Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks @lookinforinfo.   The text is updated:   1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'. The Airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A]. Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest. Furthermore, VCS has been running the parking business at airports over the years it would be expected that they would become familiar with the Airports Act. Unfortunately, they choose to neglect and deny the Act in their Witness Statement.
    • Hi Mango,   Please don't post in large blocks of text as it's far harder to read. Spacing added for you in the post above.   Please give brief answers to UncleB's Q's above so we can better assess your case, thanks.
    • "These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest." Well worded.   I would add that as VCS have been  active in Airports over the years  that one would  expect they would be familiar with the Airports Act which would call into question the accuracy of their WS.   By questioning their WS you are hoping that VCS might decide not to turn up in Court [giving you a walkover] as they might not want the Judge looking closely at their WS. Also it would not be good for them should you win your case based on the Airports Act as it will have other Courts  kicking out other Airport cases hitting them in the pocket.    
    • Hi,   Still no response. I have my Liability Order hearing in a few days time, I was hoping I might have been able to receive a response from either my local councillor or the leader of the council before then. I wonder if they are just going to ignore my email?   Walshy    
    • I have got an  independent expert report which clearly states it is a manufacturing fault, which DFS have been made aware of.   My point is that as a huge retailer of leather sofas with leather peeling  being a common complaint to me it seems evident they are aware it is a manufacturing fault on their side. Yet they play games with customers and worse of all try their level best to get the customer to believe that it is their fault due to oils or creams they are using.   Even if one is to believe that every day creams etc can cause this damage then in any event the sofas are not fit for purpose.   Surely they are merely playing a numbers game banking on the fact that most complainants will not follow through with legal action. Yet what about the anguish and distress they cause to customers in the process.   To me this shows alot of contempt towards consumers and is clearly unethical.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Cabot/Restons CCJ - dealt with bailiffs - now Cabot time and payment?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1645 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

Thanks everyone, I will catch and read all the new postings later and give you guys some feedback when I get a moment...

 

Thank you all...

 

mrbrooks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The court service have a specific Income & Expenditure form for the N245. With Magistrate's Court they too have a specific Means Form (MC100).

 

With both these forms, many items of expenditure are specifically excluded.

 

The reason for this is because HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice only consider certain expenditure to be 'necessary' for 'everday living'. This is unlike credit card and bank debts where it is perfectly accepteable to use more comprehensive Income & Expenditure calculations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely....many thanks BA...the court has already worked out what Income and Outgoings are necessary to calculate an affordable payment plan...a fully comprehensive listing is not required.

 

Deeply apologetic Mr Brooks for this confusion and unnecessary hijacking of your thread ..I assure you we do not suffer from this in any other our forums.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Thread tidied and irrelevant posts removed

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 The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You absolutely have to use the I & E within the N245.

 

 

I only referenced the budget sheet we use for other things as it can be handy for those wishing to keep on top of their household finances so they know how much they have spare each month.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, thanks for the discussions, I don’t see it as hijacking, and it’s always great to learn about these things.

 

However, I am absolutely facking knuckered today on account of having to actually do some work!!! Haha…

 

So have read over it all quickly.

 

I still have no idea yet how much SS got paid, or what his preference is re paying it up or going for a VO, he’s not back yet from work, and its already 1:30 AM.

 

I suspect he got paid and decided he deserved a few beers and the like, cos of course its all been ever so stressful for him, which is something I was concerned about, he’s done it before on payday, especially if owes money, like paying his mum some rent, he goes missing for three days because he can’t be arsed dealing with stuff and knows I will ask him what he’s playing at...but we shall see...I will give him the benefit of doubt…

 

Trouble is for me, I’m just too tired to wait up much longer and I have no idea when he’s going to get back, so I half expect nothing to happen tomorrow...he will either not come home or he will turn up at some godly hour like 6AM and then sleep all day and claim he had forgotten, another usual method of avoidance. Im not holding my breath thats for sure...

 

I have warned him though, if he messes about too much, next time that Mr Bailiff knocks, I will just let him in and point him towards his stuff.

 

Thank you everyone for the great comments and the learning curve ;) I really do appreciate all the time the CAG members and the site team put into this place and its such a great thing to know that the people who drop by with their situations, like me, can find some sanity and reason…

 

Best wishes all, will drop by when I have more…

 

mrbrooks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All, SS turned up a short while ago, all ready to do the form, I have filled in what I can, but am stuck on a couple of things...

 

On the form:

 

Claim no: is this the case number???

Warrant no.: is fine i have this

Local no.: what is this???

Claimants name.: Is this SS or Cabot???

Defendants name: as above, is this SS or Cabot???

 

Thanks all

 

mrbrooks

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi All, SS turned up a short while ago, all ready to do the form, I have filled in what I can, but am stuck on a couple of things...

 

On the form:

 

Claim no: is this the case number??? Yes

Warrant no.: is fine i have this

Local no.: what is this??? Ignore

Claimants name.: Is this SS or Cabot??? Cabot

Defendants name: as above, is this SS or Cabot??? SS

 

Thanks all

 

mrbrooks

 

Andy

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 The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy thanks for the response, but there is another twist...

 

So I decided to call the court and ask about this form and also clear up some other confusion as to who we were supposed to pay, on the calling card it says payments only yo court1 (the issuing court) and on the bailiff notice it says you can pay at the court (court 2 where the bailiff resides)...

 

So the clerk was very helpful, she told me what goes where on the form and said we need to bring/post the N245 to court2 along with the £50.00 fee and any payments for the actual debt would have to be processed by court 1...hmmm...ok

 

So then she said let me just takea quick look, and she then tells me, the bailiff has basically passed this back to the claimaint, because SS is just a lodger in his parents house, she said that is what he has put on his notes. So he wont be coming around no more and wont be involved in the process, so any contact regarding the debt needs to go back to Cabot...

 

So, I'm gonna ignore it for today, I have a lot of work to do and will draft a letter to Cabot for him to sign over the weekend.

 

Thank you all so much, all seems a bit of an anti climax somehow, haha, but I am glad it is back with Cabot, it just makes life easier all round I think.

 

Bye for now

 

mrbrooks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Brooks,

 

The telephone conversation with the court was very worthwhile and the pressure on you, your wife and your step son, has now been relieved. That in itself is a blessing.

 

Along the way, you have learnt a lot about the enforcement of judgments and although today you may consider that it seems a bit of an anti climax, you need to bear in mind that your stepson does have one more Judgment registered against and with the knowledge that you have gained, you can assist him with this (and his other debts).

 

Thank you for updating the forum with this good news.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being funny

But I would not write to Cabot

Simply invites letter tennis

 

Wait till they write to him and then scan up the letter

 

Same for the other ccj and debts

 

Don't instigate letter tennis yourself

 

Now you are involved

As you get a letter about any of his debts

Start a new thread in the named bank forum off the top left main forum tab

And tell us about it

 

Paying any debt that is defaulted or has a ccj won't improve his credit rating and could simply prove a waste of money that resets the SB date too

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

Who says the debt is legally owed?

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

It was being collected by bailiffs acting on a warrant issued by HM Courts, so one assumes there was a process followed during which the debt was found to be owed.

 

For the record, I'm very much in favour of ensuring all debts all legally due, and indeed of minimising any possible bailiff fees, though that is rarely feasible. I don't condone debt evasion, but would certainly agree that waiting to see what happens might be the sensible way forward. There is a real chance to keep the channels open with the SS here though, to encourage more responsibility with money, as borrowing it, then simply failing to repay it is not going to be sustainable in the long term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it was a non contested default rubber stamped judgement where nothing is ever checked

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
No it was a non contested default rubber stamped judgement where nothing is ever checked

 

I know. It's just I've been accused in the past of debt evasion, when all I have been doing is helping the debtor save money by paying the creditor directly once a warrant has been returned, or because the bailiffs refuse to accept an affordable repayment for that particular type of debt (I only advocate this option for one particular debt in any case).

 

I agree, as said above, that everything should be done to check the legality of the debt, and the debtor should have all options explained to them so they are in a position to make an informed choice about what they want to do.

 

I'm pleased all is resolved in this case anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No it was a non contested default rubber stamped judgement where nothing is ever checked

These DCA's should be spanked hard for default CCJ on SB debt.

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
These DCA's should be spanked hard for default CCJ on SB debt.

 

I'm hoping it's okay now to deviate from the topic of the thread a little as it is resolved.

 

There is nothing wrong with DCA's chasing debts (nor them being asked for proof of the debts). Where things fall down is the same with most debts, bailiffs, DCA's, etc.... and things fall down often because people are scared, worried sick and insufficiently informed to know the best thing to do is go to the creditor as early as possible and explain the difficulties.

 

When this gets to the stage of a DCA obtaining a default CCJ, it means many letters have been ignored, often including those about court hearings, and the debtor not turning up to the court hearing (possibly because they don't know about them as they've moved and not updated records, hoping they won't be found).

 

The fact it is time barred means nothing. The debt remains legally due, but it being time barred is an absolute defence in court if the debtor submits that defence. Often DCA's have little or no paperwork, so they can't really be blamed for going to court, especially after writing numerous times trying to get an arrangement in place.

 

I hate them as much as anyone, but like bailiffs, they have a job to do and that is what they are doing. In an ideal world we'd all talk to creditors asap, but it's not an ideal world and people are human and get scared. The longer it is left, the harder it gets to address them.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy to see all bailiffs and all DCA's out of business. Anything I can do to hasten that process is a move in the right direction. The vast majority of debtors are not willfully refusing to pay, they are in a mess (possibly of their own making) and cannot. They need help, not further fees piling onto the debt.

 

I'd love to see them spanked hard for getting default judgments, but for time barred debts, the debtor does have that absolute defence at their disposal. They need educating and helping so they can take the fight back, should they choose to do so.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, hope you all had a good bank holiday weekend and are feeling chipper and perky!

 

So down to business.

 

Now that the bailiff has sent the case back to Cabot, I was assuming that we need to contact Cabot to arrange repayment of the debt. However, I see there has been some discussion about this on the thread, which I have just read.

 

So of course I accept that these are ‘opinions’ of the CAG Team and its members, and I would just like to re-iterate, that I am all for SS paying this debt and fulfilling his responsibility with regards to said debt.

 

I also understand from the discussions that there is sometimes issues with the debt not having been ‘proved’ in some case, and though I do not believe this is the case here, I am all for going through the ‘correct’ channels and procedures and obtaining the correct information and confirming it is all in order.

 

So my questions regarding this new twist of the debt being returned to Cabot, are these.

 

Do we contact Cabot?

Should We wait?

Will they contact him?

Are there any issues with us contacting Cabot?

What are the repercussions of us not contacting Cabot?

 

If we do contact Cabot, what do we ask for?

For example, should we make a SAR?

Or is there something specific we need from them they would provide?

 

Is there anyone else we should contact?

Do we need to get written confirmation from the court that the case has been passed back to the claimant?

 

As always, thank you all so much for your time and insights and look forward to hearing the views of the CAG team and members.

 

Regards

 

mrbrooks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Brooks

 

Now that the debt is away from bailiffs, I would suggest that you start a NEW thread in the debt section of the forum. You will receive expert help there from posters with experience of Cabot and very likely, experience too about the Statutes of Limitation etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll move and rename the thread keep to one thread

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
my questions regarding this new twist of the debt being returned to Cabot, are these.

 

Do we contact Cabot? No

Should We wait? Yes

Will they contact him? Probably will yes

Are there any issues with us contacting Cabot? No real point if they want the supposed debt, they need to ask for it, then well see what games can be played with them

What are the repercussions of us not contacting Cabot? No there is nothing much they can do now

 

If we do contact Cabot, what do we ask for? You can't really the ccj trumps and lack of paperwork

For example, should we make a SAR? Yes but to cap1

Or is there something specific we need from them they would provide? ..

 

Is there anyone else we should contact?no

Do we need to get written confirmation from the court that the case has been passed back to the claimant?no

 

As always, thank you all so much for your time and insights and look forward to hearing the views of the CAG team and members.

 

Regards

 

mrbrooks

 

Regards 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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...