Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good Evening,    Please may I ask for some information re default markers on Credit Report ?    I had a CC with a Bank default around Jan 2014. Nothing was registered on my Credit Report The debt was later sold on a few times. Eventually to PRA in 2017 where it is unenforceable.   On my Clearscore report that I have recently downloaded it says “ In default PRA GRoup 5th April 2017”. when I click onto this it shows no markings on any month from 2014. so my question is can PRA register the default from 2017. I’m unsure if it drops off from The bank in 2014 or after PRA registered in 2017.    thanks for any advice you can give   
    • there you go all done i thought i could see you'ed left your reg number and their PCN number in your pictures.   there are quite a few threads here on this only allowed 30mins on certain esso forecourts total rubbish ofcourse  and none haver gone anywhere so far FWIW.   dx      
    • Highly likely providing you were the first private buyer to purchase the car with HP or conditional sale outstanding the solicitors will conclude that you have good title and act accordingly  As dx says let consumer law deal with this, keep the vehicle well hidden just in case but if you turn up at the sellers work and cause problems and the Police become involved  its highly likely you will be the one with big problems 
    • Seven years ago today this topic started 🤗
    • From Tuesday, the bank will alter the rate of cashback it pays on some bills - while doubling the monthly fee on its 123 Lite account to £2. The changes are disguised cutbacks. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Another debtor found guilty under Section 68(1) of TCEA 2007 of interfering with controlled goods


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1841 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Yet again another debtor has been found guilty under section 68.1 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 for interfering with controlled goods and also for criminal damage.

 

Of serious concern is that this person was also represented by a McKenzie masquerading as a 'Lawyer' who has been responsible for a number of failed legal cases over the past couple of months that have resulted in debtors losing many thousands of pounds.

 

In this particular case, the brief background is that Croydon Council issued a penalty charge notice and the debt remained unpaid and was passed to their bailiff contractor; Confero Ltd to enforce. The enforcement officer attended the property and located the vehicle. A wheel clamp was applied and the relevant statutory notice posted through the door.

 

The owner of the vehicle forcibly removed the wheelclamp and drove away in the car. Later that same day he was arrested by the police and charged with the following:

 

Criminal damage (to the wheel clamp)

 

Theft of the motor vehicle.

 

Intentionally inferring with Controlled Goods without lawful excuse.

 

The vehicle was removed to the enforcement companies car pound. He was bailed and had a first hearing at court earlier this year (May).

 

The individual claimed that he had not received statutory notices from Croydon Council and accordingly filed an Out of Time witness statement. It is assumed that this had been rejected.

 

At Bromley Magistrates Court yesterday (5th October) he was cleared of the charge of theft of the motor vehicle but was found guilty of the other two charges (criminal damage to the wheelclamp) and interfering with controlled goods without lawful excuse. He was fined a total of £1,598

Link to post
Share on other sites

The defendant claimed that he owned the vehicle but for reasons that are very unclear, the car was registered in the name of his 'friend'.

 

What was very odd indeed was that they both lived at the SAME address and they were both named drivers on the insurance policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The downside of this is that he has now ended up with a criminal conviction.

 

He has ended up with a lot more than a criminal conviction.

 

Firstly he has a substantial court fine.

 

He would have also paid a substantial fee to his McKenzie friend. Judging from other cases that the individual has been involved with, the fee could have been as much as £900.

 

He has been without the vehicle for 5 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The defendant claimed that he owned the vehicle but for reasons that are very unclear, the car was registered in the name of his 'friend'.

 

What was very odd indeed was that they both lived at the SAME address and they were both named drivers on the insurance policy.

 

The defendant's Mc Kenzie has claimed today that at the court hearing the Magistrate was satisfied that the defendant was the OWNER of the car. If so, then this raises more questions than it answers !!

 

If he is the owner then WHY would he have allowed his friend (who lives at the same address) to REGISTER the car is his name?

 

Why would they both be named drivers on the same insurance policy?

 

When the initial contravention occured, London Borough of Croydon would have approached DVLA for 'keeper' details. Naturally, DVLA would have responded to advise that the car was registered in the name of the 'friend' and accordingly, the Notice to Owner, the Charge Certificate and the Order for Recovery would have been sent to the 'friend'....at the same address as the defendant. Now, if the friend had not been the driver at the time of the contravention, why did he not appeal the ticket to LB of Croydon? Most odd.

 

Given that all statutory notices would have been addressed to his 'friend' (as the registered keeper), why then did the defendant file an Out of Time witness statement? Surely the friend should have filed the OoT (after all, each of the statutory notices would have been in his name)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the issue of McKenzie friends being allowed to speak, or otherwise, ever resolved? I know there was a lengthy discussion about it some time ago.

 

It makes no sense to me having a McKenzie friend pretending to be a lawyer if that person is going to be in court and forbidden to speak. It would then be blatantly obvious the person was not a lawyer, surely?

 

I don't want to get involved, but I do like to try to get a clear picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of serious concern is that this person was also represented by a McKenzie masquerading as a 'Lawyer' who has been responsible for a number of failed legal cases over the past couple of months that have resulted in debtors losing many thousands of pounds.

 

I don't have the full details as yet but, I have been given to understand there was yet another hearing yesterday which resulted in this McKenzie (ie Jason B) being refused permission to address the court, who I believe reprimanded him severely for his conduct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of serious concern is that this person was also represented by a McKenzie masquerading as a 'Lawyer' who has been responsible for a number of failed legal cases over the past couple of months that have resulted in debtors losing many thousands of pounds.

 

I don't have the full details as yet but, I have been given to understand there was yet another hearing yesterday which resulted in this McKenzie (ie Jason B) being refused permission to address the court, who I believe reprimanded him severely for his conduct.

 

Right, I think that gives me the clear picture I wanted. :|

 

I'll have to back out in that case, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have stated many times, a County Court judge will very rarely allow a McKenzie Friend to address the court.

 

In the case of a criminal conviction, I would be staggered if an MK were allowed to address the Magistrates and even more shocked if the MK were permitted to 'cross examine' a police office !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I on't have the full detdails as yet but, I have been given to understand there was yet another hearing yesterday which resulted in this McKenzie (ie Jason B) being refused permission to address the court, who I believe reprimanded him severely for his conduct.

 

It is my understanding that he was not granted permission to address the court. A transcript will shortly confirm this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also true that the MF would not be able to claim costs from the other side in any case. they can claim form their client only if they have permission from the court to act given before the proceedings commenced.

If I were the debtor here i would certainly not pay a penny to the MF, as from what I have seen there is no legal imperative to do so.

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
The defendant claimed that he owned the vehicle but for reasons that are very unclear, the car was registered in the name of his 'friend'.

 

What was very odd indeed was that they both lived at the SAME address and they were both named drivers on the insurance policy.

 

 

Not odd in the slightest, I am the registered keeper of a vehicle but I am NOT the legal owner. Why would this be of concern as it is common practice with many finance deals and personal needs.

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

This is why the MF rules are being looked into in the near future and possibly new rules could be introduced later next year, I did post a link to this on a different thread...

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
Not odd in the slightest, I am the registered keeper of a vehicle but I am NOT the legal owner. Why would this be of concern as it is common practice with many finance deals and personal needs.

 

It is absolutely common practice with finance deals and indeed with parents. For example, up until a couple of years ago I owned (and could provide clear evidence) that the cars that were being used by both my sons on an everyday basis had been purchased by me and that my sons were merely registered keepers. This is a very common situation indeed in many families. It is not so common with flatmates (or house sharers).

 

What possible explanation could be given for a vehicle owner (in this case the defendant) to register his vehicle in the name of his flatmate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
He has ended up with a lot more than a criminal conviction.

 

Firstly he has a substantial court fine.

 

He would have also paid a substantial fee to his McKenzie friend. Judging from other cases that the individual has been involved with, the fee could have been as much as £900.

 

He has been without the vehicle for 5 months.

 

I dont tend to make errors very often but when I do, I will quickly admit that I was wrong and make the necessary correction.

 

I stated above that the Mc Kenzie friend (The Guru) would have likely charged the defendant as much as £900. In fact he has confirmed that he charges about £2,500 each time that he acts as a McKenzie Friend.

 

 

Costs go undefended...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly world we live in really !

 

If someone wrote a book 30 years ago about some of the issues we see, it would have been seen as a load of nonsense.

 

Perhaps if government tackled root causes, then we might not have this situation.

 

Not sure the new legislation has made enforcement any easier. As always, new legislation often leads to other issues.

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

Car's are, when new/newish very expensive items, they involve spending large amounts of money to run, ie Insurance, tax etc, so represent a hefty investment, Losing your car can mean losing your job, in a lot of circumstances, and of course, we are seeing third party goods being seized wrongfully, and that mistake either genuine, or through negligence/arrogance by an EA can cause an innocent person to thus lose their job, or become homebound, esp with the rise in fines, parking tickets and so on, so what don't understand is why Car Ownership, as in the actual person who in a legal definition of ownerships actually owns the vehicle is such a murky and in fact near impossible (at least when an EA is after money, anyones money) issue to prove.

 

Registered Keeper of a Car is not Proof of Ownership, nor is Insurance, though EA's are claiming either as justification for seizing, and I would think the Insurance claim is on very, very dodgy ground - Mr B drives lorries for Eddie Stobart, thus, Mr B is insured to drive an Eddie Stobart Lorry, that does not mean the EA can seize Eddie Stobart's lorry for Mr B's personal debt, just because the insurance is in his name..

 

So why is there not a way of registering actual ownership? Surely it would be the work of seconds to add a field into the DVLA systems stating the name of the Owner, seperate to who is insured, registered keeper etc, and stick a little bit of blurb on any passing bit of legislation making it a legal requirement to inform the DVLA who the actual owner is? It isn't rocket science.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post caledfwch (as usual).

 

In fact where there is a problem (and hence the requirment to provide supporting EVIDENCE) is that the actual statutory regulations provide that the REGISTERED KEEPER is ASSUMED to be the OWNER of the vehicle....unless the contary is PROVED.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Car's are, when new/newish very expensive items, they involve spending large amounts of money to run, ie Insurance, tax etc, so represent a hefty investment, Losing your car can mean losing your job, in a lot of circumstances, and of course, we are seeing third party goods being seized wrongfully, and that mistake either genuine, or through negligence/arrogance by an EA can cause an innocent person to thus lose their job, or become homebound, esp with the rise in fines, parking tickets and so on, so what don't understand is why Car Ownership, as in the actual person who in a legal definition of ownerships actually owns the vehicle is such a murky and in fact near impossible (at least when an EA is after money, anyones money) issue to prove.

 

Registered Keeper of a Car is not Proof of Ownership, nor is Insurance, though EA's are claiming either as justification for seizing, and I would think the Insurance claim is on very, very dodgy ground - Mr B drives lorries for Eddie Stobart, thus, Mr B is insured to drive an Eddie Stobart Lorry, that does not mean the EA can seize Eddie Stobart's lorry for Mr B's personal debt, just because the insurance is in his name..

 

So why is there not a way of registering actual ownership? Surely it would be the work of seconds to add a field into the DVLA systems stating the name of the Owner, seperate to who is insured, registered keeper etc, and stick a little bit of blurb on any passing bit of legislation making it a legal requirement to inform the DVLA who the actual owner is? It isn't rocket science.

 

Yes indeed, however. As you say the purchase of a car is a hefty investment for most of us. Such an investment would normally be mentioned in some kind of reciept I would have thought, or a sale receipt would be available form the seller, which could be obtained and presented to the EA during the compliance or enforcement stage.

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

Proof of purchase is again not proof of ownership, as parents we often buy a car for their children or other goods and then who owns them bearing in mind a quote like "we bought you a car" or "we bought a car for you to use" what would you believe is right if you was the EA? The old saying possession is 9/10 of the law comes to mind...

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
Proof of purchase is again not proof of ownership, as parents we often buy a car for their children or other goods and then who owns them bearing in mind a quote like "we bought you a car" or "we bought a car for you to use" what would you believe is right if you was the EA? The old saying possession is 9/10 of the law comes to mind...

 

So you're saying that proceedings against the father in your scenario could be prevented by his saying that he had previously gifted the car to his son, without any documented evidence of transfer of title. Yes good luck with that.

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
I give up

 

Excellent news

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...