Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

Harlands - the best way to do it (in my opinion)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2518 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

My son was billed by Harlands for a cancelled DD and an admin fee. I did not want to get into copious amounts of correspondence with them over the issue, so I advised him to pay the £39 claimed.

 

I then issued a Moneyclaim online summons to Harlands for the £39 plus the court fee. They did not bother to defend and a judgement was entered against them.

 

A final letter to them advising that if they did not pay the judgement within 14 days a bailiff would be appointed at a further cost of £77 plus bailiffs fee. Within 48 hours they had paid in full.

 

If ever I have a dispute with a company, I always pay in full to avoid any possible credit rating issues, and then retrospectively sue.

 

To me, this is easier than entering into months of fruitless correspondence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's cost you more than ignoring

Which you should have done

So they won really

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

Well that's cost you more than ignoring

Which you should have done

So they won really

 

 

How come? It did not cost me anything (other than two stamps) and I have the satisfaction of knowing that they had a judgement issued against them, all be it will show as settled, but it will still show.

 

 

I am not one for doing nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they paid within 28 days they wont have any judgement showing,. Which means you have wasted your time and money

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi LYD and I like your style !!

 

We're always on the lookout for folk who want to take Harlands to court for harassment but most tend to ignore them instead.

 

Harlands will not have the CCJ registered against them as they settled in full within the 28 days allowed.

 

This would never have affected your credit rating but you certainly have the pleasure of having taken them to court and winning.

 

The £39 that YS initially paid - how was this made up ?

 

:-)

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

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Slick132.

 

 

I have found the other comments to be quite negative. What some of the more experienced 'members' on here should understand is that some people are not happy to 'front it out' and just ignore the letters. For those that are, then that is great, just do nothing and bin their letters, but for those that are not, or who are in dispute with another Business, where ignoring letters can affect your credit rating, this is a perfectly acceptable solution.

 

 

It is all very well members saying 'this will not affect your credit rating', but sometimes things can. My wife and myself have an impeccable credit rating (I was a bank manager for 30 years) and moved in 2015. We applied for a small capital raising mortgage on our property to help our daughter buy a property. We needed the funds urgently as she was a cash buyer and needed to prove she had the funds. We applied through Santander where we have a select account, but we failed their credit score and was turned down. When we checked with Experian, some muppet at Virgin Media had not cleared an amount of about £13 from our old property (they had a direct debit set up and could have collected it any time) and after 3 mnths it had gone into default. Luckily, after a call to the VM Chief Exec complaints team, it was sorted, and they contacted Experian to expunge our credit rating, and paid us compensation. They also sent a letter to Santander apologising and confirming it was all their fault. We did eventually get the funds, but it was a close call.

 

 

As mentioned previously, I would rather pay up front and 'claim' it back through MCO. This way, whoever the Company, it cannot affect your credit rating. The number of 'youngsters' I came across in the bank who were applying for a mortgage, who were turned down due to an issue with a mobile phone company, and they would always say ' I disputed the amount of the bill so I did not pay it'............and not paying that £50 bill stopped them getting the mortgage.

 

 

The £39 was made up of a monthly payment of £14 and a 'missed payment admin charge' of £25. Because they refused to admit him to the Gym as they said he had not completed a health questionnaire (after going for 10 months) I argued they had broken their own contract so a verbal cancellation was sufficient, therefore he did not need to give 30 days notice. As the judgement was issued in default as they never submitted a defence, I do not know whether this would have held up, although I doubt due to the cost, they would have ever taken it to a hearing.

 

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theyre not negative. They are opinions and factual. But just like you have expressed yours, we can express ours providing they are not incorrect or abusive.

 

As fo ryou saying they can affect your credit rating... sorry. It wont unless they go to court and win a CCJ AND you fail to pay within 28 days.

 

Harlands dont do court as it will show up their unlawful charges and business practice. It's also likely why they never defended your claim and paid within 28 days.

 

They might be a very shady company but theyre not daft.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

your instance, littleyellowduck is very small potato's, and it does cost, the £39 already paid.

and i'm not sure what bailiffs you are intending to employ but you cant employ HCEO's its below their £600 threshold?

 

 

i'm also not happy with the general advise people pay whats owed and then goto court.

simply to keep a clean file.

dispute the debt with the original providers as you did.

 

 

some mobile debts that we and you have seen that prevent mortgages etc are several £100's

that might not even be legally owed re unfair till end of contract sums.

 

 

we don't advocate ignoring and binning the letters either.

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

Hi LYD,

 

We're all entitled to our opinions and, what works for one person won't work for another.

 

I take your point about CRA's but we know that gym m/ships have not been reported by CRA's since 2011 when the OFT took AMSL to the High Court.

 

Ignoring Harlands/CRS demands means they make demands and harass members for many months and you avoided this by the action you took, which makes sense to me.

 

Out of interest, could you kindly confirm the PoC you used on the claim form N1.

 

Thanks :-)

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

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...