Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I must also add that I do not wish to use the warranty, as it is pretty much useless, and the car had around 115000 miles when I bought it. it has not 1000 miles more. 
    • Thank you. What is the expected mileage of this vehicle? I think one might need to take into consideration that it has 36,000 miles on the clock and that you have enjoyed a further 2500 miles which means that it now has about 38,500 miles on the clock – is this correct? I think then you need to consider that mileage – 38,500 as a percentage of the expected life of the engine and that tells you something about the proportion of any settlement which you might reasonably expect
    • Hi there,   Thanks for this amazing forum. Please see below 1-  letter I sent to financing company in regard of issues and 2- their response.    What is the next step moving forward?    Thanks   1- LETTER SENT TO COMPANY ON 2ND DECEMBER 2021( BOTH BY EMAIL AND POST TRACKED DELIVERY)   Dear Blue Motor Finance Team,     I entered into a Hire Purchase agreement with you on the 27th of October 2021.     I picked up the vehicle, a Citroen C4 Grand Picasso EXCL BLU on the 30th of October. On my way back home, after driving it for over an hour, the seatbelt alarm for the middle row left hand side seat went off. It was unsettling and dangerous as the alarm went off several times for long periods of time, distracting my driving. There was nobody in that seat, nor any object leaning on it.    I also noticed last night that the clutch of the vehicle is slipping when engaged in gear and accelerating with emphasis. The engine revs up but the car does not react accordingly. This is a serious issue that needs to be fixed as soon as possible to avoid further and serious damage to the transmission. This issue only happens when the throttle is put down with emphasis in 4th, 5th and 6th gear. When the car is driven slowly, the issue is not noticeable at all and the car responds normally, hence the fact I had not noticed before.    I will not drive the car in order to avoid further damage to it.    This car was not of satisfactory quality at the time of sale and if it was, it has not remained in that condition for a reasonable period of time.    I would like to kindly ask you to provide a response in the next 7 days, as time is of essence here.    I bought this vehicle for work reasons and I do not have a suitable alternative vehicle. I would like to kindly ask for a replacement vehicle until the car is repaired. If this is not provided, I might need to rent a vehicle for work. If this is the case, I will be looking for a reimbursement of the expenses incurred in doing so as well.   As I am within six months of the date of purchase, I am asserting my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and I am providing you with a single opportunity to repair the vehicle failing which I will consider a full refund.    I have sent a copy of the letter to the dealership and I kindly require you to enter into discussions with each other to discuss whether or not you are going to repair the vehicle or declined to repair it in which case I would like to know what arrangements will be made to refund me my money and to remove the vehicle from my property.    I would like to ask you if you are a member of or willing to use ADR to resolve this issue as an alternative to an undesired court case.    Kind regards,   2- THEIR RESPONSE received on 6th Dec 2021 by email.     Good Morning,    Thank you for your letter dated 2nd September.    As the dealer has the first opportunity to repair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the vehicle has not been returned to the dealer and/or we have not been provided with evidence by means of a diagnostics to confirm the faults you are experiencing with your vehicle.    The dealer has also advised that you have warranty with your vehicle, which enables you to take your vehicle to a reputable garage for repairs. Please could you confirm if you have exhausted all avenues?    As a regulated business, the FCA allows us 8 weeks to investigate a Complaint and therefore please allow us this time to investigate your concerns, once we have sufficient evidence.    Should we establish liability, we will review the possibility of offering a hire vehicle, however we are not required to mitigate customers losses as the vehicle should be for personal use not business.    Once we have the evidence required to establish our liability, we will be able to discuss this with you further.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

Making a Complaint about a bailiff to the MAGISTRATES COURT....this will land the DEBTOR in real trouble !!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2304 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

Over the past few months a large number of Facebook pages have been set up (mainly by Sovereign Citizen/Freeman on the Land activists). A common feature of these pages is the use of highly dubious methods of 'beating the bailiff'.

 

The most common feature, and one that is sadly costing debtors dearly is the advice to refuse to speak or correspond with the enforcement agent and instead, to pay the amount of the actual 'debt' (Liability Order, parking penalty notice, court fine) direct to the creditor (minus bailiff fees of course). From further reading it would appear that the reason for refusing to 'engage' with the enforcement company is that by 'engaging' the debtor becomes a 'joinder' and therefore is agreeing to a 'contract' being entered into (a daft Freeman on the Land theory and one that has no basis in law whatsoever).

 

A rather worrying suggestion that I have seen on quite a few of these sites recently is the advice to debtors to make a complaint about bailiff fees to the Magistrate's Court under the provision of Regulation 1 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. This is novel idea and one that again is being sold by 'Guru's' and has no basis whatsoever in law.

 

Of course as with all such scams, there is no evidence whatsoever of any court 'successes'. This is despite the highly inaccurate 'claims' on these Facebook pages that once the summons is laid before the Justice of the Peace that the Justice will either issue a summons directed to the bailiff requiring him to appear before the magistrates' court to answer the information or more ludicrously; that a warrant would be issued ordering the bailiff to be arrested and brought to court to answer the charges.

 

A copy of a recent 'template' is provided in the following post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Honestly it would be funny if it weren't so serious. I suppose this will be the next "money spinner for certain "law firms" :)

 

I suppose I am wasting my breath, baring in mind that it was here that I said that Mckenzie friends could not recover debtors costs and injunctions were inappropriate and dangerous in terms of possible costs(both found to be entirely accurate, sadly to some debtors cost).

 

This idea has absolutely no credibility and will not work, the reasons will no doubt be gone into in depth on this thread but basically, there are procedures for taking action in regards to EA malpractice laid down in the legislation and CPR and you are considering starting a criminal action which comes under the purview of the police and criminal enforcement agencies, it is not like a civil case.

 

It has been floating around the FMoTL forums for some years and is just complete nonsense.

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

Whilst i accept the previous comments, there must be situations where it is appropriate to lay information with a Magistrate regarding EA behaviour.

 

Therefore it cannot be a case of this being 100% the wrong way to proceed. But if people ever do go down this route, they should have a fully qualified registered Solicitor acting for them. Taking dodgy advice from internet sites and then expecting to be taken seriously by Magistrates is deluded.

 

We know that Police are reluctant to investigate EA's and there will be cases where some sort of civil court procedure is not sufficient to deal with the situation.

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

Sorry but not to muddy the waters here, there are no situations where representation should be made to a magistrates court, if someone considers that there has been a criminal offence you report the matter to the police.

 

Magistrates courts will not even look at an application in the form represented here. Or if they did the person making the proposition may well wish they hadn't.

 

EDIT of course I am referring to EA matters.

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

These people will not listen to any other view or suggestion bar those that will suggest the action is unlawful, the Court is fake or they do not have to pay the fees or any other costs. They have to find out the hard way unfortunately and even then they will refuse to accept it. A prime example of this recently is the Crawford case that has been well played out on different forums & websites. Of course they can always pay using the latest banking details & new currency - the WeRe, but look where that has got some of them and the person who dreamt it up has apparently disappeared.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been told that marstons are deliberatly going after people who pay direct and send these letters in to court or company and forcing entry with a locksmith to make a point that it doesnt work. Mate of mine said 60 times forced entry was used last week... And furthermore they are being encouraged to use reasonable force more and more (ie foot in door) - referring to court fines here only by the way.

None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to spend reading replies about yet another notice that is allegedly wrong, just curious as to why so much energy is being spent on threads like this, simple advice go see a Solicitor, pure clean very simple:

 

 

Enough said

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

Would have thought the reason was obvious, to prevent people from falling for another [problem] and loosing their money ?

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

Just curious as to why so much energy is being spent on threads like this, simple advice go see a Solicitor, pure clean very simple.

 

Please do not concern yourself MM about the amount of energy spent putting together this thread. It took very little of my time.

 

I also notice this morning that the thread has been picked up by SCOOP and that in less that 24 has received almost 500 viewings. If anyone does not wish to read it then please do not do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think also knowledge is always a good thing, especially if it helps consumers avoid problems :)

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

Please do not concern yourself MM about the amount of energy spent putting together this thread. It took very little of my time.

 

I also notice this morning that the thread has been picked up by SCOOP and that in less that 24 has received almost 500 viewings. If anyone does not wish to read it then please do not do so.

 

I did not like the title of thread about lending debtor in trouble. If you want to educate people, perhaps creating fear is not the way.

 

I still think there will be situations where a debtor will want an EA to face investigation for criminal issues, where the Police are not interested. I thought the whole idea of laying information with a Magistrate was for them to decide based on the information, whether there was a case for the Police to be called to investigate. I thought this was an established right of citizens, where they felt that the Police were not upholding the law. But debtors in this situation should consult a Solicitor before they waste their time.

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

I did not like the title of thread about lending debtor in trouble. If you want to educate people, perhaps creating fear is not the way.

 

I still think there will be situations where a debtor will want an EA to face investigation for criminal issues, where the Police are not interested. I thought the whole idea of laying information with a Magistrate was for them to decide based on the information, whether there was a case for the Police to be called to investigate. I thought this was an established right of citizens, where they felt that the Police were not upholding the law. But debtors in this situation should consult a Solicitor before they waste their time.

 

In fact I had not known until this morning where this daft idea had come from. I really did think that they had been put together by one of the fmotl facebook group and this was on the basis of a similar notice that I have copied from one of the sites this morning. This second template encourages debtors to 'lay a complaint' to the Magistrates Court against a police officer under Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. It is being said by those selling these ideas that courts are awarding payouts to debtors and that police are falling like flies to settle claims to avoid being arrested. This is sadly conning the public. There is not a shred of evidence that courts are rolling over or that police (or bailiffs) are settling any of these complaints.

 

On your point that the title of the thread may be harsh, I would disagree. If a complaint is laid in the Magistrates Court about either a police officer or a bailiff then without a shadow of a doubt the 'accused' would have legal representation and debtors will quickly find that this daft idea could land them with a significant cost order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be filed under buyer beware best advice offered would seek a professional service like a Solicitor...

 

 

Also is worrying that the word FMOTL has not made its way in to this thread yet how come?

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

FMOTL

 

There you go :)

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

Well if you were lucky the court would just ignore it.

 

There used to be a procedure under section 46 of the council tax regs for making complaint to the MC regarding an irregular levy, I think it went with the introduction of the TCE

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

 

There used to be a procedure under section 46 of the council tax regs for making complaint to the MC regarding an irregular levy, I think it went with the introduction of the TCE

 

The relevant regulation was indeed Regulation 46 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992 and this was repealed on 6th April 2014.

 

A 'Regulation 46' complaint was a very odd creature indeed and around 2008/9 I drafted quite a few of these but none were ever successful given that almost all Magistrates Courts around the country had little or any knowledge of the PROCEDURE that they should follow. I have looked back at notes on my computer on a few of these from that time and in once case with Canterbury Magistrates Court they advised the debtor that there was a 'court fee' of £350 to request the summons. Another Magistrate could quoted £225.

 

The complaint was one that allowed that if a debtor was 'aggrieved' by the 'levy' that they could lay a compliant at the Magistrates Court and that if the court considered that a grievance had been evidenced then the court would be responsible under Section 51 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 to issue a summons on the local authority (given that the LA are wholly responsible for the levy and actions of the enforcement agent).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

just to clarify complaints can be made against the magistrates court for breaches of the national standards by there bailiffs cant they.

 

And this wouldn't entail someone having to make a court application.

 

I just wanted to clarify that in case the heading of the thread put of someone taking the complaint direct to the court on there lack of control of the EA.

 

And yes i know they most likely wont look at complaints about charges but where wrong charges arise there is usually something else that the compliant can be based on.

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

just to clarify complaints can be made against the magistrates court for breaches of the national standards by there bailiffs cant they.

 

And this wouldn't entail someone having to make a court application.

 

I just wanted to clarify that in case the heading of the thread put of someone taking the complaint direct to the court on there lack of control of the EA.

 

And yes i know they most likely wont look at complaints about charges but where wrong charges arise there is usually something else that the compliant can be based on.

 

:)

 

dependant om the complaint there are prescribed methods under the act for breaches of the procedure, i suspect the MC would direct you to these. If this were a criminal matter it would be better just to report the matter to the police, any magistrate would want to know why you thought the authorities were incorrect in not pursuing the criminal action on your behalf.

 

From looking a the old section 46 complaint , it wold seem to limit to civil complaints in any case rather than criminal ones, it speaks of damages etc rther than fines.

 

The letter speaks of fraud assault etc which are firmly in the criminal realm. In a criminal case of course it is not you that are making a case against the other side, it is the state, they may be acting on your information regarding the perceived criminal action but it is not you who are prosecution it will be the state.

 

Any talk of preparing witness statements or interrogating witnesses is nonsense this will be down to a prosecution lawyer engaged by the CPS.

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

Hi dodgeball :)

 

i am referring to complaints on breaches of the national standards. The Magistrates Court are responsible for the behaviour of the enforcement agent.

 

So it is more that type of complaint rather than one where you take legal action, i do think it is important that the two are not confused and that even if a complaint cant be made to the magistrates court for legal reason there is always that option.

 

In my opinion this is actually quite a good option because complaining to a trade organization such as CIVEA is usually a waste of time .

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

The national standards is guidance and not legally actionable. Unfortunately.

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

Hi dodgeball :)

 

I am referring to complaints on breaches of the national standards. The Magistrates Court are responsible for the behaviour of the enforcement agent.

 

Thanks

 

I am sorry Tortle but you are not correct. An enforcement agent is granted his certificate in the COUNTY COURT (not Magistrates Court) and accordingly, any complaints about the enforcement agents should be directed to the County Court using the prescribed form; EAC2.

 

Thankfully, since the new regulations came into effect in April 2014 the actual number of complaints has decreased significantly and hopefully that continues to be the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The procedure is itemise in section 66 of the act

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

 

(4)Subject to rules of court, the proceedings may be brought—

 

(a)in the High Court, in relation to an enforcement power under a writ of the High Court;

 

(b)in a county court, in relation to an enforcement power under a warrant issued by a county court;

 

©in any other case, in the High Court or a county court.

 

(5)In the proceedings the court may—

 

(a)order goods to be returned to the debtor;

 

(b)order the enforcement agent or a related party to pay damages in respect of loss suffered by the debtor as a result of the breach or of anything done under the defective instrument.

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...