Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice is change. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been reading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. On mediation form you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee that you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
    • I am sure the resident experts will give you a comprehensive guide to your rights.  The responsibility lies with the retailer. I have dealt with Cotswold before for similar. And found them refreshingly helpful.   Even when I lost the receipt for one item I had bought in Inverness. The manager in Newcastle called the store. Found the transaction and gave me a full refund. 
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2806 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

I have just sorted out my council tax and I have now had a letter from marstons, saying they are coming with removal contractors on July 21st. This is for a CCJ to severn trent water.

 

I was already aware I was behind with this and had filed a N245 for a variation, however when I phone Bradford County Court on Friday they said they were just about to deal with it.

 

Do their officers have right of entry. Should I tell them that the N245 has be sent. There will not be any cars there and I will not be at home. But I don't want them to break in.

 

I was under the impression they could not force entry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what are marstons doing with it

they are not court bailiffs

 

 

looks like trent have gotten them involved as HCEO's?

 

 

no right of entry at all

treat this the same as a CTAX debt ..ignore in a way.

 

 

N245 will stop it all

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

bet it wont make a ounce of diff they'll still prob try and add the £325 fees etc.

 

 

when was the CCJ granted

did you not defend?

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

 

what are marstons doing with it they are not court bailiffs

 

looks like trent have gotten them involved as HCEO's? no right of entry at all

 

treat this the same as a CTAX debt ..ignore in a way. N245 will stop it all

 

 

DX, Marston Holdings consists of one of the largest High Court enforcement companies. You mention in your next posts that they will try to add £325 onto the debt (I assumed that you meant £235).

 

Given that this is a debt that has been transferred to the High Court, the fee scale is significantly more. With these type of debts, if you wish to enter into a payment arrangement, an enforcement agent must attend the debtor's address. The link below is to the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) regulations 2014, and you will see under section 7.3, why the initial visit is mandatory.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

 

You have also indicated that the OP should treat the debt in the same way as council tax and ignore. If, the OP were to do this, she will find herself lumbered with the Stage 2 fee of £495 (fee scale below).

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/schedule/made?view=plain

 

 

Until the creditor has agreed the 'variation' (N245), enforcement by Marston's can continue.

 

Whisend.......what date did you submit your N245 application?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There will not be any cars there and I will not be at home. But I don't want them to break in.

 

I was under the impression they could not force entry.

 

Hi Whitsend,

 

Firstly, I make no claims to be an expert with HCEO's, so I hope people correct me if what I state below is incorrect.

 

Here's a post from one of the forum's High Court experts:

 

ploddertom wrote.......

 

As long as it is your main home then there is no automatic right of entry and it would be a seriously bad idea to let him in. .........

 

Do you have any detached buildings on site - if so then he does have the right to force entry to these if he believes there are goods inside that may help satisfy the debt. Just make sure you keep all your doors locked for now & if possible record each visit. It should not take him long to realise there are no pickings and the Writ should be sent back to the Claimant - who could instruct another HCEO of course.

 

There is one proviso to this and that is if you are leaving your Bentley or Ferrari on the drive next to your sea going yacht then they could apply for forced entry under the belief you had mad stacks of cash and had bought items rather than pay your debt, I imagine this is not your scenario but feel it fair to point it out.

 

This was a different context, but I imagine the same applies in your case.

 

The issue of waiting for a debt to be returned as advised above is a little controversial on here, but this person is highly respected, so I imagine it is solid advice - there were certainly no comments to suggest it is debt avoidance or anything.

 

More importantly, it appears to clarify there is no automatic right of forced entry, something backed up by reading I've been doing in material from The Sheriffs Office, and in an old bailiff handbook I was reading at the weekend which went into huge detail about access rights - a topic of some real interest at present.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I notice that you have work premises, just for clarity the CCJ relates to your home ?

 

 

 

In addition under the new rules he cannot force entry to external building if they are secured, this was a former entitlement no longer available to the HCEO.

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

see grumpy is here. Stand by your beds !

 

I think it is also true that the HCEO can force entry to the place where the debtor has a business or occupation, as long a there is reasonable belief that there are goods which are available for seizure within.

 

I agree with the statement that the writ will be returned and as the same statement also says , it can easily be assigned to another agent. I think this has been adequately proven in your last thread.

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

Ok, I have had the n245 returned today by Bradford CountyForcourt, saying I need to fill in a n244 not a n245 as it is a high court writ. I have an appointment with my court on Friday 10.30. That is the earliest they can get me an appointment to file it.

 

I have rang marstons and they say they are coming tomorrow to take my cars. Which are currently locked in someone elses warehouse. They say if they can't gain entry, they will go back to court for a warrant to enter.

 

This debt is 5110, as they did not send me any bills for a number of years. I was defending but the court judged as they said they did not receive a defense. Or they received it too late. I was defending it as Severn Trent could not produce any bills only a list of amounts on a spreadsheet.

 

Not sure what to put on the n244.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I notice that you have work premises, just for clarity the CCJ relates to your home ?

 

 

 

In addition under the new rules he cannot force entry to external building if they are secured, this was a former entitlement no longer available to the HCEO.

 

No to my home address. I did have one business registered to my home address but I changed this today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DX, Marston Holdings consists of one of the largest High Court enforcement companies. You mention in your next posts that they will try to add £325 onto the debt (I assumed that you meant £235).

 

Given that this is a debt that has been transferred to the High Court, the fee scale is significantly more. With these type of debts, if you wish to enter into a payment arrangement, an enforcement agent must attend the debtor's address. The link below is to the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) regulations 2014, and you will see under section 7.3, why the initial visit is mandatory.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

 

You have also indicated that the OP should treat the debt in the same way as council tax and ignore. If, the OP were to do this, she will find herself lumbered with the Stage 2 fee of £495 (fee scale below).

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/schedule/made?view=plain

 

 

Until the creditor has agreed the 'variation' (N245), enforcement by Marston's can continue.

 

Whisend.......what date did you submit your N245 application?

 

I sent it the same day as the bailiff visited, I had already filled it in ready to go as I was 3 months in agrears. They have sent it back saying it is the wrong form. I need a n244 to stay a high court writ of control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the debt is registered to you, and your business is the place you usually cary out you trade they can enforce there anyway.

(6)Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—

(a)usually lives, or

(b)carries on a trade or business

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 changed a business I do not use to my other work address on companies house, as I was told they can force entry into a business premises if they think you have private belongings there.

 

I use one of my cars for work, but I thought it was easier to hide it than try to prove it. and I would not know how to prove it anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I apply to set aside as I did send in a defense within the time limit. The court said they did not get it in time.

 

Only you can decide whether you wish to use the N244 to 'Stay the Proceedings' or to 'Set Aside' the judgment.

 

To help you decide, it would be best for you to carefully read the excellent guidance in the following link written by the forums 'expert' Ploddertom:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?454644-What-Form-What-For-Where-does-it-go

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read that and as it says no receiving documents would not count as a good enough reason.

 

I want to reduce the payments, as I cannot afford these, thats why I sent in a n245. So I take it I must ask for a stay of proceedings.

 

With bailiffs visiting tomorrow, they have already added fees for tomorrow, so I do not want anymore fees.

 

They have also told me they will be going back to court for a warrant to force entry, if they cannot get in tomorrow, how long will this take.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I changed a business I do not use to my other work address on companies house, as I was told they can force entry into a business premises if they think you have private belongings there.

 

I use one of my cars for work, but I thought it was easier to hide it than try to prove it. and I would not know how to prove it anyway.

 

Yes, i said the same earlier, however they may attend. Do you have grounds to set aside ?

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 have read that and as it says no receiving documents would not count as a good enough reason.

 

I want to reduce the payments, as I cannot afford these, thats why I sent in a n245. So I take it I must ask for a stay of proceedings.

 

With bailiffs visiting tomorrow, they have already added fees for tomorrow, so I do not want anymore fees.

 

They have also told me they will be going back to court for a warrant to force entry, if they cannot get in tomorrow, how long will this take.

 

They cannot force entry into your home to enforce a CCJ, and no warrant would be granted, even if they were to apply for one. Unless they previously have had entry and you signed a controlled goods agreement.

 

The account will go back to the creditor if the enforcment is unsuccessful and the creditor will have to pay the compliance fee.

 

Unfortunately there is an array of measures the court can take after this,charging order, bankruptcy etc. Did you make a reasonable offer to the bailiff earlier in the enforcment.

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

No I m absolutely correct as usual. The OP has not mentioned a sum, also ther is a £1000 minimum on a charging order also, which i did not think worth mentioning.

 

In addition it costs nothing to issue a statutory demand.

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

Oh and it was raised form £750 not £700

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

Not wanting to argue

I did not mention Charging orders.

 

The stat demand may be free

but to make some one bankrupt does cost the creditor to take it before the judge,

if granted no guarantee they would recover what is owed,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, i said the same earlier, however they may attend. Do you have grounds to set aside ?

 

The only grounds I have is that they did not send me a bill for a number of years. Which made the sum unmanageable. I put in a defence as they could not give me any copies of bills, just a spreadsheet with dates and numbers on. The judgement went against me as they did not receive my defense or they received it too late.

 

The judgement was for £50, which I could not afford while paying everything else, so I applied for a variation order for £25, not realising that I could not do this with a High Court Writ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only grounds I have is that they did not send me a bill for a number of years. Which made the sum unmanageable. I put in a defence as they could not give me any copies of bills, just a spreadsheet with dates and numbers on. The judgement went against me as they did not receive my defense or they received it too late.

 

The judgement was for £50, which I could not afford while paying everything else, so I applied for a variation order for £25, not realising that I could not do this with a High Court Writ.

 

You have said that the debt is now £5,110. Accordingly, Dodgeball was correct in that bankruptcy could be an option. Applying to the court to 'vary the order' should resolve this.

 

I think that you will have little grounds to 'set aside' the judgment. Therefore, you need to follow the guidance from Ploddertom and file the N244 to 'Stay the proceedings' AND the N245 to 'Vary' the order.

 

You have said that you have appointment with the court on Friday, have you been asked to take any documents with you ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...