Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes I think you should simply go ahead and apply for a warrant and execute it. In terms of further damages for distress, I agree that it is a continuing breach but on the other hand you have had damages for distress up until X X date (I can't remember when) so you are now applying for damages for distress from that date. I think probably £200 is a reasonable figure. I certainly agree that the continuation of their breach tends to compound their responsibility but we aren't really trying to get money out of them, we are trying to prove a point. Up to you – but I would have thought that £200 would be reasonable. Don't forget that when we finally get the information we need and they eventually put their hands up to their error, you will be looking at something quite substantially more and there will be the further question of the inaccurate processing of your data which itself is a serious matter in addition to the damage which it has caused.  
    • Well paying nothing would obviously appeal!   Yeah one was definitely 1990' as it was previously the Egg card and other I think was also 90's but could have been 2000's
    • Who says you have to pay anything? When were the cards taken out..very pre 2000 even 1990's i bet!
    • I think now is the time to assemble a list of all the losses which have been incurred as a result of this. So were talking about the wasted money on the lease, the cost of repairs – and any ancillary expenses associated with alternative transport. Of course it would be a prudent thing to just double check the terms and conditions so that we don't end up with egg on our faces. But if everything pans out then the chances of success, if you decide to make a County Court claim, are extremely high
    • For future reference, I think I would have simply made the car available to them for collection on the due date.  If it was undrivable because the clutch was shot after 32k miles I'd have let them sort it out and if they wanted to claim the repair costs back from me I'd have said "See you in court".  [EDIT:  Cross-posted with dx - he's right...]   Also for future reference, if you had somebody advising you to lease an Evoque without covering service charges - when you could have done -  I'd think twice before using them again, and if I did decide to use them again I'd think a third time.   Also you said you've not had use of the car for 14 - 15 weeks but have continued to pay for it.  Why pay for a car when the lease has ended and it's undrivable anyway?  Is this because you made the mistake of not ensuring they had it back at the start of October?
  • Our picks

    • 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
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 830 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

After Marston's have lost the MOJ contract for magistrates court fines enforcement,they have just started a liquidation process on a few of the company's under the umbrella.

My heart bleeds

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to the appropriate forum.

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 The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which companies do you mean?

Are they ones not showing as in liquidation now?

I can only see 8 companies of which he's been a director that have been put into liquidation and those are all Members Voluntary Liquidations which are not connected to lack of money, it is just a method of bringing a company to an end when it has fullfilled its function. A declaration of solvency has to be filed in such liquidations (Insolvency Act 1986 sections 89 and 90.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So people liquidate viable solvent companies because they have got bored of them then. My observation on these things is that directors keep the multiple companies running even if their turnover is only a couple of quid a year so they can hide their money there if needs be. Also handy for taking out second mortgages on premises etc. In short, winding up a company isnt a method of first resort.

Edited by Andyorch
Typos
Link to post
Share on other sites
My observation on these things is that directors keep the multiple companies running even if their turnover is only a couple of quid a year so they can hide their money there if needs be. Also handy for taking out second mortgages on premises etc.

 

Keeping a Limited Company open when it is has a turnover of a 'couple of quid' a year is simply barmy. There would still have to be audit reports etc and other regulatory company returns and the accountancy fees alone would not be cheap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are closing company's because they have lost the moj contract. 150 employee redundant and halved the self employed enforcement agents

Link to post
Share on other sites

you get small co exemptions so you dont need to file full accounts etc.

loom at the history of directorships for the person who runs London Pumps. has more than 10 other co's just sitting idle with shared mortgages on the same property just waiting for one co to fail so he can shovel the assets down the line.

No need to phoenix then, just use a differetn letterhead.

Keeping a Limited Company open when it is has a turnover of a 'couple of quid' a year is simply barmy. There would still have to be audit reports etc and other regulatory company returns and the accountancy fees alone would not be cheap.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Which companies do you mean?

Are they ones not showing as in liquidation now?

I can only see 8 companies of which he's been a director that have been put into liquidation and those are all Members Voluntary Liquidations which are not connected to lack of money, it is just a method of bringing a company to an end when it has fullfilled its function. A declaration of solvency has to be filed in such liquidations (Insolvency Act 1986 sections 89 and 90.)

 

They would hardly have invoked this "method" if this profitable contract had been awarded, as sgt bush says. Or are you saying that these reductions would have taken place anyway?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...