Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all, We bought a part to fix our washing machine approx 13 months ago direct from the manufacturer of the washing machine via phone. This part then failed 13 months later, as confirmed by their own engineer, who was sent by the manufacturer (who is also the retailer for the part) FoC. The engineer actually installed a replacement part, the machine came back to life, but they then removed the part as "we would be charged for it". The retailer are refusing to replace the part, stating that they only warranty parts for 90 days. When I stated that I believed the Consumer Rights Act gives me longer than that, they insinuated that it did not, and this was repeated by many representatives. AIUI for goods bought more than 6 months ago, I need to get an engineers report to confirm the part has failed? Or that it has failed due to manufacturing issues? Or would the companies own engineers report suffice? Thanks, GH
    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • 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.  👍
  • 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
      • 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

Can't Pay, Won't Pay - new series


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2695 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 caught the first episode in the new series last night

 

 

and was surprised to see the passive aggressive clown Paul Bohil still operating as an HCEO.

 

 

How can this be when he was supposed to have the right to act on the license he was using revoked

(apparently he's never been a certificated HCEO)

 

 

Also the very annoying Brian (fatty wannabe thug) sent for a removal vehicle for furniture from a hotel and a flat bed car transporter turned up!

 

 

Surely that showed he was bluffing as any damage caused by transportation in an unsuitable vehicle would be down to DCBL?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

surprised to see the passive aggressive clown Paul Bohil still operating as an HCEO.

 

How can this be when he was supposed to have the right to act on the license he was using revoked (apparently he's never been a certificated HCEO)

 

In fact, he is certificated !!

 

His certificate was granted to him on 12th April and his employer is listed as Direct Collections Ltd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only managed to watch the first half last night as I was so damn angry at see the way in which the enforcement agent 'forced' their way into the property despite the father CLEARLY advising that he was refusing entry and asking the officer to move away from the door. The father could not close the door.

 

There were so many breaches of the regulations that it is difficult to know where to start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only managed to watch the first half last night as I was so damn angry at see the way in which the enforcement agent 'forced' their way into the property despite the father CLEARLY advising that he was refusing entry and asking the officer to move away from the door. The father could not close the door.

 

There were so many breaches of the regulations that it is difficult to know where to start.

 

I don't watch any of these ' poverty porn' or other programmes that promote these type of companies e.g Enforcement officers, traffic wardens. Makes my blood boil, because i question the motives of the producers of these programmes and those invested in them.

 

These Enforcement Agents don't follow the rules because they know that not much can be done about their behaviour. Are the Police ever likely to arrest an EA, charge them and gain approval to prosecute ?

 

Who is going to tackle this behaviour ?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't bear watching those programmes... the thought of all those poor people being persecuted and bullied, it really upsets me...

Who but a sadist could sit there with a cup of tea and a biscuit and enjoy watching those less fortunate losing their homes or possessions?

Poverty Porn just about sums it up...:sad:

 

TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only managed to watch the first half last night as I was so damn angry at see the way in which the enforcement agent 'forced' their way into the property despite the father CLEARLY advising that he was refusing entry and asking the officer to move away from the door. The father could not close the door.

 

There were so many breaches of the regulations that it is difficult to know where to start.

 

 

I'm glad it's not just me that sits there shouting at the TV them, it makes my blood boil watching these thugs dressed up as officials abusing people.

 

The problem I have is that people watch this program and think that it's correct and they have the right to act in these ways

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if a complaint should be made to OFCOM about this show. While they don't investigate individual complaints, if enough people complained, they may just take some action.

 

I will try to stay calm enough to watch this episode. Barging past people is wrong and should be stamped on.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way he is going Bohill will be a victim when a burly debtor decides he needs a tolchock, and Bohil gets the three hits as in Bohill gets hit, Bohill hits the floor, and the Ambulance hits 90mph

 

Seriously agree with SF tell OFCOM the show is condoning criminal action by Bohill, highlighting where he has broken the law at each point on the programmes timeline.

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

I am wondering if a complaint should be made to OFCOM about this show. While they don't investigate individual complaints, if enough people complained, they may just take some action.

 

I will try to stay calm enough to watch this episode. Barging past people is wrong and should be stamped on.

 

I am just about to start a new thread regarding DCBL and given it's seriousness, it really does need to get wide coverage. Accordingly, I will be starting the thread in the main bailiff forum and I would hope that the moderators allow it to remain there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a wonderful show and Bohill is such a gentleman, if only all bailiffs were like him.

You 'avin a larf?

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

I am just about to start a new thread regarding DCBL and given it's seriousness, it really does need to get wide coverage. Accordingly, I will be starting the thread in the main bailiff forum and I would hope that the moderators allow it to remain there.

DCBL need winding up

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

It's a wonderful show and Bohill is such a gentleman, if only all bailiffs were like him.

Wonderful show ? highlighting peoples misery purely for cheap entertainment to cater for perverse viewers is not my or any right minded individual definition of wonderful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in relation to conniffs post, i dont think some people here understand sarcasm

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

in relation to conniffs post, i dont think some people here understand sarcasm

I do not know the poster, I presumed it could be a sarcastic, inflammatory or a genuine response, I do not presume to read the minds of other posters, It is not for me to give lessons on internet protocol but message boards do not provide the same level of interaction as face to face chats that is why we uses emotes to help indicate if a post or comment was in jest or sarcastic etc in order to avoid confusion, unless that is what the poster intended.

 

As for me not understanding sarcasm I think I can be forgiven on this

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just about to start a new thread regarding DCBL and given it's seriousness, it really does need to get wide coverage. Accordingly, I will be starting the thread in the main bailiff forum and I would hope that the moderators allow it to remain there.

 

The new thread is here and what is outlined in the thread is vitally important.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?469126-DCBL-(Direct-Collections-Bailiffs-Ltd)-enforcing-debts-without-warrants...what-to-look-out-for.

 

As can be read, an officer from DCBL attended premises a couple of days ago to enforce a 'disputed debt' and one that has not been subject to court action and where no judgment has been obtained.

 

The officer closely resembled a Police Officer.

 

He refused to leave the premises unless payment was made. He was demanding in excess of £10,000. As he was refusing to leave....police were called. They refused to attend stating that the officer had a right to be at the premises to enforce the debt !!!

 

The officer remained for over three hours. He only left when he received a payment.

 

The enforcement agent was also demanding 'interest' of 8%' on the disputed debt.

 

He threatened that unless the balance was paid by 5pm, that he would be returning with a 'film crew' (presumably, a film crew from the TV series, 'Can't Pay We Will Take it Away'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if a complaint should be made to OFCOM about this show. While they don't investigate individual complaints, if enough people complained, they may just take some action.

 

I will try to stay calm enough to watch this episode. Barging past people is wrong and should be stamped on.

 

Of course it isn't that long ago we had someone claiming to work on the show saying all was hunky dory, puts it into perspective the role of TV company.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night's show was equally horrendous with wanna be thug Fatty Brian demanding money with intimidation from a disabled lady and her partner for a disputed funeral cost. The lady twice offered a payment plan option of £5 or £10 per week (maybe month) which given her circumstances was reasonable which the EA's completely ignored. Fatty Brian then charged off to check her vehicle saying "I bet it's in a communal parking space" whilst grinning like a clever boy, only to find it was a motability vehicle - what did he expect, she is disabled Dumbass! I really don't like him. Ended up they got nothing as the lady had nothing of value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

all of these people on the programme are inn the position they are in because they failed to respond to the original court claim. Even if they had lost that they would only owe no more than half of the demanded sum and would have had a court agreed settlement schedule in place.

 

Correct. But that doesn't allow for laws and regulations to be blatantly broken time and time again.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. But that doesn't allow for laws and regulations to be blatantly broken time and time again.

 

Just a little food for thought here. If you were owed money by some particularly obstructive debtor, would you lose any sleep if entry wasn't strictly to the letter of the law? i have been owed a lot of money (to me) in the past and I used to lose sleep over it. It wasn't so much the money, it was the thought of someone taking the proverbial "Michael" out of me. Many a time, I was on the brink of "enforcing" it myself, only to have calmed down by the time that I arrived at the premises of the debtor.

 

I remember one of these programmes showed the ex-footballer, Neil Ruddock who had put his dog in kennels (presumably so that he could enjoy a nice holiday). He didn't pay the kennel owner and then hid behind bankruptcy. When visited, he was driving a fancy BMW and living in a very nice house. He clearly had the means to settle the debt if he wished to. However, he refused to pay, stating that the debt was incurred prior to him being registered bankrupt. I just wonder how many other people Rudduck owed money to in this manner?

 

I just wonder, if I obtained a writ, would DCBL be the company that I would choose to collect, given their approach?

 

I would add that I am on the side of the debtor and do not advocate breaching of legislation. I am also not convinced that evry breach is carried out exclusively by DCBL. I suspect it is convenient for the rest of the industry to point fingers in their direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...