Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • and as expected   UK rejects mobility agreement with Europe to help young people travel and live abroad WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Labour also rejected the possibility of an EU-wide scheme for young people a Government spokesperson said there was no interest from the UK side, adding that “free movement (for UK plebs) within the EU was ended”.
    • Yep, I agree with what you are saying, I only mentioned the governing body code of practice as a nod to the fact that I wasn't dismissing the BPA or whoever out of hand, thought that would go in my favour before a judge. I wrote a long post about the BPA CoP earlier but then deleted it because I realised I wasn't talking about points of law but a set of guidelines drawn up by one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans. It is ludicrous that the 5 minute consideration period doesn't apply if the motorist parks, such nonsense. As for legislation, I was referring to the government legislation (if it is legislation?) document which has been withdrawn. Does that stand until it has been reintroduced? In the explanatory document it is quite clear. Otherwise, how does one hold them to the consideration and grace periods? Or is that at the discretion of the judge?
    • Thank you all   JK, I agree; if they were to accept my full claim today, then the interest would be around 8-9 pounds. If I were them, I would have offered to pay the interest and said no to the 12 pounds for the letters. These have not been mentioned, which is my mistake.   As you pointed out, if the judge were to award at 4% and I did not get the letters, I would get less.   Bank, thank you. I do hear what you are saying. If I am to continue with this, then I will need to pay an additional trial fee of £59. If I win everything, then great, but if I win less the claim and court fee, then I lose out. I am not sure what the judge will think about the interest. I think we have to remember that I won the item and, therefore, did not pay a penny for it. Yes, I have had to purchase an additional one, but maybe the judge will hold this against me. I am content that this is a win. I have not signed any non-disclosure clauses, and they do not ask for this either in their offer. 
    • Are you saying that both businesses were closed? Yet you stayed there for over two hours. . If both were closed than to charge £100 is a penalty since Horizon had no legitimate interest in keeping spaces clear for the company. sake as there were no customers..
  • 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

Prestiege Finance - Arrears / Possession Issues


Racheltigerpaws
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2527 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

The hearing is for them to explain why they want to use the previous suspended order, it's not an eviction hearing and possession will not be ordered at their hearing. The judge will listen to their reasons and decide whether they can use the old order or that they have to start new possession proceedings.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - I am still a little confused - the original possession order was dated 15th March 2011 and so letter from their solicitor stated they were asking for permission to enforce the possession order due to the fact that it was over six years old.

 

Had a letter from the court dated 4th April 2017

 

1 in accordance with CPR 83.2.3(a) the Claimant has permission to enforce the possession order dated 15th March 2011 and be at liberty to issue a warrant of possession.

 

2 The possession order dated 15th March 2011 remains enforceable without the need for further leave or order of the Court for a period of 6 years from the date of this Order

 

3 The Order dated 21st March 2017 be set aside.

 

 

I then received a letter from their solicitor saying we have received our clients instructions to issue a warrant of possession . This means the Court will now allocate a date on which the bailiff will attend the property (letter dated 21st April 2017).

 

Then I have received this letter this letter saying that the application is listed for hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will have realised that the original order is more than 6 years old and they cannot just use it straight away to seek possession, that is why they have applied to the court for permission.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok it just seemed to me from the first court letter that they had been granted permission to enforce possession and that the next step was an eviction notice - it also seemed that was what was happening when I received their solicitors letter of 21st April - i was confused as to why there would be a hearing - I was expecting a straight out eviction notice

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how to explain it any different to what I have already posted - if you are still unsure give the court office a ring, they will be able to tell you what's happening (the court office staff are usually very nice).

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Ell-enn you are coming across clearly - I guess my confusion is coming from the fact that both the lender and the solicitor are intimating that eviction is imminent - from what you are saying they have to have permission as the original is over six years old and that is what the hearing is for - I assume this will be granted as although the amount of arrears is reducing I have missed payments and once granted then they will go for eviction.

 

I have been advised in the hearing letter that I should attend and I will but I sense that I won't have to say anything as I'm not really defending anything ? is that about right ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

did you get that sar sent off?

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

You could submit a payment plan to the hearing and point out that the lender has waited a very long time to bring this back to court which is unnecessary.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a different lender from the original possession hearing and a different one from when they tried to evict in 2014 - loan keeps getting passed on - these have only had it since December 2015 - arrears stood at £2321 when they took it on and by time I go to court on 22nd May they will be at £1370

Link to post
Share on other sites

then nothing[previous court claims etc] is in their name and they can do stuff all?

 

are you being had here?

 

from a very old post..

 

Sorry no it was a consolidation loan taken out in 2009 with Ocean Money then transferred to Reliance and finally transferred to Prestige in December 2015 - one loan three different lenders have owned it

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

nice of you to let us know...

 

 

now, did you get the sar running today?

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

have you got the sar running yet?

 

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...

and?

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

No not as yet

- I need to see what happens on Monday first

- their solicitor has said Mondays hearing is to consider their clients request for a warrant of possession - upon the outcome of the hearing an eviction date may be set

- I am so sorry but I can't think about anything else till I get the hearing over with

- its on my mind constantly :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

for more than a month now you been advised numerous times to get an sar running

that might have well provided useful information to blow the repo out the water.........

 

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...