Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Any advice on what remedies are available given the following circumstances - would be much appreciated. Dec 23, HMCTS enforcement officer (HMCEO) knocks on the door. Stating he possesses a “warrant of control” (WOC) issued by xxxxxx Justice Centre (HJC) to recover unpaid fines for driving offences. Further stating, he is there “to execute the warrant and take goods to the value of .. if the warrant wasn’t settled in cash/monies” After requesting proof I was given a quick glimpse (seconds) of a small tablet/palm sized “computer” I only caught flash of a white screen. I notified him, A number of times, I needed to see a copy of said woc. I was unaware of any outstanding warrant. I was not going to pay as the matter was live and had been sent to XXXX Crown Court with Jan hearing. It was not my property but my dear friend’s (14yrs) home. He was not coming in and he was not going to force entry. I asked how come he was at this address – no reply. He had better phone the old bill, if he had any issues. As he had not set foot in the house, I closed the door I was unaware the purported WOC or any warrant, I was under the impression my case was with the courts. My requests for a copy were persistently refused, I was unaware what case(s) were listed as “outstanding on this purported WOC”.  (had live S172 with the courts with an appeal) this alleged woc was totally unrelated.   With supporting high court documents I approached his Co vehicle to reasonably discuss what was going on. After exchanging a few words, he had my name down as the address we were at. Oddly, he then stated the car at the same address which he was blocking in, was mine !! – It was not and never has been ! neither was it reg/ins at that address. I could hear the police sirens approaching, No issues with those attending at all. The first officer lady (ONr1) approached, listened to what I had to say. Then went to speak with "HMCEO". I went inside to gain more evidence that his documents were invalid.   Ms xxxxxx (property/title holder) produced a mortgage document stating the title holder. It was dissmissed by by both "HMCEO" and Police I produced a number of court documents; High Court document with correct address from HHJ xxxxx, HMCTS stating my case was to be heard at xxxxx Crown Court Jan date DVLA drivers license with xxxxxxx with correct address. All documents dismissed by both HMCEO and Police. My trial documents had the correct address as did HMCTS. ONr1 was now joined ONr2, they both concluded the HMCEO WOC document superseded my High court documents as it was addressed to xxxxx. High court documents were irrelevant as the address was “different” from my friends home. I was dumbfounded when the officers stated the “HMCEO was here to collect a debt as instructed by the court”, if I was “to obstruct him in his duties I would be arrested and removed”. I still had not seen any proof of an actual woc I unsuccessfully challenged the officers comments for a fair few moments, then realised no matter what I said, did or otherwise, they had made up their minds and where going to arrest me if my objections persisted. I could not believe I was witnessing misfeasance in public office. Where’s the impartiality I asked ??  - no reply.   I requested more time to collect and gather myself.   I could not raise the amount of money demanded. HMCEO would not accept a pay plan, as apparently the demanded sums had been outstanding for some time. Payment in full was again demanded or a locksmith would be called to drill the locks and force entry. (destruction of 3rd party property) with threat of further hundreds of pounds to be added.   I strongly objected, stating I had no entitlement of title to Nr xxxxxx, neither of the three were interested. Full payment was again demanded or entry will be forced and goods removed.   I was melting down and in a dark place mentally, xxxxx was also in a terrible state considering the threats made against her and her beloved property. even the old bill had chosen to support a private company break the law !!.   " HMCEO" persisted his menacing demands to extort monies. Finally, Diane, under extreme duress and threats of forced entry, coupled with threats of arrest if I didn’t stand aside and let HMCEO extort monies. Against her better will and judgement she transferred monies form her and her sons account(s) to that of "Marston's". Effectively settling a third party debt. His actions amounted to theft, fraud, extortion, and fraud by false representation. Money had just been extorted from the best friend I had, and I was helpless. I understand the following facts are true, I have the opinion both myself, ms Kelly and her son were victims, and this happened here. Even if there was a valid WOC it was illegal as the case had previously been withdrawn; The act of threatening a victim’s person or property with violence, physical harm or destruction to coerce them into complying with demands. Threatened actions that constitute extortion when used to re-enforce an unwarranted demand would be offences in and of themselves (offences against the person or criminal damage). The Theft Act defines the instance of blackmail as one where: “a person with a view to gain for themselves or another or intending to cause loss to another makes an unwarranted demand with menaces. Dishonesty is not an element of the offence.” The sheer fact, he was supported by 2nr police officers – either of which or both, should have been sufficiently knowledgeable enough in criminal law, and vigilant enough to have seen and prevented a fraudulent crime against another(s) being committed with their support. ======= After the event - Next morning calls to/from HMCTS ======= Call from “Enforcement MoJ” confirmed they have already instructed Marstons Group as a matter of urgency to return all monies wrongly taken from Ms xxxxx .  HMCTS ..... Ms xxxxxx, 1/12/23 @ 11:50 States …”case withdrawn 28th Feb 23” email attached Purported WOC issued by Harrogate Justice Centre (HJC). for collection of fines for allegations by West Yorkshire Police (WYP), that had previously been withdrawn. Ref: HMCTS Letter Dated – XXth XX  2023: Case Nr. ********, listed for XXth XX 23 @ XX:XX WYP Letter. Headed - XXth XX 23, Trial at Kirklees Mags Court on XX/XX/2023 at XX:XX                                                     i.     WYP offer no evidence and request HMCTS, CPS - case be dismissed.  According to HJC There was no evidence of WOC ever been issued.   Ms xxxxxx & son, eventually had monies returned. No apology to either Ms xxxxxx or her son. Executed a “warrant of control” which was not prescribed by the HMCTS. His actions amounted to fraud, fraud by false representation. His actions amount to theft, fraud, and fraud by false representation. Extortion of monies by menace S12 Theft Act 76 Alledged "HMCEO" removed monies on two occasions from a third 3rd party bank accounts, 2nr sums circa £600 and £600 collectively totalling £1200.00 to which he had no legal right or obligation to do so. His actions amounted to theft, fraud, and fraud by false representation. Extortion of monies by menace S12 Theft Act 76 As ¶²⁸ above, removed monies under the false pretences of a certified bailiff, whilst not been in possession of the correct court documents entitling him to do so. He was thus acting as a “common debt collector” as such he was not entitled to charge any fees. His actions amounted to theft, fraud, fraud by false representation. Extortion of monies by menace S12 Theft Act 76  Alleged "HMCEO" Knowingly provided a false statement of fact to WYP knowing they would act upon those facts. The two attending police officers should have been sufficiently knowledgeable enough in criminal law, to prevent such a fraudulent crime been committed in their presence. The very fact there was legal correspondence from HHJ xxxxxxxx   xxxxx Crown Court within dated parameters surly overrides any civil documents purporting to be from HMCTS. Especially when PNC, DVLA, MIB, databases could instantly confirm/deny the defendants statement of address. This event (along with others) has not only devestated my life, but my friends too. To the extent I was admitted to Acute Mental Health Team NGH for 4/5wks as I was unable to cope with the effect this action had taken on my best friend. The consequences have been insumountable, the mere sight of the old bill now reduces me to a wreck. WHAT LEGAL REMEDIES (IF ANY) MAY BE AVAILABLE TO ME/US - How would one proceed ?? Contructive comments only please - **** takers and conspiracists jog on.  All HMCTS documents are available, Only 2nr Marston documents exist, 2nr receipts for payments taken.  Regards Mr Blue            
    • 1 Date of the infringement 14/12/2023   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  Issue date 27/17/2023   [scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'s   3 Date received 10/12/2024   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  N   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes   6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  No   Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up No   7 Who is the parking company? Excel Parking   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Brewery Street Car Park, Chesterfield, S417UG   For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IPC on their letter BPC on others I have attached all letters received to date by Excel and others.  Any advice is more than welcome PCN Letters_1_11zon.pdf
    • Hi guys I got caught with my mum's freedom pass the other day. I have now received a letter asking how I'm going to plea I've only just received it but it says reply within 10 days of the letter from when it was dated on the 17th june which seems unfair, but anyway! What's my best bet here? I have seen the best thing and it's the most logical, is to just come clean, say say it was wrong and plead with them! I've attached the letters they have sent Thanks for any help you can provide Image to PDF 20240625 22.16.31.pdf
    • Mediation date now set. Do I just tell them 'I don't have enough information?'
    • With the inflation dragon appearing to have been slain, falling to the 2% target in recent data, there is a risk that savings rates could similarly plummet.View the full article
  • 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

Hastings/Principia/Auxillis - Tricked into a car hire when told it was a courtesy car!


symbiosis
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1588 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

This is the full agreement they are expecting me to sign (less the page with my details stating I have agreed to all the conditions)

 

Priciple Law full agreement.pdf

 

So my first question, what happens if I simply decline their "offer" to represent "my case"?

I dont believe there is anything in the Auxillis T&C's that states that co-operation extends to and includes to having to hire a solicitor myself? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I'm losing the plot on this thread – partly because you are posting up so much detailed information and I really don't have the time to deal with it all.

This really is a DIY forum – in other words we try to empower you and point the way that it isn't helpful that you post entire contracts rather than discover the part that you think is relevant and simply post that so we can have a look.

In principle, you have a fully comprehensive insurance policy.
This means that your insurer is responsible for everything and I find it amazing that they try to pass it off to someone else and get you to sign a contract with that person. That seems to me to be unacceptable. When you get a fully comprehensive insurance with a company then as far as I'm concerned you pay them to do it all for you and you may have to pay an excess or you may have to pay increased premiums the next year – but they are meant to be a one-stop shop. So the fact that they are involving Auxillis and attempting to put them into a direct contractual relationship with you seems to be unacceptable and unfair – not what you paid for.

Secondly, it seems to me to be entirely reasonable that they should require that you cooperate with a solicitor. You pay an insurance to protect yourself from losses – not to protect and at-fault third-party from losses and so if the insurance company reckons that it is economically worthwhile going to the expense of pursuing the third party in order to recover their losses then I don't see why they shouldn't. Also, if they get their money back from the third party then it should mean that their insurance premiums for their own clients should be cheaper in the future because they are able to recover the money that they pay out. (Of course this is a load of rubbish – they will always try to get the money from both ends) – but the principal is sound.

I'm still struggling to see why you should object to the fact that you have to cooperate with their solicitor. However I don't see why there should be anything to sign about this. It should be in the initial contract of insurance that they will pay you out without quibble, that you will not have to engage with any other party such as Auxilis to make it happen – and that you will assist them in any reasonable way to recover their losses.

That's how I see the picture. I would be amazed if you can show me anything in any of the insurers terms and conditions which contradict this

I'd be interested to see what site team member @unclebulgaria67 has to say about this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply and I am also loosing the plot with the whole situation.

 

So I will try and consolidate:

I took out a fully comp insurance policy with Hastings 

 

Someone drove into the side of me and they accepted liability at the scene 

 

I put in my claim with Hastings and they told me that in their opinion it was a not a fault claim 

 

They told me I should contact a company called Auxillis to handle my claim on their behalf and that this would be best for me as I would not have to pay an excess or loose my no claims, in fact they told me it would be no different than them handling the case except I would be better off. 

 

I received an email from Hastings telling me to contact Auxillis to arrange a courtesy car and repairs to my vehicle

 

This I did and received an email from Auxillis advising that I needed to log into their portal to arrange my replacement vehicle and accept their T&C's for doing so

 

This I did believing I was arranging for the courtesy car

 

My car was deemed a total write off some weeks later and the car collected and I was paid out by Hastings

 

All was quiet until a week ago I received an email from Auxillis telling me that:

1) What I believed to be a courtesy car was in fact a hired car which was chargeable

2) Part of their T&C's was a credit agreement which made me liable for all the costs of the vehicle and there was a clause stated I must assist in recovery in the event of a 3rd party not paying up

3) The 3rd party was not paying

4) I was told that part of the "assist in recovery" meant I had to sign another contract with a law firm of their (Auxillis) choosing agreeing that I was hiring said solicitors and again would be liable for all fees and charges 

 

So Auxillis are trying to make me sign a contract with their solicitors to be fully liable for all legal costs while THEY peruse THEIR costs unless they can recover them - Hence my reluctance at an average charge of £150 per hour and they tell me it will take a min of 8 months!!

Edited by symbiosis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, this is quite a nice summary.

In that case I suggest that you write to Auxillis – copy to Hastings

Tell them that although you are happy to cooperate with any attempt to recover Hastings losses, you will not be held liable for any costs should they not recover all of their outgoings and that you consider that your entire legal relationship is between yourself and Hastings and that your insurance agreement with Hastings covers all eventualities.

You refuse to sign anything else.

Furthermore if they persist in hassling you about this, you will begin a complaint to the financial ombudsman service.

I can't really think of any other appropriate response

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On top of this, as I apparently agreed to a "credit agreement" with Auxillis, I can only assume that they are heaping on some ridiculous daily interest rate charge as well.

 

As you asked why I dont want to co-operate with Auxillis solicitors - What bothers me is the other stories I have since discovered whereby a judge has found liability to not be undisputed, Auxillis  then saying that the claimant had broken the terms of their credit agreement and ultimately coming after them for full payment (which by then also includes a hefty legal fee). Quite happy to co-operate in supplying evidence etc etc but I will be dammed if I should agree to take on the legal fees!! That is not co-operation, that is blackmail pure and simple

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i understand the situation.

 

You did not take out the optional legal expenses policy when you bought the Hastings policy.  Therefore your Hastings policy has no legal cover to help litigate against the third party and their Insurers to recover your uninsured losses such as excess, car hire etc. 

 

So you have ended up in the situation, where the third party Insurers have decided to dispute liability and you have a choice of taking action yourself or signing up to the Principia contract being offered.

 

So yes if you are unhappy with the Principia arrangement, then reject this and advise Hastings that you will be acting for yourself to recover the uninsured losses from the third party. If Hastings have written off your car and paid you, ask them whether they have attempted recovery of the write off cost from the third parties insurers.

 

Now is time to gather any information you may not have, such as full cost of hire car. 

 

Have you checked whether there is CCTV of the car park available, by submitting a Data Protection SAR to car park operator ?

 

When you don't buy the legal cover, you suddenly realise after a claim, that you will become the expert in trying to  recover the claim values.  Insurers to save costs, no longer employ all of the staff to provide the full service they did decades ago.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, yes that is mostly correct barb the fact that Auxillis tell me they have not had any communication whatsoever from the 3rd party, I denial of liability, nothing. 

 

Funnily enough I emailed Auxillis last night for a full breakdown of the costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus far no response from Auxillis, only messages from their law firm telling me to sign their T&Cs - I have emailed them to say I have not given any permission to act on my behalf as yet so am not liable for anything they have done thus far. 

 

I spoke with Hastings, there was a disbute of liability from the 3rd party and they refuted that some time ago. At my request, they contacted the 3rd party insurer's who said they are still investigating. Apparently they have only a few weeks left to settle or Hastings will also be starting proceedings against them, however without my involvement. 

 

I am seeking legal advice on how to proceed now. To my mine, agreeing to fully cooperate with Auxillis in retrieveing their costs does not extend to me having to take on a solicitor myself. I'm more than happy to provide any information ie cooperate 

Edited by symbiosis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi OP. 
 

Just as a bit of background I’ve spent several years working on the Defendant side of the credit hire fence. 


Auxillis and Principia Law have the same company directors. The companies are linked. You’ll almost certainly have to go with them under the terms of the hire agreement. 

 

You’ve signed a credit hire agreement. You believed it was a courtesy car based on the email from Hastings.  Did you read it? I know that Auxillis get you to sign these things electronically. 
 

9 times out of 10 as stated above, you’ll not get as far as trial and the two sides will settle. 
 

In the run up, you’ll have to assist Principia as they go through the stages of litigation.  Nothing to worry about immediately. 
 

The point it will affect you is the disclosure and witness statement phase. They’ll likely want to see your bank statements from the time of the accident and disclose these to the other side.

 

They’ll also need you to sign a witness statement.  They will prepare this so read this statement very (I can’t emphasise that enough), carefully before you sign it.  Make sure it’s true. They’ll use a standard witness statement as a template which will say things like ‘Auxillis contacted you and explained it was a credit hire agreement‘ etc etc.  Don’t sign anything that’s not true.

 

Edit: Apologies, just read that there’s a possible liability dispute. That slightly increases the chance of this ending up at a Court hearing. 
 

Do you know how much the total hire charges are? Are they below £10k?

Edited by SuperVillain
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very helpful information. Thank you.

If the OP does get one of these witness statements to sign then maybe they would be kind enough to post it up here so everybody can look – and learn.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for the lack of replies - I've been busy in talks with Auxillis, Principa and Hastings about all of this.

 

I am currently awaiting the outcomes of my official complaints and will let you know what happens

 

SuperVillian, yes the charges are a fraction of the sum you mentioned

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...