Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • why not use our default holding/no paperwork defence in 100's of recent card claimform threads here already? not sure wherever you got that from but its not ours, not present day. dx    
    • This thread has been dawdling along for a year. We ask questions and we don't get any answers. Then the thread goes completely to sleep for about 10 months and we get a request today to reopen it and we are told that there is a court date in June – in just a few weeks. We would like to see please – the claim form in PDF format. The defence – in PDF format. Any documents which you have received and filled out such as directions questionnaires et cetera in PDF format. We also would like to see a comprehensive bullet pointed list of events – what you sent, when you sent it, the value of it, who do you send it to, was it properly declared, was the value properly declared – and any anything else you can think of. I think you need to realise that we are all volunteers here and we have our work cut out helping people who feel involved and committed to sorting out their problems. I'm sorry to say that the impression the moment is that you aren't really very interested. If you can't give us the information that I have asked above and also answer the other questions that I put to you probably a year ago, then I think that we may as well close the thread. I'm sorry you think I'm being tough – but this is a serious forum for serious legal advice. The people we advise on parcel delivery issues always get their money back but they have to take it as seriously as we do. It is not just a piece of social media. I'm closing the thread for the moment. If you have the information that we require then please use the report button and we will open the thread again so that you can post it up. Then we will be able to help you Thank you
    • after a lot o reading the following is my defence statement  as I understand it I need to respond to all points in the particulars   Any help would be appreciated  DEFENCE  1) aa claim for money , the burden of proof in any allegation to the amount of money claimed to be owed remains with the claimant . And be proved unless the defendant Denies it. I deny all allegations made by the claimant  Therefore, the Claimant Is required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed. The Claimants particulars of case  Does not give sufficient information to enable me to properly assess and defend the claim. 2)The Claimants particulars of claim states that the account was assigned from capital one to on 18/03/2021. I do not recall receiving notice of this assignment. A request for this has been under the consumer credit act to the claimant on17/05/2024 And I am awaiting a reply.  3) Similarly to the above point I do not recall being served with a Default notice by capital one as required by s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served on the Defendant And also required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it is in a prescribed form  A request under has been made to the claimant’s solicitor on 17/05:2024 under CPR 31:14 and I am waiting for a reply  4) The consumer credit act also makes it incumbent upon the creditor to send regular statement of accounts to a debtor. Again I do not recall receiving these A request for this information has also been made under CPR31:14 on 17/05/2024… and I am awaiting a reply 5) As no documents that have been requested from the claimant have yet been received by me I ask the court for more time to receive and inspect the documents and have the opportunity to mount a more thorough defence      
    • who did you put as the claimant? was it Parcel22Go.com we'll need theirs and your full WS too if they've been filed yet?
    • Hi everyone, I have a court hearing date scheduled for June regarding this case. The service in question is Evri International, which I booked through Interparcel. However, I am aiming to hold Parcel2Go.com (P2G) liable because they operated the Evri International service. The Evri International website, which is operated by Parcel2go.com Limited (with company number 02591405) under the Evri brand. Given that my booking was made through Interparcel and not directly with P2G, am I still in a position to take Parcel2Go to court? Any advice or insights would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
  • 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

Newlyn PLC - Disaster for Innocent Public

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2009 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Dear All,


In the Courts and Tribunals Act 2007, it is suggested that once a warrant is issued against the debtor for a parking offence, then the vehicle cannot be sold or disposed of prior to levy or removal, until the debt is cleared. This of course leaves innocent people like Ethel and Albert two pensioners, having purchased a vehicle from London with outstanding parking tickets in a terrible and disgusting position.


Along comes a bailiff with ANPR and removes the vehicle. The bailiff then states that the vehicle is subject to outstanding parking tickets, they will not return the vehicle until all the tickets are paid in full including costs of removal, and as such under the Courts and Tribunals Act 2007, they do not have clear title, and they are ordered to seek the return of £7500 for their car from the person who they purchased it from, in this case Mr Jones, who in turn sticks two fingers up to Ethel and Albert.


How can it be that innocent people who purchase vehicles with outstanding parking tickets are being subjected to this kind if trauma, it is a terrible [problem], and I cannot imagine that parliament had intended for the bailiffs to interpret the law in the manner they have done. The names used in this story are of course not their real names, but the innocent people concerned are real, and are worried about losing further sums with Newlyn PLC pursing these kinds of dirty tactics. Newlyn PLC have invited the pensioners to take legal action, but are warned that if they dare they will defend it viciously, as they take legal action against them seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technicially Newlyn have done no wrong, but it is a problem for sure and an innocent purchaser picks up the tab.

We could do with some help from you.


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A national register for tickets, checkable by registrations should be considered - something that shows up when doing a finance check.


A legal payment method for selling vehicles where the money is forced to go to a national government holding account and any outstanding tickets are paid before funds given to the seller. This would also stop people from doing cash sales from their driveways without telling the tax man about the profit.

None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to Discussions forum.





We could do with some help from you.



Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to be talking about the binding effect of an enforcement ower in accordance with section 5 of Schedule 12 to the TCE Act 2007. If so then there should be no problem.

The wording is pasted below and you will note that there is provision in sub-paragraph 2 to protect genuinely innocent purchasers of bound goods so long as they did not know about the binding. If Ethel and Albert are as innocent and ignorant of the binding as you suggest you have the wording to assist them and hopefully you can dial down the anger and angst.



Effect of property in goods being bound



5(1) An assignment or transfer of any interest of the debtor's in goods while the property in them is bound for the purposes of an enforcement power—.


(a)is subject to that power, and.

(b)does not affect the operation of this Schedule in relation to the goods, except as provided by paragraph 61 (application to assignee or transferee).


(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not prejudice the title to any of the debtor's goods that a person acquires—

(a) in good faith,

(b)for valuable consideration, and

© without notice.


(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a), a thing is to be treated as done in good faith if it is in fact done honestly (whether it is done negligently or not).


(4) In sub-paragraph (2)© “notice” means—

(a) where the property in the goods is bound by a writ or warrant, notice that the writ or warrant, or any other writ or warrant by virtue of which the goods of the debtor might be seized or otherwise taken control of, had been received by the person who was under a duty to endorse it and that goods remained bound under it;

(b) where the property in the goods is bound by notice under paragraph 7(1), notice that that notice had been given and that goods remained bound under it.


(5) In sub-paragraph (4)(a) “endorse” in relation to a warrant to which section 99 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) or section 125ZA of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) applies, means endorse under that section.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 4 is relevant as well:


"Binding property in the debtor's goods


4(1)For the purposes of any enforcement power, the property in all goods of the debtor, except goods that are exempt goods for the purposes of this Schedule or are protected under any other enactment, becomes bound in accordance with this paragraph.


(2)Where the power is conferred by a writ issued from the High Court the writ binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it.


(3)Where the power is conferred by a warrant to which section 99 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) or section 125ZA of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) applies, the warrant binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it under that section.


(4)Where sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply but notice is given to the debtor under paragraph 7(1), the notice binds the property in the goods from the time when the notice is given."


If the car was sold after 2, 3 or 4 happened, Ehtel and Albert's recourse is to sue Mr Jones. If it was sold beforehand, the car is theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 4 just explains at what point in time the binding of the debtor's goods starts.


I think you are missing the point of 5(2) which means even after the goods become bound an innocent purchaser can acuire good title notwithstanding the binding provided the purchase is (a) in good faith, (b)for valuable consideration, and © without notice.


So even after one of the trigger points menioned in section 4 they can fight off (at least in legal terms) the EA's claim to the vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...