Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well, that's it then. Clear proof of the rubbish cameras. Clear proof of double dipping. G24 won't be getting a penny. Belt & braces, I would write to the address LFI has found, include the evidence of double dipping, and ask Fraser Group to call their dogs off.
    • LOL. after sending Perch capital a CCA request with a stapled £1 PO attached (x2) Their lapdog Legal team TM Legal have sent me two letters today saying "due to a recent payment on the account, your account is open to legal/enforcement action" so i guess they have tried to apply that payment to the account to run the statue bar along. dirty tactics lol.
    • I have initiated the breathing space so ill wait. from re reading everything this what i understand BS gives me 60 days break from the creditors during these 60 days they may contact me and will most likely default I need to wait until after a default notice to see whether the OC will keep the debt or sell it off If kept by the OC then i should attempt a plan or pay some token payment? If sold to DCA then don't pay and after 6 years it will leave my credit report once the DN is registered with a date. DCA may start a CCJ but unlikely, if they do come back here. last question, do you know roughly how long this will all take? in terms of defaults/default notice, potential CCJ? Would you say I have 12 months plus from when the BS ends?
    • Well, it's up to you. Years & years & years ago the forum used to suggest appealing to POPLA, but then AFAIK POPLA's remit was changed and it became much more biased in favour of the PPCs. One of the problems with taking that route is that the onus will fall on you to prove your appeal, while if you do nothing the onus is on MET to start legal action which experience teaches they are very, very reluctant to do. If you go down the POPLA route I would think your ace would be insufficient signage.  Are you able to go back there and get photos of their rubbish, entrapping signs?
    • The first clearly visible sign as you pull in to the car park states “McDonald’s Customers Only 60 minutes” The next clearly visible sign is an almost identical sign outside Starbucks which states “60 minutes free stay for customers only” There are other signs towards the rear of the car park (away from the outlets) that have the terms and conditions on them in very small print.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3133 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

Those of you that happen to have the Enforcement Agent (EA) and demanding money to clear your debt you really should get to grips with what is a must on these forms, and what happens if you cannot keep to the agreement...

 

 

Please have a read here as it could help you understand CLEARLY what could happen in this case for the link it is here https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/bailiffs/bailiff-has-issued-you-with-a-notice/bailiffs-notices/controlled-goods-agreements-bailiffs/

 

 

As you can see the EA MUST follow a strict regime before a CGA is correct....

 

 

The link has visual forms that you can read now and get to grips with it. Most of all the person signing it must either be you or someone the has your PERMISSION to do so. Whether or not the EA believes that the 3rd party has a verbal agreement that they can sign for you, it does not state that this needs to be in writing, this could cause issues if the other person is your partner. So maybe consider not giving your permission in the first place then the CGA will be void if a 3rd party signs it without permission...

 

 

Finally this

 

 

If a Controlled good agreement doesn't keep to the rules

 

If a controlled goods agreement doesn't keep to these rules, the bailiff won't have control of your belongings and you can do the following:

 

  • refuse to let the bailiff in if they try to come back – they won’t be allowed to force their way in
  • write to the bailiff firm to explain that you will not be making any payments under the controlled goods agreement because it isn’t valid
  • take the bailiff firm to court to get your belongings back, if they've already been taken.

If you’re given a controlled goods agreement that doesn’t keep to the rules, this can give you more time to look at other options to stop the bailiff action, such as:

 

  • negotiating with your creditors to pay back what you owe
  • applying to the court to suspend the bailiff action
  • choosing a formal debt solution, such as a debt relief order or bankruptcy.

Please spend time reading all of the links within the original link it will be of use to you in the long run...

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

 

Please have a read here as it could help you understand CLEARLY what could happen in this case for the link it is here https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/bailiffs/bailiff-has-issued-you-with-a-notice/bailiffs-notices/controlled-goods-agreements-bailiffs/

 

 

If a Controlled good agreement doesn't keep to the rules

 

If a controlled goods agreement doesn't keep to these rules, the bailiff won't have control of your belongings and you can do the following:

 

  • refuse to let the bailiff in if they try to come back – they won’t be allowed to force their way in
  • write to the bailiff firm to explain that you will not be making any payments under the controlled goods agreement because it isn’t valid
  • take the bailiff firm to court to get your belongings back, if they've already been taken.

 

An important subject and one that is greatly misunderstood.

 

Whilst I FULLY SUPPORT the work of Citizen's Advice, there are days when I do despair of the advice that they provide. Today is one such day.

 

If a debtor does not consider that a CGA has been properly set up then surely the correct course of action should be to raise a compaint with the creditor (in most cases the local authority), After all, it is the creditor who is wholly responsible for any wrongdoing by their agent.

 

Secondly, I am surprised at the advice given to 'take the bailiff firm to court' (to get belongings back..if they have been taken). Court action should ALWAYS be a last resort and if there is a dispute about goods taken, the correct course of action is to make representation under CPR 85. Thirdly, a debtor should NEVER take a bailiff firm to court. If court action were ever necessary, any claim should be against the creditor (local authority) and not the bailiff firm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is of concern hence why I posted the links, even though the CAB are good at some things they get it wrong or incomplete. One of my main concerns if these people get it wrong there is really something wrong with the advice that is being touted by a professional company. So what chance has a normal every day person got at getting it right first time ALL of the time.

 

 

Maybe someone should point this error out to the CAB and have it rectified before some poor soul loses a fortune that they cannot afford in the first place.. As far as some of the advice that is correct they really need to sort this out ASAP...

 

 

Yes the EA must make sure the correct information is always entered into the forms, but then saying what they did will cause heartache will it not? As this is advice going against what is supposed to be right!

 

 

But what can one do?

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

Ideally I have posted correctly as far as the forms go but where can we stop pointing in the direction that is actually supposed to help the debtor... When they get it wrong?

 

 

Maybe someone with some authority on this subject should approach them and inform them of their content on this particular matter? Not me I am afraid...

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

 

Please have a read here as it could help you understand CLEARLY what could happen in this case for the link it is here https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/bailiffs/bailiff-has-issued-you-with-a-notice/bailiffs-notices/controlled-goods-agreements-bailiffs/

 

 

If a Controlled good agreement doesn't keep to the rules

 

If you’re given a controlled goods agreement that doesn’t keep to the rules, this can give you more time to look at other options to stop the bailiff action, such as:

 

  • negotiating with your creditors to pay back what you owe
  • applying to the court to suspend the bailiff action
  • choosing a formal debt solution, such as a debt relief order or bankruptcy.

.

 

I have concerns too about the above advice.

 

In the vast majority of cases a Controlled Goods Agreement will be in relation to a Liability Order for arrears of council tax. Very rarely do we find a CGA for road traffic debts. Unless the debt is in relation to a CCJ enforced via the High Court there is NO facility whatsoever that allows for a debtor to apply to the court to suspend bailiff action!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if as you say they are getting confused with HCEO's and other EA's then this is seriously conflicting advice. Either way it could get dreadful very quickly.

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

All in all is this thread worrying and should it be removed due to incorrect advice by the CAB? It is going to be very hard to split their advice into a good thread due to the advice and links within their page what to do?

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

All in all is this thread worrying and should it be removed due to incorrect advice by the CAB?

 

No, not at all.

 

You will come across different opinions at all times and it varies from agency to agency. The regulations have only been in place for just 18 months and everyone is entitled to their own interpretation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...