Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

bailiffs and forcing Entry Discussion thread

Bailiff Advice
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2777 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

dx100uk

dx100uk

Posted
Posted

discussion thread created

please spa here rather that on a live thread everyone

 

 

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
Demitri

Demitri

Posted
Posted
I would hazard a guess that you are not a new user of this forum at all. The use of the word 'EA' always gives you away and where there is doubt.....you only have to look at the hostile way in which you post.

 

What a very strange and peculiar thing to suggest?

 

There are at least 3 other people who use the term "EA" on this thread, including the person that I was responding to.

 

I have no idea who you are, or who you think I am but it's a bit ripe to suggest that I am hostile.

You have been hostile towards me, from your very first post, for no reason (I assume?) other than the fact that I corrected your mistake regarding the position when there are no goods/insufficient goods to take control of. You have further singled me out for a lecture on what I may or may not post and where, despite you not (as far as I can see) being a moderator on this forum.

 

It is no problem to me at all if you want to spit your dummy out over something so trivial as a minor correction.

What I would point out though is that all the hostility appears to be coming from you, and you alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyOrch

AndyOrch

Posted
Posted

This is the Discussion Forum...

 

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 OTHER

 

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
Demitri

Demitri

Posted
Posted

I quite agree and as such I would like to know the following:

 

1. Why should a debtor be advised to enter into a repayment plan once it has been satisfied that there are no goods on the premises that can be controlled?

 

2. What advantage is there for the debtor to do so?

 

3. Is the debtor obliged to do so?

 

4. Is it in the debtors best interests to do so?

 

5. Is the forum aware of Regulation 24 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013?

 

6. Would a bailiff company want to force entry before following protocol?

 

7. Would a bailiff have the power/authority to make a decision on whether forced entry may be made?

 

8. Is it a reasonable excuse that authority can not be given because the visit takes place at 6am?

 

9. Is it a reasonable excuse that authority should not be sought because we don't know if the debtor is going to be at home when the visit takes place?

 

10. Should we not request that no goods levies/nulla bona be returned to the courts?

 

I'm really confused here as I would like clarification as to whether the purpose of the forum is to advise debtors or whether the purpose is to assist bailiffs (that is EA's for those who are confused)

Link to post
Share on other sites
brassnecked

brassnecked

Posted
Posted
discussion thread created

please spa here rather that on a live thread everyone

 

 

dx

Spar DX I would go to a Spa to partake of the healh giving waters.:)

You spar with a fellow boxer.

 

In the meantime, imagine a bailiff trying to Take Control of the waters in a spa, and having them chucked over him shorting his BWC.

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
Demitri

Demitri

Posted
Posted

Richard was responsible for much case law that is applicable today.

 

Debtors cannot simply be committed to prison for council tax because they have not dealt with bailiffs. This is a direct result of Richard's work and a legacy that he has left for debtors.

 

Richard exposed many unlawful and illegal warrants, no end of debtors who were illegally and unlawfully jailed, including many vulnerable, sick and poor people.

 

Richards line of work was not the most lucrative, far from it.

 

Richard left his mark and anyone who aspires to help and/or advise debtors should look at Richards work for inspiration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dx100uk

dx100uk

Posted
Posted

yes and not do what a certain person does by charging fees for stupid letters and court attendances that only costs debtors more.

and don't work

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
Demitri

Demitri

Posted
Posted
yes and not do what a certain person does by charging fees for stupid letters and court attendances that only costs debtors more.

and don't work

 

stupid letters are indeed a waste of money but I don't think she goes to court. nor does a "certain person"

 

He went to court last month when he couldn't get a solicitor,

due to them all being booked in other court cases. He got the debtor his car back and costs.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
Richard was responsible for much case law that is applicable today.

 

Debtors cannot simply be committed to prison for council tax because they have not dealt with bailiffs. This is a direct result of Richard's work and a legacy that he has left for debtors.

 

Richard exposed many unlawful and illegal warrants, no end of debtors who were illegally and unlawfully jailed, including many vulnerable, sick and poor people. I

 

 

 

 

Richards line of work was not the most lucrative, far from it.

 

Richard left his mark and anyone who aspires to help and/or advise debtors should look at Richards work for inspiration.

This is nonesense, even for you.debtors have never seen imprisoned for not dealing with bailiffs,thete is no such offence.

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
Demitri

Demitri

Posted
Posted

Also, I do not have a television.

i do not watch TV.

I work 12, 14 hours helping people who have bailiff issues.

I post about two people who do nothing to help debtors whatsoever.

I post nothing about you or your forum other than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Demitri

Demitri

Posted
Posted
This is nonesense, even for you.debtors have never seen imprisoned for not dealing with bailiffs,thete is no such offence.

 

You have told debtors yourself that if they don't pay and choose to sit it out that they run the risk of imprisonment

 

When you've answered your previous nonsense, I will give you a more detailed response, if the admin have not banned me by then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
You have told debtors yourself that if they don't pay and choose to sit it out that they run the risk of imprisonment

 

When you've answered your previous nonsense, I will give you a more detailed response, if the admin have not banned me by then.

 

Not for failing to deal with the bailiff, not e en for the debt. I hope you don't advise anyone,because your knowledge of enforcement is none existent.

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
Demitri

Demitri

Posted
Posted
Not for failing to deal with the bailiff, not e en for the debt. I hope you don't advise anyone,because your knowledge of enforcement is none existent.

 

Yeah that's right.

 

I am paid to work on enforcement issues full time, 6 or even 7 days a week but my knowledge is "none existent" [sic]

 

I rarely advise anyone these days as I don't have the time. I leave it to the "experts" like you

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
Yeah that's right.

 

I am paid to work on enforcement issues full time, 6 or even 7 days a week but my knowledge is "none existent" [sic]

 

I rarely advise anyone these days as I don't have the time. I leave it to the "experts" like you

 

Good move.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...