Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;     I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2665 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 agree to a certain extent BN

but there is still a need for the people who know how to play thew system as a limited company. running up debts and closing down,

happened to me a few times , this is why I am in the position In am in now.

but overall agree out dated in the 21st century, it is called control over the peasants.

Worse culprits for witholding payments are councils and multinationals. OP to their credit did try to negotiate when the bailiff called.

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

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I am so shocked at the advice given here. The OP didn't even owe anything (according to their story). They have been complaint and even offered themselves up for arrest. They are suffering from PTSD and should not have to go through this. Marstons obviously overstepped the mark, and this is the best advice on offer, you're an idiot and sniggering at how old the Rolex is? Grandfather could have left it quite recently.

 

Thank you for your support.

That guy has deleted his silly post because he probably used the magic of Google he would know that Rolex have been making watches since 1905..

.my Grandfather died 6 years ago and my watch is a 1983 model Submariner.

 

Surprised they didn't clamp the cars just for the hell of it OP got off lightly there but as far as auction value is concerned, 10% of value at distress sale auction is about right, so a £10K rolex would be lucky to fetch a grand, but I agree with your sentiment Leakie, the bailiff is there to give the debtor hell and force a payment end of, I still think they are not appropriate in the 21st Century.

 

Funnily enough if they wanted to clamp stuff there are actually 60 cars here

they could've clamped because I live in a bungalow on an industrial site incorporating a used car sales business which belongs to my landlord

 

 

so my property is literally surrounded by at least over £90,000 worth of cars .

..none of the vehicles are mine obviously but this, as previously outlined, seems to be irrelevant as they can just seize anything outside my house and I then have to later prove the property is not mine.

..so if it was property they wanted..

.there was plenty.

 

 

I feel they were simply intent on intimidation for instant payment which was eventually elicited under duress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me about it Bn 6 months for payment from council , any excuse not to pay.

To the Op

I think you have been hard done by.you offered goods for control to give a breathing space.

thing are getting out of hand with some EA;s but not all

the bad ones need to be got shot of .

this will not happen until things change, if they will be changed, is a different story

 

Funnily enough if they wanted to clamp stuff there are actually 60 cars here they could've clamped because I live in a bungalow on an industrial site incorporating a used car sales business which belongs to my landlord so my property is literally surrounded by at least over £90,000 worth of cars ...none of the vehicles are mine obviously but this, as previously outlined, seems to be irrelevant as they can just seize anything outside my house and I then have to later prove the property is not mine...so if it was property they wanted...there was plenty. I feel they were simply intent on intimidation for instant payment which was eventually elicited under duress.

 

This is my point in an earlier post.

it should not be for the debtor to prove.

The EA should do his/her home work first. then no probs. why should a third party do a section 85 when they are an innocent party, being deprived of goods for the sake of some one else's problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leakie, they do it because they can, and hope the third party is so intimidated that they just let the goods go. Lord Denning wanted rid of "Enforcement" in the 1980's and I cannot discgree with the logic, apart from Councils etc who won't pay seem untouchable. Would love to send the bailiffs in to a council owing a bill. magicmart, bailiffs are a law unto themselves, or so they would like you to beleive. Your problem is you ignored all correspondence, resulting in a visit.

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

Going back to the subject of the Gold Chain & Rolex.

 

The EA is not a jeweller & does not carry anything that will tell him if the hallmarks - if present - are genuine or what grade of gold it is. As for the watch then if he is not an expert he could easily have seized a genuine fake brought back from one of Turkeys markets worth £50 or so - no offence intended. Would not have been worth risking an Interpleader claim for these.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for how all this arose then yes the OP may be guilty of ignoring all letters/notices but if has definite proof they did not own the vehicle at the time they should in my view pay up first - to stop further enforcement - the get it taken back to Court & if found in their favour would have all fees reimbursed.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for how all this arose then yes the OP may be guilty of ignoring all letters/notices but if has definite proof they did not own the vehicle at the time they should in my view pay up first - to stop further enforcement - the get it taken back to Court & if found in their favour would have all fees reimbursed.

 

 

Thanks for your input...I have paid in full...and the only way I can prove I wasn't the owner at the time of the offence is to contact the new owner. How would I get this back to Court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the subject of the Gold Chain & Rolex.

 

The EA is not a jeweller & does not carry anything that will tell him if the hallmarks - if present - are genuine or what grade of gold it is. As for the watch then if he is not an expert he could easily have seized a genuine fake brought back from one of Turkeys markets worth £50 or so - no offence intended. Would not have been worth risking an Interpleader claim for these.

 

The 60 cars outside my house were very real.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But not reasonably believed to be yours .....

 

 

Little bit of a sigh here...not reasonably believed to be mine didn't stop them wanting to remove items that my partner had receipts to prove were hers as quite a few were bought through her eBay account with Paypal/Credit Card receipts to prove apart from the TV which came free with a mobile phone contract 7 years ago...of which she still has a copy of the original documentation relating to it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Little bit of a sigh here...not reasonably believed to be mine didn't stop them wanting to remove items that my partner had receipts to prove were hers as quite a few were bought through her eBay account with Paypal/Credit Card receipts to prove apart from the TV which came free with a mobile phone contract 7 years ago...of which she still has a copy of the original documentation relating to it

 

The bailiff can remove cars that belong to you. I did ask yesterday how much both cars are roughly worth and whether they are both yours ?

 

How much was the debt at the time of the visit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Little bit of a sigh here...not reasonably believed to be mine didn't stop them wanting to remove items that my partner had receipts to prove were hers as quite a few were bought through her eBay account with Paypal/Credit Card receipts to prove apart from the TV which came free with a mobile phone contract 7 years ago...of which she still has a copy of the original documentation relating to it

 

Little bit of a sigh indeed.

All they'd have to do is say that it was their reasonable belief, and the number of cars outside made the difference.

 

You'd struggle to show it wasn't their reasonable belief.

Just because you aren't hearing the answers you'd hoped for (bearing in mind this was a criminal court's fine, you aren't saying that they didn't follow procedure [including "further steps" notification]) doesn't mean you can take action against them.

 

Condone their behaviour? No.

However, not condoning it isn't the same as saying "Here is what they have done wrong that you can pull them up on".

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bailiff can remove cars that belong to you. I did ask yesterday how much both cars are roughly worth and whether they are both yours ?

 

How much was the debt at the time of the visit?

 

I won't use the exact figure in case Marstons are snooping but we shall call it just under £700. Both cars are mine...and whilst they refused the 2 I offered as they were pre 2008, they wanted the keys to my partner's 2002 Audi and insisted on seeing the logbook that proved it was hers???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Little bit of a sigh indeed.

All they'd have to do is say that it was their reasonable belief, and the number of cars outside made the difference.

 

You'd struggle to show it wasn't their reasonable belief.

Just because you aren't hearing the answers you'd hoped for (bearing in mind this was a criminal court's fine, you aren't saying that they didn't follow procedure [including "further steps" notification]) doesn't mean you can take action against them.

 

Condone their behaviour? No.

However, not condoning it isn't the same as saying "Here is what they have done wrong that you can pull them up on".

 

No...all answers are gratefully received and appreciated. I know these guys overstepped the mark...I'm a fool for not videoing the entire event but more of a fool for ignoring a simple letter that would've prevented all of this from happening and wouldn't have cost me a single penny. What I really want to know now is now that I have paid in full how to get this back to Court if I can prove I didn't own the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence

Link to post
Share on other sites

As this relates to a DVLA imposed penalty enforced via Magistrates, the easiest way would be to forward this proof to DVLA, with an explanation of why the change of ownership was not advised to them. No doubt DVLA can then ask the courts to revoke the fine and Marstons would then be told to refund what was paid.

 

There is probably a court process, but that usually means paying fees and DVLA would get involved anyway. So the shortcut is get the proof to DVLA and see how they want to resolve this.

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

As this relates to a DVLA imposed penalty enforced via Magistrates, the easiest way would be to forward this proof to DVLA, with an explanation of why the change of ownership was not advised to them. No doubt DVLA can then ask the courts to revoke the fine and Marstons would then be told to refund what was paid.

 

There is probably a court process, but that usually means paying fees and DVLA would get involved anyway. So the shortcut is get the proof to DVLA and see how they want to resolve this.

 

DVLA Response;

 

Dear Mr *******

 

Thank you for your email received on 5/1/17. Your email reference number is *******.

 

If a DVLA enforcement has now been passed to the courts, you will no longer be able to appeal the penalty directly with the DVLA. If you wish to appeal you will need to follow the instructions provided on your court letter.

 

If you wish to pay an out of court settlement, you can contact the DVLA's Enforcement Centre on the telephone number provided below. You will only be able to do this if you call before the court date on the letter.

 

DVLA Enforcement Centre Tel: 0300 790 6808

Opening Hours: Mon to Fri 09:00am - 17:00pm

 

Do not reply to this email. If you wish to contact us again about this response then please use our Reply Form or copy and paste the following URL in to your browser:

https://emaildvla.direct.gov.uk/emaildvla/cegemail/dvla/en/reply_form_vehicles.html

 

When filling in the form the email reference number ******** will be required.

 

Regards

 

E Labuda

DVLA Contact Centre

Link to post
Share on other sites

No...all answers are gratefully received and appreciated. I know these guys overstepped the mark...I'm a fool for not videoing the entire event but more of a fool for ignoring a simple letter that would've prevented all of this from happening and wouldn't have cost me a single penny.

 

What I really want to know now is now that I have paid in full how to get this back to Court if I can prove I didn't own the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence

 

Personally, I do not think that the enforcement agent overstepped the mark. As I have said before, when warrant enforcement gets to this very late stage, then full payment is required. If the debt was for around £800 then the bailiff would be looking to secure assets in excess of everyday value of £5,000. That is a fact.

 

Coming back to the important point which is.....how to resolve this matter and get the criminal conviction removed (and the money already paid refunded.

 

The only route is by way of a Statutory Declaration (under Section 14 of the Magistrates Courts Act). Being brutally honest, you will probably face hurdles, but I will explain.

 

A statutory declaration should be submitted within 21 days of 'becoming aware' of the conviction. In your case, this date should be from the date that you received the letter from the court (presumably the Notice of Fine/Collection Order). If you had not received that notice, then it would be from the date that you received the Further Steps Notice.

 

You can apply for a Statutory Declaration 'out of time' (past the 21 day period) but you will be required to outline the reason for the delay.

 

A little know fact about a Section 14 Statutory Declaration is that when applying for the Declaration you MUST include with your declaration, notification as to how you intend to plead.

 

If your application is submitted by post (which I never advise), then you will be notified of a new trial date by post.

 

If you make an appointment to the Magistrates Court for your Statutory Declaration to be heard, then in almost all cases, the application for the Statutory Declaration will be heard first and the case against you will be heard again on the same day and at the same hearing.

 

If you submit a 'non guilty' plea with your Statutory Declaration, then a new trial date will be set and you will be notified by post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I do not think that the enforcement agent overstepped the mark. As I have said before, when warrant enforcement gets to this very late stage, then full payment is required. If the debt was for around £800 then the bailiff would be looking to secure assets in excess of everyday value of £5,000. That is a fact.

 

Coming back to the important point which is.....how to resolve this matter and get the criminal conviction removed (and the money already paid refunded.

 

The only route is by way of a Statutory Declaration (under Section 14 of the Magistrates Courts Act). Being brutally honest, you will probably face hurdles, but I will explain.

 

A statutory declaration should be submitted within 21 days of 'becoming aware' of the conviction. In your case, this date should be from the date that you received the letter from the court (presumably the Notice of Fine/Collection Order). If you had not received that notice, then it would be from the date that you received the Further Steps Notice.

 

You can apply for a Statutory Declaration 'out of time' (past the 21 day period) but you will be required to outline the reason for the delay.

 

A little know fact about a Section 14 Statutory Declaration is that when applying for the Declaration you MUST include with your declaration, notification as to how you intend to plead.

 

If your application is submitted by post (which I never advise), then you will be notified of a new trial date by post.

 

If you make an appointment to the Magistrates Court for your Statutory Declaration to be heard, then in almost all cases, the application for the Statutory Declaration will be heard first and the case against you will be heard again on the same day and at the same hearing.

 

If you submit a 'non guilty' plea with your Statutory Declaration, then a new trial date will be set and you will be notified by post.

 

Thank you. Do I send this Statutory Declaration to the original Court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also...does anyone have a Template for this Statutory Declaration as the only one I can find online wants £15 for unlimited access to all his templates

 

You need to contact the issuing court. If you call the court and get an appointment for a Statutory Declaration, you should be given a date over the telephone. You will then have the time between now and the appointment date to get the necessary documentation from DVLA that you will require for the re-trial.

 

When you attend the court on the date given, the court will provide you with a Statutory Declaration for you to complete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UB's advice is worth a punt, as DVLA are the instigators , if no joy maybe pass the sorry tale to Watchdog, who have past form for hounding the DVLA.

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

Some good advice here:

It may assist you to know that one proviso when using force to gain entry is that the court will expect that force is only used in cases where the enforcement agent is satisfied that the debtor is inside the property and refusing to make payment.

Given the circumstances, not quite congruent with:

Personally, I do not think that the enforcement agent overstepped the mark.

Why aren't we revolting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good advice here:

quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bailiff Advice viewpost-right.png

It may assist you to know that one proviso when using force to gain entry is that the court will expect that force is only used in cases where the enforcement agent is satisfied that the debtor is inside the property and refusing to make payment.

Given the circumstances, not quite congruent with:

quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bailiff Advice viewpost-right.png

Personally, I do not think that the enforcement agent overstepped the mark.

 

 

I was outside the house not inside...was trying to negotiate with them then I hear my partner screaming in terror. If the debtor is outside the house and not refusing payment then I do believe there was wrongdoing done on the part of the EAs

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...