Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Presumably you have received your own NIP/s172 request after the lease company identified you as the person the car is leased to?   First thing to say is that, regardless of any questions over the date of the first NIP, you must still reply to your own NIP/s172 within the time limit given otherwise you are committing an entirely separate and more serious offence than any speeding infringement.  If you were the driver you should nominate yourself.   You need to be careful arguing that the first NIP was not sent out in time.  Note that it is only the first NIP that is subject to the 14 day limit, and that NIP needs to go to the Registered Keeper.  There is no time limit on subsequent NIPs.   So are you 100% certain that your lease company is the registered keeper and do you know that for a fact?  Please note that the registered keeper of lease vehicles is often not the lease company, but a finance company.   If the police are saying that the first NIP was sent to the RK within the time limit, you can be 99.99999% certain that they will have evidence proving that fact.  Assuming it was sent out first-class, there is a legal presumption that it was delivered two working days after posting, unless the addressee can prove it was never received.  So if the police are saying the first NIP was sent out within 12 days, the RK would have to prove it was never received within 14 days to provide a defence.  As you might imagine, that is very difficult to prove otherwise everybody would claim it.  Unfortunately, "reminder" NIPs are usually not marked as such and may be indistinguishable from the original.   So you need to confirm (preferably by sight of a copy of the actual V5C document as staff of lease companies do not always know) who the Registered Keeper is, and when they recived the first NIP.  If it was received after 14 days can they prove that fact (eg by a date received stamp and an appropriate system for dealing with mail received) and can they prove that they didn't receive an earlier NIP?   Hope that makes sense!  If it doesn't another poster called Man in the Middle will clarify what I 've not explained well or got wrong.
    • Simply confirming no mediation and the claim is proceeding to allocation.   Andy
    • Thanks for the swift response. Will continue to read around.   I have a date of march 10.
    • First of all, they always say that you should be prepared to give up ground. If you are convinced as to your rights in the matter – and we certainly are – then there is no reason for you to give up any ground at all. You may come under pressure to give up ground – but you don't have to concede any ground. The benefit to Hermes is that they don't end up going to court so that they are spared extra expense and also there are spared the embarrassment of a judgement against them. When you are given the mediation date, then let us know and then we will go through it with you. However, read up on all of the threads in this sub- forum. You will find exactly your situation have occurred several times and have already gone to mediation and you will find that we have already given explanations on each one of the points. Familiarise yourself with the stories and the principles involved. When you get your mediation date then come back here and let us know.
    • I have read the page on mediation, but wanted to clarify a few details.   I have been given an arranged time for the mediation call. The email from the court states:   "for mediation to be successful, you would need to be willing to negotiate on the amount of the claim and have a degree of flexibility".   Should I have to give up ground? At this stage, I feel I am owed what I have lost, and what the claim has cost me, not to mention my time. The email says if you aren't willing then mediation is unsuitable.   It then also suggests:   "It is crucial that you are able to briefly and accurately explain your claim or defence. It is vital that you have prepared for the mediation by putting together a brief summary of your opening position. Only the key points are necessary at this stage as the longer the time taken discussing the disputed issues will reduce the time available for exploring settlement options."   I am of course aware of my opening position - that they were negligent and lost my item and thus I believe I am due recompense. However, I am not certain of the legal particulars of my argument.   Furthermore:   - Should I mention that the defendant may not wish to proceed to court as it may support a precedent for others in a similar situation to also claim against them? - Are there any other things I should be mentioning to the mediator?   Appreciate the guidance.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Receivers appointed and are asking me to remove my belongings from the property - residential property


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 978 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I defaulted on a bridging loan and Receivers have been appointed. They have secured the property (changed the locks) and have asked me to book a time to remove my belongings (Torts Notice served).

 

The property was and is my home and my only home but I have not lived there since taking out the bridging loan is because the loan was unregulated and I did not want to be in breach of the terms. However, it was never rented out; in fact, I never removed my belongings from the property.

 

I have never desired to be landlord and the only reason for taking out the loan was to keep my home. This was declared to the lender from the very beginning; nonetheless, the product offered to me was an unregulated loan. As I was not eligible for a mortgage at the time and it was very unlikely that I would be by the end of the loan term, sale was my only option of exit strategy. This was a better option than having the property repossessed.

 

The Receivers have said I must either remove my belongings or pay for storage. I have not abandoned my belongings or “left them behind”. I am in the process of remortgaging and they are aware of this, as I have kept them informed. The mortgage has been agreed subject to valuation which is due tomorrow. Can they force me to empty the property?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Your being forced into bankruptcy if the recievers are in and changed the locks.

Bridging loans are always secured in property as they "bridge" between mortgages.

Its of no concern that you never let the property.

You say you were not eligible for a mortgage but you took the bridging loan out to stop a repossession but are now re-mortgaging.

I think you were in financial difficulty and obviously used this to be a stop gap but defaulted.

The loan was not unregulated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Yes. Your being forced into bankruptcy if the recievers are in and changed the locks.

Bridging loans are always secured in property as they "bridge" between mortgages.

Its of no concern that you never let the property.

You say you were not eligible for a mortgage but you took the bridging loan out to stop a repossession but are now re-mortgaging.

I think you were in financial difficulty and obviously used this to be a stop gap but defaulted.

The loan was not unregulated.

 

 

Thanks for the response. You have answered my question as to whether or not they can force me to empty the property. However, in response to your comments

 

 

  1. This has nothing to do with bankruptcy. They have not presented a bankruptcy petition to the courts and there is no reason for them to. They will simply sell the property to recover what I owe.
  2. I "was" in financial difficulty. I experienced a setback from which I have since recovered, and as you have said, used the bridge as a stop gap.
  3. The bridging loan I got was definitely unregulated. I know the difference.

 

Anyway, the Receivers confirmed in writing that the reason they wanted my belongings removed was so as not to void their insurance and not for any other reason. They said they could give me some time but I can't leave them indefinitely and asked for timescales wrt remortgaging. Valuation has gone to the lender, solicitors have been instructed and the Receivers are no longer putting pressure on me to remove my things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...