Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ive just received this reply this morning, no mention of the disability discrimination? should i reply and ask them why they are ignoring it?:   Thank you for your email.   I would like to clarify some details for you and reassure you that the fine has been looked into thoroughly from our side, from this it was confirmed that as the fine appeal has been denied and it was raised to IAS who also denied the appeal, as a result of this we would be unable to over turn this decision.   I understand this may not be the outcome you had hoped for, and I am sorry for any inconvenience caused.    Kind regards, Lauren
    • Well the PH, although lengthy, (3 hrs) went well. Claim in time and only dropped one of the seven claims as it was unnecessary. The Judge gave great advice and commended us on our presentation of the claim, have to thank Valla for that one. Now for a bit of a breather before the 5 day hearing later this year. Thanks for all the advice and steers to date. 
    • to note: the claimant has given a 'reference' number. It is 11 digits long. Regarding 2 - do I even say I have had dealings with Barclays Bank UK PLC ?   Also the 'particulars of claim' are not in paragraphs on the claim form. It is just one chunk of text. With sentences. Do I refer to these as paragraphs ? As I have in the above defence.
    • 1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The claimant even fails to refer to an agreement number. Therefore the defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   2. Paragraph 2 is noted. Whilst I have had dealings with Barclays Bank UK PLC given that claimant fails to refer to an account number I am unaware what agreement the claimant wishes to rely upon.   3.Paragraph 3 is noted although without knowledge of which account the claimant refers to I can neither admit or deny the receipt of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974 being received.   4. Paragraph 4 is noted but again as above I am not aware of what agreement the assignment refers to.   5. On receipt of this claim I requested information pertaining to this claim from PRA group (UK) Limited by way of a CPR 31:14 request sent via 1st class recorded post on 06/06/2024 and further to the above I sent PRA group UK Portfolios Ltd a section 78 request via 1st class recorded post on 06/06/2024.   To date, PRA Group Uk Portfolios Ltd or PRA group (UK) Limited are yet to furnish me with the requested information  and therefore prevented from enforcing the alleged agreement.   6.Therefore with the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence and :   a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for; c) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to Sec 87 (1) CCA1974. d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   8. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Not really as long as its relatively new and similar and post Pre Action Protocol changes. 
  • 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

Housing Minister has told local authorities to stop telling tenants to stay till the eviction date.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2963 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

Strictly, speaking this is not a subject that would normally feature on the 'bailiff discussion' section of the forum. However, with the subject matter regularly featuring on the popular TV series; Can't Pay We'll Take it Away' it may well assist some viewers.

 

Anyone watching the TV series would have seen the many instances of a tenant is being evicted. Routinely, the tenants had been advised by their local authorities that in order to gain assistance with emergency housing, that they must remain in the property until the actual eviction. It would seem that this practice must stop.

 

The following is taken from a recent article from the Sheriffs Office:

 

 

Housing minister, Brandon Lewis has told all local authorities to stop routinely advising tenants to stay put until the enforcement agent arrives before they can be accepted as homeless.

 

Mr Lewis has written to all the chief executives of local councils saying that households should not be put in this position, and clarifying the guidance about homelessness.

 

In his letter he says,

 

“Authorities should not routinely be advising tenants to stay until the bailiffs arrive; there is no barrier to them assisting the tenant before this. By doing this, local authorities miss a valuable opportunity to prevent homelessness.”

 

Mr Lewis writes that the statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance, which local authorities are required by law to have regard to, is clear on this matter and contains guidance on how they should treat homelessness applications where a tenant has received a valid S21 notice.

 

This is what Mr Lewis’s letter highlights about what the guidance states:

 

-Housing authorities should not, in every case, insist upon a court order for possession and that no local authority should adopt a blanket policy in this respect.

 

-If the landlord intends to seek possession and there would be no defence to an application for a possession order, then it is unlikely that it would be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy the accommodation.

 

-Unless a local authority has very good reason to depart from the statutory guidance, then they should not be placing households in this position.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we will see councils doing the right thing and treating those families as homeless as soon as possession is sought.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we will see councils doing the right thing and treating those families as homeless as soon as possession is sought.

 

I would like to see a full copy of the Housing Minister's letter. I will make some enquiries later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a full copy of the Housing Minister's letter. I will make some enquiries later.

Yes the devil is always in the detail. Incidentally Shelter regard anyone with insecurity of accommodation as homeless.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My niece had to stay til eviction day even though her rent was up to date and she had taken care of the property. Her landlord had sold the house without informing her and she had a small boy as well.

 

If she had known the house was being sold at the time a relative would have bought it as it was ideal for them and they had the money ready and waiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...