Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK thanks, I noted them down when I checked the report - 3 have already expired, although if I'm adding the 14 days on then it'll be another week or so for those. The others are; end of July (so into August is that right?), end of August (these two are the big ones) and a couple of grand on Shop Direct at the end of November but seeing as this furthest one is Lowell and they have already missed those first 3 then I feel pretty safe with that one. Are these DN dates on the credit report that dates I should be looking at +14 days when their anniversaries come up this year as the time when I can be sure the debts are SB?  I won't be rushing to send the SB letters anyway until the final one has passed and I can just do them in one fell swoop.
    • pdf's merged and properly named. thread title updated. word fine replaced by charge in post one....they are not fines mere speculative invoices. just type no need to keep hitting quote.   dx  
    • Nice work dx, much what I thought and glad to have it confirmed by the expert. Radio silence remains my game plan, I have been resident in Scotland since birth and although I had moved a couple of years prior to defaulting, all addresses were updated and I am confident all begging letters are coming to my current home address. I appreciate the info that they probably wouldn't get a claim in by Aug anyway - I think I'll hunt out my big box of badness in the next few days just to see if I can find any default notice letters so I can pin down some dates to satisfy my semi-OCD. Much obliged, and unlike some others i will look to update in the future as I certainly intend to send them the SB letter as I like to pull the chains of these types of cretins! Of course i'll be back to confirm the correct procedure if I get any "proper" legal letters other than the usual Overdales toilet paper type of scare tactic.  
    • statute barring in Scotland is 5yrs from last payment/use date or date of default Notice + 14 days, whichever is the later. dont confuse that with the 6yrs debts show on credit files (DN's 6th bday regardless to payment or not). they'd never get a claim raised by august in 99% of cases . as long all these debts were taken out whilst resident in scotland and you have not moved since taking them out but failed to inform the original creditor before the debt sale....... then stay radio silent until sb date is reached. then if you wish send our scottish sb letter. just remember unlike E&W in scotland debts are extinguished, dead , gone , parrot. once SB'd dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Lord Justice Briggs...Civil Courts Structure Review. Response from Money Advice Trust.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2861 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

At present, High Court Enforcement agents are only able to enforce judgments if they relate to non consumer credit debts and have a value of over £600.

 

Judgements relating to consumer credit debts (typically, a debt relating to a bank loan, credit card debt, catalogue debt or any other finance agreement) may only be enforced by a County Court Bailiff. The High Court Enforcement industry has campaigned for many years for the law to be changed to allow them to enforce judgments in relation to 'consumer credit debts'.

 

Earlier this year, the High Court Enforcement industry had their hopes raised that the law will be changed with the release of the Ministry of Justice's Civil Courts Structure Review that was chaired by Lord Justice Briggs. In the review, Justice Briggs stated that County Court enforcement is presently:

 

“heavily localised, paper based, prone to error in form filling, and widely perceived to be slow, ineffective and expensive”

 

A public Consultation was issued (now closed) and in the next few weeks a final report is due to be published.

 

Today the Money Advice Trust issued the following release:

 

http://www.moneyadvicetrustblog.org/2016/07/22/no-enforced-changes-some-thoughts-on-the-lord-justice-briggs-review/

 

A copy of their response to the Consultation is below:

 

http://www.moneyadvicetrust.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Policy%20consultation%20responses/Unilateral%20responses/Money%20Advice%20Trust%20response%20to%20the%20Civil%20Courts%20Structure%20Review%20Interim%20Report%20consultation%20paper.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the final report from the thread I started way back in January? >> http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?459211-Are-EA-S-trying-to-get-into-the-HCEO-market

 

If so you could have added it there for history purposes?

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

It's fine we all have our own filing system I too had failed to look for an update... but then again I wasn't looking for it just yet as I thought it would take longer...

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

It is widely known the the County Court Bailiff system is archaic and inefficient, so much so that many volume judgment claimants do not waste their time with it. It is also likely that their ineffectiveness for the creditor is why they generate fewer complaints.

 

It is only right that creditors have a choice of enforcement power.

 

However, it is fully accepted that should this work become available the a number of things will need to be looked at and addressed. The main one is that the current level of fees for HCE cases would need to be reduced.

 

I would also like to see a simpler process for debtors to stay proceedings for the right reasons.

 

Whilst LJ Briggs report is being delivered this month, I do fear that any changes, whatever they may be, will be a long time coming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, it is fully accepted that should this work become available the a number of things will need to be looked at and addressed. The main one is that the current level of fees for HCE cases would need to be reduced.

 

I would also like to see a simpler process for debtors to stay proceedings for the right reasons.

 

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

I don't have the County Court fee scale to hand, but contrary to popular belief, it is quite steep. Fortunately, it was not one of the fees that was subject to change in the surprise new regs last week.

 

I would assume that County Court bailiffs will fiercely oppose any changes to their work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would assume that County Court bailiffs will fiercely oppose any changes to their work.

 

 

They should be more worried about losing their jobs rather than any work as could see an opportunity for refining the system and thus making cost savings.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whilst LJ Briggs report is being delivered this month, I do fear that any changes, whatever they may be, will be a long time coming.

 

The long awaited report from Lord Justice Briggs has been released today. The following link is to the website of the Law Society Gazette. They have provided a link to the long report (300 pages) and a short analysis.

 

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/briggs-online-court-needs-minimal-assistance-from-lawyers/5056850.article

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly an interesting read. Here is the link to the full review final report - Briggs LJ - Final Report on Civil Justice Reform

 

Section 10 relates to Enforcement and whilst he covers it well and appears to have a good understanding of the issues raised by all sides it ultimately ends with him requesting a 'bespoke review' into it when time and funds allow.

 

As per my previous post, my guess is that there will be little change for a long time to come!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...