Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2624 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 have just received through the post a Notice of Enforcement (from Merton Enforcement Agents).

 

It relates to an (unspecified) traffic offence in July 2016

which although I cannot recall committing I probably did as I was in that area on the day in question,

probably caught on camera for something

(it would not have been a parking offence as I was only passing through).

 

I have no previous communication relating to this matter from the Borough of Merton: no tickets, no reminders, no recorded post.

 

The amount owed from the original offence (which I presume would have been around £80?) has now escalated to £278!

 

The Notice of Enforcement contains no details of how I can appeal, only the Enforcement Agents contact details.

 

I plan to call them to explain the circumstances.

 

Is this the right thing to do?

And if, as I suspect, I'm told

"sorry mate matters have gone too far you'll have to pay the full whack.

Where do I go from there?

 

Any advice very much appreciated. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you should have received numerous previous letters

why did you not get them

and its taken a bailiff to find your correct address?

 

 

is your car registered at an old address?

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

can I just check this is def merton not marstons bailiffs?

 

 

if its mertons - the offence was in the Sutton area, as they are the councils in house bailiffs

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 bet this is a box junction offence

[very well known on this forum]

 

 

contacted the Council first thing tomorrow,

tell them you've had no paperwork until the bailiff

ask them the date of the contravention and the address they have for you.

 

They should then advise you to contact the TEC to fill out a TE9 and TE7 statements

 

the Council should also contacte the bailiffs and put them on hold for a period of time

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 just remember them from before

 

 

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-0964707606882478:652l7hswbgv&ie=UTF-8&q=merton+box+junction&sa=Search+CAG#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=merton%20box%20junction&gsc.page=1

 

 

so all is sorted them?

 

 

T7& & 9 are sorting the issue

and bailiffs are on hold?

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

Thanks for links dx100uk.

 

Yes, sorted at least in the short-term. Took the forms off to the County Court today. Encountered an army of Jobsworths but finally found someone who would sign them (they are now forms PE2 & PE3 by the way). Scanned them and emailed them back to the TEC.

 

Intrigued as to what will happen next...

Link to post
Share on other sites

not my best subject sadly

but I see several of the knowledgeable ones have seen the thread

and made no bad comments so must have got it right...:lol:

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

The explanation I gave was that Merton had left off my apartment number from my address

(and by implication that someone else in my building may have picked the PCN up by accident).

 

 

To be honest I think this unlikely as I am on good terms with all other occupants of my residence.

 

 

So really I just don't know why I never received the PCN or any follow-up correspondence apart from the final Notice of Enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear!

 

 

I received a letter back from Northampton TEC saying my 'out of time' application (or whatever it's called) had been refused on account that I had not completed a P3 and only a P2 (or vice versa).

I was quite sure that I had.

 

 

To cut a long story short,

to be helpful and efficient I had scanned both P2 and P3 forms into a single document.

 

 

Whoever dealt with issue at the TEC either only spotted a single file attached to my email or opened the pdf attachment but couldn't be asked to scroll past the first page in order to view the second form.

 

 

They don't even have the facility to go back to my file and take another look

so I had to rescan the P2 and P3 into separate files and rescan them.

 

Moral of the story:

if sending forms back via email to a court:

mails each document as a separate file (forum members, you probably know this already...).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Last November I was succesful in my "Out of Time" application to Northampton TEC for a local authority PCN that I did not originally receive (only got the bailiff's letter!).

 

I recall that I was told over the 'phone by the TEC helpline that the local authority had 21 days to reissue the PCN.

 

I have just received the reissued PCN, obviously well outside this time limit.

 

Was I misinformed about the time limit? Or if not, Is the reissued PCN I have just received invalid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

HB, it is "related" to the thread you cite but I thought my query above was suffciently distinct that it merited a separate thread.

 

Apologies, if I have breached forum etiquette.

 

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

you wanted the clock resetting so they have started again. They can do this within 6 months of the original event so you will need to see if there is anything in law regarding other limits as this is determined by an appeal court decision rather than statute.

Appeal it to Sutton on these grounds and see what they say. They may well let it go to PATAS as they have nothing to lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The contravention date was 22/7/2016 the date of the reissued PCN was 23/1/2017.

 

By my reckoning that's 1 day in excess of 6 months!

 

However, I decided to pay the PCN. Do I now have grounds to recover my payment and if so how might I go about this?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify...

 

So, not even possible to attempt any form of civil recovery (small claim?) of the (presumed) incorrectly levied charge?

 

What if, hypothetically, one accidentally paid a PCN in error, (say you didn't check the photo graphic evidence before paying but later you realise it wasn't your car) then it's tough luck?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify...

 

So, not even possible to attempt any form of civil recovery (small claim?) of the (presumed) incorrectly levied charge? No

 

What if, hypothetically, one accidentally paid a PCN in error, (say you didn't check the photo graphic evidence before paying but later you realise it wasn't your car) then it's tough luck?

Yes
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...