Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • China green-lights mass production of autonomous flying taxis — with commercial flights set for 2025 | Live Science WWW.LIVESCIENCE.COM The EHang EH216-S autonomous flying taxi is the first eVTOL ready for mass production and could lead the way for flying cars around...  
    • Lolerz - I don't understand you.  Rebuked you?   No. I simply replied to your orange comments with legal facts as I know them.  I've already worked through the s42 and s146 issues - over the last 3-4y - and these issues are (mostly) resolved legally.  In terms of posting evidence.  Sure I can post some.  But my most recent questions have been a) how can I enforce a sale before trial?  And b) how can I make a complaint and/or a claim v receiver? (E.g. to which body do I complain?).  At the mo I'm asking for some helpful pointers on those specific questions??  I'm not asking for help with how to prove or present evidence. Fwiw - all evidence for trial has been disclosed (although additions are poss). The lender sent me like 10,000 emails and docs.  There's also 000s of emails, docs, photos, videos, recordings and texts that relate to freeholders/ me.   I read, filed and categorised everything for ease of future reference.  Witness statements and evidence were prepared for trial in the 42 and 146 matters. (now joined with current claim to save duplication).  I've lived the process before.  My current statement and linked evidence has taken like 6 months to draft/ write - to ensure I can succinctly prove my defence and counterclaim points.   Whether I can convince a judge at trial w/o lawyer / barrister is debatable 🙄   But I've prepared.  And continue to try better prepare - which is why I visit this site (and clinics).  This is NOT my business or expertise at all.  I'm just trying.  Not that anyone should ever have to justify why they need help if they ask politely! 
    • Thanks for the other info will also take a look at that.
    • It doesn't use the word reconstructed in the cover letter.  Although, I have just noticed on the cover letter they have asked me to complete a financial statement and offer a repayment within the next 10 days, or they will continue to follow court directions.  They sent a separate letter on the same day advising me they will be continuing with their claim ?  They have done the same for both claims.  Is it worth just doing that - doing the financial breakdown and offering a x amount.    
    • hahah except I can't locate the courier to frighten them with it hahaha   
  • 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
      • 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

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2724 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

not disagreeing but if the producers of the television programme mae it clear that these people only get work only after certain hoops are jumped through and had a reference toa debt advice charity when they run the end credits people watching would be better informed and some people helped to avoid being in the next series.

I shout at the telly when I see the kevlar cowboys asking people to get friends or relatives to pay up because they have nothing to seize for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not disagreeing but if the producers of the television programme mae it clear that these people only get work only after certain hoops are jumped through and had a reference toa debt advice charity when they run the end credits people watching would be better informed and some people helped to avoid being in the next series.

I shout at the telly when I see the kevlar cowboys asking people to get friends or relatives to pay up because they have nothing to seize for example.

 

 

it is called pure and simple HARRASEMENT

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember Harriet Harman stating that , if it was her who was owed money, she would feel justified in making any action including kicking someone's door in, to recover it. This was in 2007 in one of the forced entry debates.

 

This is the problem, we all feel justified in our actions, how that manifests, just depends on which side of the fence you are on.

That is why I never say I am on the side of either party, we have rules and laws to restrict our instinctual responses, if anything I am on the side of these.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

latest episode I saw they entered a property in Corby and found that the person on the writ no longer lived there so they went to a different address and told the person that they had the right to enter and take control of goods at the unlisted address becasue they wre HCEA's.

Where did they get that idea from? Just a lie to the uninitiated or do they believe it themselves?

Link to post
Share on other sites

latest episode I saw they entered a property in Corby and found that the person on the writ no longer lived there so they went to a different address and told the person that they had the right to enter and take control of goods at the unlisted address becasue they wre HCEA's.

Where did they get that idea from? Just a lie to the uninitiated or do they believe it themselves?

They lied they just want the money. I wouldn't put it past the DCBL clowns to try to make a new occupant of an address pay for the debt of a previous occupant as the debt is "Registered at the address" on their writ. Love them to try that one on camera, rope, enough etc.

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

what the 1800's...

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

I've noticed that at the end it says something like procedures were correct at time of filming

They lied, that disclaimer is their get out of jail free card.

 

 

@ DX "what the 1800's..."

More like the 1200's King John the Sheriff of Nottingham et al DX.

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

Last nights episode featuring father and son tag team Del and Dael (his spelling not mine)

tell a debtor who rented a room in his mate's house that they could take any goods in the property including his mate's stuff from the non rented rooms if he didn't pay up.

 

 

They then stayed in the house refusing to leave while he went to his Mum's to see if he could get some money and she wasn't in.

 

 

The pair of idiots left with nothing after pushing him to verbally agree to paying £500 a month on a £2k debt

- yeah that would work seeing as he was unemployed and penniless living off his friends kindness.

 

 

the end credits stated that the debtor failed to pay and the case was now closed Can't Pay Won't Pay and Can't Get Blood Out Of A Stone eh DCBL!

Can someone tell me where my paragraphs go when I post?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever thought that anyone featured on these programmes must be legally entitled to CH5's standard fee for appearing on their programmes. If they are not getting paid, there is no reason why they should agree to be filmed.

 

Perhaps they should be asking for a fee equal to the amount of debt being chased or they refuse permission to be filmed. If they could not be filmed, there would be no programme.

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

Last nights episode featuring father and son tag team Del and Dael (his spelling not mine)

tell a debtor who rented a room in his mate's house that they could take any goods in the property including his mate's stuff from the non rented rooms if he didn't pay up.

 

 

They then stayed in the house refusing to leave while he went to his Mum's to see if he could get some money and she wasn't in.

 

 

The pair of idiots left with nothing after pushing him to verbally agree to paying £500 a month on a £2k debt

- yeah that would work seeing as he was unemployed and penniless living off his friends kindness.

 

 

the end credits stated that the debtor failed to pay and the case was now closed Can't Pay Won't Pay and Can't Get Blood Out Of A Stone eh DCBL!

Can someone tell me where my paragraphs go when I post?

 

Not exactly unemployed, he was running a car sales business and conning people like we get on the car section on here. He conned the bailiffs ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever thought that anyone featured on these programmes must be legally entitled to CH5's standard fee for appearing on their programmes. If they are not getting paid, there is no reason why they should agree to be filmed.

 

Perhaps they should be asking for a fee equal to the amount of debt being chased or they refuse permission to be filmed. If they could not be filmed, there would be no programme.

 

It's not much, I was asked to be interviewed on a CH5 program which featured a number of my CCTV clips (I declined) and the offer was £300 non negotiable. I gave authority for my clips to be used but no payment was offered for those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dell and Dael at it again last night, debtor lives with new GF in her flat, owns nothing of value, EA arrive and say they can take all possessions in flat unless GF proves they are her belongings by producing receipts for items some years old - utter lies, these two idiots need to be prosecuted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dell and Dael at it again last night, debtor lives with new GF in her flat, owns nothing of value, EA arrive and say they can take all possessions in flat unless GF proves they are her belongings by producing receipts for items some years old - utter lies, these two idiots need to be prosecuted.

Sadly they won't be until the ghastly pair actually clear out her flat and remove exempt items, even then the police would cry civil and the EA's would cry "Obstruction" as all the seating is taken away and the GF tries to stop them. Camera fades to debtor and GF sat on the floor of an empty room.

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

Dell and Dael at it again last night, debtor lives with new GF in her flat, owns nothing of value, EA arrive and say they can take all possessions in flat unless GF proves they are her belongings by producing receipts for items some years old - utter lies, these two idiots need to be prosecuted.

 

Wrong or not (I don't know) it got the required result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night's program showed Del and Dael at it again, forcing another 3rd party (Mother of the debtor) to sign up to a payment agreement for someone else's debt using lies and intimidation saying they could take items from the home the debtor was living in when they had the mother telling them the daughter owned nothing other than her clothes. DISGRACEFUL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Last night's episode, two new EA's, debtor stupidly lets them in then lies about who she is, gets found out then the two clowns tell her they can take everything in the home for a £6k debt from a no win no fee claims company that conned her into taking action on her behalf which she then discontinued, debtor is upset and borrows money from a friend. More lies and intimidation from these clowns, she was broke and there was nothing of value in the home and she had a young child, they even told her they could take her furniture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

about time for mass action against antiquated so called Justice policies on mass, we are back to the 17 th century

Enforcement and clowns like the DCBL mob belong in the 13th Century with King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham. Time for their lies to be tested, especially as they threatened on camera to sieze and sell exempt items.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...