish I need help even typing is so painfull  Thankyou  anyone hello be so grateful     
    • There's a thread somewhere about someone sending the baillifs against Wizzair that is quite hilarious. I would love to see someone do the same to Ryanair. Question is, should you be the one to take that role. You are entitled to the £220, if your flight was from the UK. If it was TO the UK I suppose it is more of a grey area... though the airlines I know have been using £220 as standard. Not that surprising for Ryanair, the worst cheapskates in the universe, to go for the lower amount, and if you forward this to the CEO he will probably have a jolly good laugh and give his accountants a verbal bonus. After all he's the one who said and I paraphrase "F*** our customers, they'll fly with us again anyway". While we would all love to see Ryanair get wooped in court again, I have to join my fellow posters in thinking it's not worth the hassle for (hypothetically) £7 and not sure it will expedite the payment either. It's already an achievement that you got them to accept to pay.
    • The US competition watchdog has taken legal action to stop Tapestry's $8.5bn takeover of rival Capri.View the full article
    • thank you you mean you got a notice of discontinuance? dx  
    • Thanks for your interest dx100. Didn’t reach a hearing. Although they filed court papers, they withdrew a few days beforehand, and admitted it was statute barred and I have it in writing that they say the matter is now closed. Once again, many thanks for all your help.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Public Policy Exchange symposium on 'Rogue' Bailiffs


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3234 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

You KNOW where to find some of this information lol a good read I cant tell you where but its THERE ok, or should I say some of the highlights are being discussed atm

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You KNOW where to find some of this information lol a good read I cant tell you where but its THERE ok, or should I say some of the highlights are being discussed atm

 

 

I know where they have appeared ...but I was looking for a comparison version to obtain the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes but, I fail to see where the 'reporter' of the published notes and comments fits in to the scheme of things

Who Should Attend?

 

 

  • Local Authorities
  • Bailiffs and Enforcement Officers
  • Relevant Government Departments
  • The Enforcement Industry
  • The Legal Profession
  • The Judiciary
  • The Advice Sector
  • Businesses
  • Voluntary Organisations
  • Charities
  • Landlords
  • Local Housing Authorities
  • Teams in Housing Associations
  • Housing Services Management Teams
  • Housing Management Officers
  • Housing Finance Professionals
  • Income Officers
  • Income Management Officers
  • Social Housing and Support Officers
  • Housing Trusts
  • Family Support Officers
  • Community Development Teams
  • Community Involvement Officers
  • Community Engagement Officers
  • Customer Involvement Managers
  • Health and Safety Officers
  • Tenancy Management Officers
  • Principal Officers – Health and Housing
  • The Police

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote about this meeting in January as I was very surprised at the Programme which at that time had the following points for discussion:

 

Examine the Reforms in April 2014......Have they provided any more Protection against Aggresssive Bailiffs etc

 

Consider the National Standards for Enforcement Agent's document and its ability to be an Effective National Guidance Tool.

 

Has there been any progress made towards a fairer, more transparent and sustainable costs regime that provides adequate remunerations via the Transforming Bailiff Actions' published in 2012

 

Explore the Next steps in improving Accountability and Regulation in the Sector-Can a Licensing System and an Independent Regulator make a difference?

I received a formal invitation at the end of Janaury to speak at the event but I had to explain to the Producer and Researcher that many of the subjects had either been taken care of in the new regulations (transparent fee scale) or otherwise had been rejected by the government ( Licensing System/Independent Regulator) or were in the process of being reviewed by the Ministry of Justice (National Standards).

 

I explained that my personal belief was that such a event should take place towards the end of the year after the Ministry of Justice have released the results of the 'one year review' into the new bailiff regulations. My views were taken into consideration and a revised Programme was introduced a couple of weeks ago. I have confirmed that I would be pleased to take part in a meeting later in the year.

 

All Public Policy Exchange meetings are held under the 'Chatham House Rules' (and here) and accordingly, may not be publicised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The same rule will forbid a list of attendees

 

Q. Can a list of attendees at the meeting be published?

A. No - the list of attendees should not be circulated beyond those participating in the meeting. - See more at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule#sthash.XxWYT42M.dpuf

 

[url=http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule#sthash.XxWYT42M.dpuf][/url]

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to have struck a raw nerve.......:lol: could it be because he has been caught telling porkies again??laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

 

You have been permanently banned from this board.

 

Please contact the Board Administrator for more information.

 

A ban has been issued on your IP address.

 

LOL i get that also, they do not want people to view who can see right through the bxxxxxt.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL i get that also, they do not want people to view who can see right through the bxxxxxt.

 

What amused me most is the FACT I am not even a member of the board, I only view as a 'GUEST' which suggests they really are paranoid.

 

I am going home tomorrow so my IP address will change, is he really going to check out every 'guests' IP in an attempt to see if they are 'friend or foe'.... what a wally he is.laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't even have to do that WD if you really have to look at that drivel you can just go on "hide me" on google (the free one)type in their address and away you go.

 

If it is worth the effort is another matter.

 

Seriously it is an extension of the mind set of the forum, they need to be able to give their "opinions" and abuse without having people respond, they can do this by banning people from responding on their forum, but they are struggling to stop the debunking of their absurdities elsewhere.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do what I do and you cannot go wrong. I spend about 20 mins viewing posts and queries every Sunday and that it is. I have only ever posted ONCE and was immediately banned and have NEVER returned and will never ever do so.

 

No more comments are necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit I had this wrong, I thought it had something to do with the promised review of the act scheduled this year.

I didn't realize it was just a glorified sales conference who anyone with the price of a ticket could attend

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Certainly not. I personally know six delegates who were booked to attend but this information will remain confidential.

 

The Symposium was very poorly attended indeed with just fourteen tickets being sold.

 

Five of those attending were from three bailiff companies.....three of whom were from the same company... (that specialises in collecting road traffic debts). A further three individuals were from small local authorities. One person was from a notice processing company and another from a firm of accountants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Symposium was very poorly attended indeed with just fourteen tickets being sold.

 

Five of those attending were from three bailiff companies.....three of whom were from the same company... (that specialises in collecting road traffic debts). A further three individuals were from small local authorities. One person was from a notice processing company and another from a firm of accountants.

 

That's not many people for such an important subject, is this down to a lack of interest within the industry or what? If the former, it's somewhat worrying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were there any speakers of note ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not many people for such an important subject, is this down to a lack of interest within the industry or what? If the former, it's somewhat worrying.

 

I have attended three of these events over the past 2 years and they have all been very well attended with on average around 60-80 ticket sales. I explained in post number 7 (below) the reason for the extremely low attendance figures.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?445124-Public-Policy-Exchange-symposium-on-Rogue-Bailiffs&p=4729265&viewfull=1#post4729265

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were there any speakers of note ?

 

As always, the event was held under the Chatham House Rules and accordingly the identity of the 14 attendees and speakers should not be circulated. Despite wanting to....there is nothing further that I can add.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is more about who said what rather than who was speaking, many of these events. particularly the commercial ones will advertise thiere main speakers in any case in order to sell tickets.

 

The idea is a good one IMO, however sometimes the whole secrecy thing can be used to try and give the impression that something important is going on, where really it is just corporate delegates with to much time on there hands engaging in a a back slapping exercise, not saying that was the case here of course, but without knowing who the key contributors were it is hard to say.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...