Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks @lolerz. I've attached it to the post. What do you think? What's the organ grinder? NTK.pdf
    • I'm afraid that if the value of the item was under declared then that is probably the best that you can hope for. Also, because the item was incorrectly addressed – even by a single letter, if that because the issue relating to the delivery then that has probably compounded the problem. There is probably very little that can be done. If you are lucky you will get the item back and then you can start again and declare it properly. Undervaluing parcels which are sent by any means is always going to cause a problem if the item is lost or damaged. It may mean that the cost of delivery is slightly less – but at the end of the day the risk becomes yours. When you enter into any kind of contract, effectively you declare it a level of risk to your contracting partner – and they decide to enter into the contract with you based on that level of risk. You have declared a level of risk and £50 – and that's the deal.   Additionally, undervaluing an item which is an internationally has the effect also of evading customs and any VAT system which is in force in that country – and that makes the whole thing a little bit more serious
    • Perfect. Nice and brief and to the point. You don't bother to start telling your life story. Just the way it should be. Send it off. You have probably done enough reading to understand that it won't make any difference don't start drafting your particulars of claim. Open an account with the MoneyClaim County Court system and start preparing. Post your particulars of claim here before you click it off. You may have noticed that at some point you will be asked if you want to go to mediation on this. We used to advise it but now we recommend that you decline mediation and go to trial. Your chances of success are much better than 95%. Going to trial will incur an additional hearing fee but of course you will get that back. However if you go to mediation, they will simply try to penny pinch and to get you to compromise and also they will sign you up to a confidentiality agreement and probably threaten you if you breach it. Not only that, if the mediation fails because you stand your ground, it will add additional delay while they then give you a date to go to trial. The best thing to do is to decline mediation – prepare for court hearing. Pay the extra fee. The chances are that rather than get a judgement against them they will then offer you a full settlement rather than go to court. If they do offer you full settlement then you will be obliged to accept it – but that's what you want. If they don't offer you full settlement then you will go to trial and there will be a judgement against them. Just so that you understand, our first interest is that you get your money back – but a close second is that it does go to trial and there is a judgement which we will then be able to use to help other people. Anyway as you should realise, we will help you all the way.
    • I sent a parcel to Singapore but i spelt the address incorrecltly by 1 letter so the parcel couldnt be delivered and was returned back to the Uk but checking the tracking today the parcel had returned to the UK but is somehow on its way back to Singapore as the tracking says "Item leaving the UK"    Ive spoken ( tweeted) Royal Mail help who confirm that the parcel seems to be going back to Singapore and that if its not " Delivered" by the 29th of April theyll deem it as lost and will accept a claim but i cant remeber when booking what the compensation amount was but i dont think it covers the amount of the item.  As it was my fault that it wasnt delivered in the first place can i trey and claim the full amount back ? i think if i remember correctly it was £50 compensation but the item was £170 So the timeline is thus ...   22nd Of March .    Booked via P2G & dropped off a Post Office.  25th March arrives in Singapore and goes through customs ect ect 26th   Incorrect address and item is flagged as "return to sender" 28th Item leaves Overseas intenational processing centre 15th of April , Item is leaving the Uk (Again)   ?    
    • Post the NTK up here for the regulars to double-check. I highly doubt it's compliant with POFA though. Ignore the deforestation that comes unless it's ever a letter of claim. Any luck with the organ grinder?
  • 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

Can bailiffs find out this


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2565 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 noticed on that TV program with bailiffs that they can in find out if there is HP on a car.

 

 

Can they also find out who owns a car by its number plate reg?

 

 

I have noticed on the same progam they don't seem to 'know' or be able to find out who actually owns cars they suspect are owned by the debtor,

 

 

they seem to make a pure specualtive assumption the debtor owns a car & clamp the car without formal confirmation it is owned by the debtor.......thanks

Edited by Caz16
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a fairly simple matter for a bailiff to request details of the registered keeper from DVLA. BUT the registered keeper may not be the same person as the legal owner (and there is a difference).

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so whats this to do with

got a council PCN then?

tell us the story

 

 

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

the HPI check is easy, several companies provide this service to anyone who pays a small fee so you should always do this before buying a secondhand car from anyone other than a reputable dealer. The DVLA check for a private individual would have to be done through the post but many bailiff companies belong to a scheme where they can get the details electronically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

many bailiff companies belong to a scheme where they can get the details electronically.

 

OK thanks,

I was (still am) curious as to why in the TV cases they seemed to need proof of ownership if someone other than the debtor says it is theirs & the debtor says its not his/hers,

 

 

at the end of the day if they took someone elses car they would be liable to a small claims court claim

 

Mr P wrote...."It would be a fairly simple matter for a bailiff to request details of the registered keeper from DVLA."

 

Well is there any reason you're aware of why in that TV program they have never been seen (by me) to do that,

yet every time they are threatening to to take one they always do a phone call check to see if its owned the a finance company.

 

As regards DVLA giving details to a bailiff,

MrP, that confounds me as well for the simple reason bailiffs are dealing with a civil law matter,

I would have thought DVLA would only divulge anything if criminal law was involved

Link to post
Share on other sites

the DVLA give out 10'000's of registered keeper details everyday to the private parking companies

(opps said owner..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

DVLA do not hold owner details. To my knowledge there's no such register in existence.

 

What you do is register yourself as the keeper - you may or may not own the car - no-one knows. When a PCN is issued, the Council can apply for keeper details and are legally entitled to hold the person they reasonably assume to be the owner, liable for the charge. By default, that's the registered keeper.

 

The keeper then has an opportunity to absolve themselves by demonstrating that they do not own the car. If they don't, then they remain liable for the PCN and associated charges. The council gives the vehicle details to the bailiff - the bailiff does not apply to DVLA again.

 

By the time bailiffs come around, it's still assumed that the keeper is also the owner. If bailiffs clamp a car, and you as the debtor don't own it, show them proof and they have to release it. They would still come after you to seize other property though, as the debt is with you.

 

So yes, if you let them remove the car without proving ownership, and it turned out to belong to someone else, you could sue them. And the judge would then want to know all the background, why the debt wasn't defended at the time, why you didn't show the council or bailiff the evidence you're about to present to the court, and so on. You're unlikely to get anything out of it to compensate for your inconvenience in losing use of the car. It's very rare things go that far, as it helps nobody to allow it to progress that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought DVLA would only divulge anything if criminal law was involved

 

Anyone can apply to the DVLA for details of the registered keeper of a vehicle. You only need to show reasonable cause for requesting the information, and it does not need to involve criminal law.

 

See: https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

looking at the replies so far I think I might not have written giving a clear understanding of what I mean & the replies seem to have mind that I am referring to a car which has some outstanding PCN unpaid tickets, if so thats not the case or what I meant.

 

I was thinking specifically of that program 'Cant Pay Take it Away'

- so from that, they are baliffs or high court enforcement,

 

 

I have seen many many times them asking people if they own this & that car to take it away & to auction to cover any debt.

 

 

I have only ever seen them finding out via a third party if a car is on HP & not once have I seen them actually get the name of the keeper from any source.

 

Looking at the gov link (thanks) Bailiffs after a debt are not included in some of the 'named' person types who may have reasonable cause, the sort of reasons they might which are listed are fall well outside 'civil law debt', plus, they have to write in to DVLA not just make a call,

 

 

anyone can apply but that cannot equate that with any baliff can find out who owns any car,

eg I might be visiting a friend, park my car in the driveway & the bailiffs think they can clamp it without establishing who the keeper/owner is, I/anyone, is allowed to use 'reasonable' force to protect my property ...

 

 

...any comments

Edited by Caz16
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jamberson

If bailiffs clamp a car, and you as the debtor don't own it, show them proof and they have to release it.

 

Caz

Yes it's that type of incident I have my mind, now, there is no way possible to prove I/you/the baliff/anyone does 'not own' anything, if you dont own something the person cannot show anything, so, surely a baliff or high court enforcement surely must have obtain evidence somehow, the are not issued with warrants or high court writs to collect anybody elses property & to do that they would have to have 'reasonable' evidence any goods belonged to the debtor, good heavens, if my next door neighbour owes money then high court enforcement come along & can clamp any non involved neighbours car because it was parked in the street on a residents parking space outside the debtors residence >an everyday occurance

 

The enforcement guys behaviour in that Cant Pay Take It Away program gives the impression that they can come along, point to any car in the street but close to the debtors property,. clamp it & take it away >quite legally

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I would caution against drawing any conclusions from TV shows. It's just entertainment.

 

Regarding the clamping of a car, no-one in their right mind would assume that a given car, which is not registered to the debtor, and has no connection to him/her, would be his or her personal property just because of where it is parked. That would not be reasonable grounds.

 

However if the debtor is the RK, that is reasonable. If it's not correct, the debtor would need to show that - eg paperwork from the employer if it's owned by the company, or purchase proof from the actual owner, along with a convicing explanation of why the debtor is the RK of someone else's car.

 

If your car was at risk over a debt which is nothing to do with you, which is very unlikely, you would only need to tell the bailiffs, show them your V5 and they would have no grounds whatsoever to keep it clamped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would caution against drawing any conclusions from TV shows. It's just entertainment.

 

Regarding the clamping of a car, no-one in their right mind would assume that a given car, which is not registered to the debtor, and has no connection to him/her, would be his or her personal property just because of where it is parked. That would not be reasonable grounds.

 

Yes your right, I know that TV show is entertainment, but, it has the by product of having some educational value & in any case that program is a bailliff/high court bias that must be the deal by the agencies involved.

 

Anyway, I might have a precedent of my own this year, I cant be the only one...........lol that will make the covert bailliffs etc on here put their probe clothes on:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...