Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

Correct use of "Implied Right of Access"?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2924 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

Hi All,

 

First thing, is this notice now legal or does it need more work?

 

READ THIS NOTICE

Removal of ‘Implied Right of Access’ Notice:

Except: Family, Friends, Postal Services, Delivery Services and the Emergency Services - (limited to the time needed to deal with the reported emergency), a Bailiff with a valid Court Order Signed by a Judge including full printed name of Said Judge. (Note: A Bailiff has NO legal right to force access (nor is it implied by this notice) to a residential property, only by “Peaceful” enter by invite only)).

Any other person(s) and/or any companies not on the exceptions list above will be liable to Prosecution for Trespassing - definition: [Entering onto land without consent of the landowner/homeowner or Tenant] and be fined £1000.

Access MUST have been granted by prior appointment ONLY by the landowner/homeowner or Tenant of the Property.

Note: CCTV is in use on this PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Thank you.

 

Second, if you have this notice up can this be used as a defence against the "amended in 2014" Dangerous Dogs Act", which states "Except Trespasses", meaning your Dog will not be taken away as the "Implied Right of Access" Notice (excluding people named on the Exceptions) are now trespasses.

 

Thanks for any input and help.

 

Paul Barnes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its fine for people who do not have a right in law to attend, unfortunately Enforcements Agents do, under section 14 of schedule 12 of the tribunals courts and enforcment act. so it will not be of any use there they will just ignore it.

 

It was rumored to be effective before the change in the law but even then there is case law which shows it was not effective.

 

What it will do is give the EA the impression that you are a debt dodger, which is not advisable, but that bit is just my opinion.

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

Is this Better:

 

Removal of ‘Implied Right of Access’ Notice:

Except: Family, Friends, Postal Services, Delivery Services and the Emergency Services - (limited to the time needed to deal with the reported emergency), Enforcements agents operating under section 14 of schedule 12 of the tribunals courts and enforcement act (Note: A Enforcement agent has NO legal right to force access (nor is it implied by this notice) to a residential property, only by “Peaceful” entry by invite only)).

Any other person(s) and/or any companies not on the exceptions list above will be liable to Prosecution for Trespassing - definition: [Entering onto land without consent of the landowner/homeowner or Tenant] and be fined £1000.

Access MUST have been granted by prior appointment ONLY by the landowner/homeowner or Tenant of the Property.

Note: CCTV is in use on this PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Thank you.

 

--

 

Thanks for the input of the first part of my questions, I will point out that I have no debts at all, this post is merely for my own personal continuation of educating myself.

 

Paul Barnes

Edited by Paul Barnes
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry misread you post I will have another look

 

Incidentally there is a very good article about this by Paul Caddy it is not yet available on line i believe, perhaps we can get permission to post it.

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 would leave the stuff about bailiffs out altogether if you do not need it.

 

Just a simple withdrawal notice .stating that all callers depending an an implied rights to enter this property hereby have that right withdrawn as per the appropriate common law.

 

edit YOu could add a list saying this applies to cold callers debt collectors etc.etc. and put at the end, this list is not exclusive, if there is any doubt please call for authorisation. Something like 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

Thanks again for reply.

 

Any thoughts on this part?

 

Second, if you have this notice up can this be used as a defence against the "amended in 2014" Dangerous Dogs Act", which states "Except Trespasses", meaning your Dog will not be taken away as the "Implied Right of Access" Notice (excluding people named on the Exceptions) are now trespasses.

 

Paul Barnes

Link to post
Share on other sites

I m sorry but I am not familiar with this act, Is there anything within it that states that any particular person may enter a premisses ? If so then this would not be an implied right and therefore cannot be withdrawn

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

paul

not sure of your reference, do you mean re (no) permission. has it been decided in court. but not really at first. anyone on notice will have to have the chance to leave the property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

paul why do you need it please

its pretty mickey mouse freemen of the land rubbish

 

 

who do you think is coming to your door?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can forget the bit about prosecution, only the state can prosecute someone. You can't for a civil wrong.

 

As above, typical FOTL rubbish.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

 

More backstory please. You will get into trouble with that notice... It doesnt work ... Ever...

I assume its to do with dangerous dogs?

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Implied Right of Access is a law within Common law, which is the main law that governs our land (England), so can not be in any way rubbish. Law is law....

 

Note, I am here to further educate myself by asking people that I believe have the correct knowledge of this field, I also agree that many sites misrepresent common law (bailiffs for example and IRoA), causing a great deal of problems for people that are just wanting the correct answers, but listen to the wrong people.

 

I just want clarification from people that are in the know, of the laws, acts I was enquiring about, also after reading posts in this forum I personally respect the opinions of most people with in this community, which is the reason for posting here and not other forums.

 

Paul Barnes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Paul.

 

Might I ask where you found this notice and why you think you need it please?

 

HB

 

Hi,

 

This notice is located on many sites that talk about common law in different forms, however the one I posted was sent directly from corresponds with a Solicitor in Nov 2015, although the more I look at the wording, I tented to find "implied licence" is more appropriate for trespass point of view (again I'm learning all the time so maybe completely wrong). I also agree that this is a civil matter and would need to be dealt with in civil court (trespass).

 

The reasons for all this is to stop, 7+ per day cold callers (over years) and to protect my Dogs from the barbaric changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act (amendments 2014). Again don't get me wrong, I respect the right of postals services, delivery services and the police etc entering my land without fear of being attacked by my dogs (2 German Shepard's). But as the DDA now stands anyone walking passed that fears for their safety (even though the Dogs are not being aggressive) can use the DDA again me and have my Dogs removed / destroyed. My Dogs are chipped, chained and secured but this means nothing to the DDA now.

 

Hope that helps clarify my reason for these enquires / postings.

 

Paul Barnes

Link to post
Share on other sites

well as long as you've no dog warning notices showing

you are quite safe from the dda.

 

 

if you put up 'warnings' of any kind

it actually works the otherway around.

 

 

as you have already acknowledged there is a potential problem should people enter your land.

 

 

best idea is to do nothing.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul

 

We are not having a go here at you and we respect that you have turned to us for advice and experience.

 

However, the deal is quite a raw one with these notices. Quite simply they dont work.

I want to hear the full story before we continue to advise and there is a good reason for this.

 

We need to see if we can help you in a different way. As for the dangerous dogs act, are you threatening to have a dog taken away?

My understanding of this is that only a court can order it and it would need to be done by a specialist. Police would need to get involved and all sorts.

 

At that point, Police, Judges and appointed specialists then have full rights to attend the property and collect said dangerous dog / s.

The notice is FOTL stuff which is frowned on here, and with good reason. I recently saw 2 people who attempted to use a Strawman argument in court to avoid paying council tax that was in arrears.

The hearing lasted 5 minutes and a liability order was set out for the full amount. The users even attempted to use these notices for the bailiffs and they just laughed at him.

 

Why do you want to use these notices so much? Let me understand so we can help you. Remember - CAG is for anonymous advice. We can change your UN if you are worried about people recognising who you are (On an opinion based piece of advice, quite clearly, your username states who you are)

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But as the DDA now stands anyone walking passed that fears for their safety (even though the Dogs are not being aggressive)

can use the DDA again me and have my Dogs removed / destroyed

Rubbish. Although a dog does not have to bite to be deemed aggressive or dangerously out of control

there does have to be a real and reasonable fear of being attacked.

 

 

I have a vocal and boisterous GSD who is capable of frightening the bejesus out of most people.

Callers may well feel quite anxious at the sound of him barking from behind a closed door or gate

but this doesn't translate into any sort of reasonable fear of imminent attack under the act.

 

well as long as you've no dog warning notices showing

you are quite safe from the dda

I've been advised otherwise and have a notice on the back gate saying 'dogs running loose, please use front door'.

The dog isn't always outside but if he were and a stranger entered they could claim a real fear of being attacked.

That's where the act can be unfair on the dog but that notice should cover.

 

 

Any notice which gives the impression of an aggressive dog ain't smart so 'beware of..'

or 'my dog can make it to the gate in 3 seconds, can you?'

would invite trouble.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Implied Right of Access is a law within Common law, which is the main law that governs our land (England), so can not be in any way rubbish. Law is law....

 

Paul Barnes

 

Just thought I would comment on this. Whilst it is true that common law is the ancient system of law, it is incorrect to say that it is the main lawn law and it has superior standing to parliamentary law(statute).

 

Statute can overwrite common law and does so frequently.

This is a mistake that many forums which support the FoTL make when they present the common law arguments.

 

Despite what some may say, legislative law is far more prevalent in this country than common law due to the latter being codified or overwritten over the years.

 

Parliamentary supremacy is not so called lightly.

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

Something about the bills being a legal fiction because they are addressed to their straw man persona or did not contract for it, although it may be the other way around, never understood it .

Funny how they do not acknowledge the law but are quite happy to use it when they need it.

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...