Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • get the FOS done and see. i have a feeling you might not need to do the latter.    
    • Noted, thanks re-draft it is then 🙄    If it does go to FOS and its upheld can I also go for the throat and apply to set aside the suspended judgement (consent order) based  CCA  sections 86E not providing default sum notices 86(5) not entitled to enforce agreement  87(1) and 88(2) leading to unlawful repudiation of the credit agreement. Just an idea. 
    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

OBS PCN CCJ/Judgement - set aside now rehearing


Recommended Posts

Thanks again.

Hi. Brassnecked, you said less is definitely more, but Eric said hit them with everything now.  How information do I actually need to add? I also have pictures of the bushes obscuring the signs etc. Doen;yt all the other points I have raised show what a shady operation OBS is?

 

Hi dx. Could they not say they were acting as debt collectors not HCEO's? Or are you saying that even debt collectors cannot get involved once a CCJ has been given?  If so, was it illegal for DCB Legal to get DCBL involved?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

only what is in post 27...... don't play your cards in the open yet.!! pers i'd await to see if they return to work tomorrow   it's better to speak, catch them on the hop whilst th

What DX is saying is it isn't a Fine, its Civil not Criminal, only magistrates can Fine you, it was a ccj for failing to pay an invoice, raised because they reckon by parking you have entered int

yes they will and the contract if they request a further hearing.   .......................   n244 .......   i do not believe the claimant had a valid and paid for c

Posted Images

not illegal, unlawful...civil.

 

a dca can't add any fees to any debt.

 

 

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

As in they were hoping you would be frightened enough to cough up for their weekend beer. Unlawful additions they hope someone is scared enough not to question, just pay them.

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

 

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

Hi.

Just received docs for the SetAside from DCB Legal which includes an " Agreement For the Supply of 
Parking Control Services" with the landowner at St Johns Retail Park. It's poor quality and the dates are fuzzy with backround marks very suggestive they used Tippex and then re-typed it with whatever date they wanted, but either way they have produced it. 

 

I cannot see anything regarding planning permission yet, however I remember someone saying that may not be needed when attaching signs to existing posts etc. The cameras may be another thing. I contacted the council regarding plannng permisson but they are on lockdown. 

 

DCB Legal have included their first statement, which more or less states they are going for me as both the driver and the keeper because I never said who it was. They also say the delay in applying was too long and have sited a previous case. 

 

I need to prepare a statement but not sure what to say now.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have said definitely pursued as both, they cant do that its either Driver or Keepwer can't conflate them into one person .  Just hang fire for DX and EB. Think you are giving too much credence to DCBL, if you get sat aside they get diddly.

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

 

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

scan up their docs to ONE multipage PDF please

read upload carefully

 

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

Hi. I am happy to risk paraphrasing the docs, but from what I have just read, am I right that copying them in full might be classed as a breach of confidentiality and whatever that entails??

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it wont be breach of confidentiality DCBL are deffo trying the frighteners on you.

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

 

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

nope the only details you redact is anything that i'd's YOU.

 

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

Hi. It doesn't say anything about confidentiality on the report. However it is their witness statement and a quick google search for witness statements seems to suggest they are confidential until after a hearing. That being said, as I mentioned, I can give all the salient points. I can also post their contract with the landowner and the 'terms and conditions parking control service' if anyone thinks it will help, both of these have places for signatures from OBS and the landowner at the bottom, but neither are  actually signed. I wonder if this is just a red herring and they will produce signed copies on the day? They have provided photos of the signs, however aprt from the big white signs on entrance, the yellow warning signs are totally illegible, even though they are close up shots wihin a few feet. They look like they were taken in the dark without flash, or in the fog. There must be a reason for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can post up their WS as a pdf, others have done so then we are able to pick it to pieses on EXACTLY what is in it. you aren't helping yourself here, by shilly shallying and doing precis or  paraphrasing, you can mess it up by missing a point in your translation.

  • Like 1

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

 

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

Evening everyone.

My hearing is in two days, and I'd really appreciate some final advice from you all. I was told Eric's Brother (as he's been through it) may be able to advise me on the procedure, what to expect and what will happen during the hearing. Do I have the opportunity to make a statement etc and if so, how do you speak to the judge etc.

 

I also have some important points of order I hope you guys can make a little clearer for me, so I can prepare some kind of statement.

 

1. Brass'd, and DX, you have mentioned about the extra charges (unicorn feed Tax), what are the legalities of this, with the POFA saying fines/charges must be a maximum of £100?

 

2. Equally as important, I noticed the bottom of the PCN, OBS terms and conditions state a 'maximum'  of £300 including all costs court fees etc, so although OBS Claim was for £297 the Judgement was for £316.95, does that make them in breach of their own contract/TOC's which state Maximum £300 including all costs etc?

Please note that we may have a right to recover unpaid parking charges from you. If after 28 days the parking ticket is not paid we will take further steps to recover the amount owed. This may be through the use of debt recovery services and issuance of court proceedings. "Should formal action be necessary additional costs and charges will be added to the debt which may include interest, court fees and administration charges up to a maximum of £300.00 per charge issued." 

 

3. Several people have suggested that the DCBL bailiffes could not get involved, is this a fact and if so, then OPC would have known this, so can I highlight to the judge that OBS telling DCBL to send letter was mal practice and simply a money making exercise? 

 

4. OBS delayed action for gain. I was waiting for the Claim to arrive before taking action, OBS deliberately dragged out applying for a CCJ to gain moe interest. OBS knew my whereabouts in 2017 when they sent their final demands, yet avoided sending further correspondence  and waited until this year to send two DCBL letters and apply for the CCJ. I realise they have six years but to deliberatley delay court action simply to accrue further charges?

 

5. They defnitely did not have planning permission for the cameras, however they are attached to existing lamp posts. They also did not have plannnig or advertising permission for the signs, most of which are also attached to existing posts, but that doesn;t cover advetising permission. Planning can be applied for retrospectively however as it was never applied for, ? that makes the cameras invalid when myself and others at that time were caught by those cameras?  Another car park in Wolverhampton,  just a few miles away has recently been converted to a similar camera system and they have applied to the council for planning permission for signs and cameras.

 

6. Several have suggested the signs are not a binding contract, also that the text is too small,  I've been reading around but it still doesn't seem clear. I have taken Photos of the car park that show no signs visible at all from certain places, this breaches the Code of conduct/practice. And then when signs are visible but are 200 feet or more away across a busy carpark,  how can they expect the disabled, parents with kids etc, to walk all that way to read the ToC's on them to then be bound by them? 

 

7. I think it was DX who said 750,000 PCN's are issued each year, was that at st Johns Wolverhanpton by OBS, or is that nationally? I can't find any stats and it would be a good point to mention as it shows the signs are inadequate etc. I did see something about OBS making over 500k profit annually, so the PCN rate must be rediculously high.

 

Thanks again.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they went after you as Keeper, then they can't add the £60, and the £300 might well be rubbished by the OPS Lewes tolchocking, as a penalty.  hang fire till tomorrow I'm sure the othere will be along soon.

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

 

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

sir will do.
let him do the talking.

yes you will be asked to speak but only do so when invited too.

1.POFA mentions nothing about FINES forget that word!!... they are not allowed to add any addition unicorn food tax, read pofa carefully.

2.i would forget about 2.

3.DCBL are not operating as bailiffs merely a DCA.

4. there is very little to be gain by 8% court interest on such a small sum. they delayed as they hope people will moved and not update their address to them so they get a guaratneed backdoor default CCJ. in a way it worked with you but for a different reason.

5.the fact that neither had planning permission at the time are 2 good bonuses for you.

7. nationally..
 

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

Thanks Brass'd for the advice, can you  direct me to the legal position on this so I can tell the judge in the right way why they can't add £60?

 

Thanks DX,

can you tell me why to forget about '2', if it states on their terms £300 maximum including everything? This is the terms of their contract isn't it? 

 

Also, while they have included  a contract with the landowner it is not signed by anyone.

 

That could mean they have a signed one and didn't send it,  or they have not got signed contracts at all,

 

if the latter, as the contract with the landowner is dated from june 2015 (although it looks ammended), if this is the date OBS took over the carpark, then they definitely didn't have planning for signs or cameras etc..

 

 Does this make their contract void, so they cannot charge me?

How do I state this to the judge in legalese? 

 

The local shopping centre carpark up the road has just moved to cameras etc and had to apply for planning.

 

I also want to mention that I didn't enter into a contract with them, I didn't read the signs, they were too far away to read etc.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

The addition of the £60 is an abuse of process, as per, several judgments not least this one:

 

The addition of the £60 is hammered in the judgment paragraphs 64 on in the pdf of the judgment on the thread, its worth downloading and reading as stuff in there for you to use.

 

hopefully ericsbrother will pop in and add a few hints.

  • Thanks 1

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

 

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

Many thanks  Brass'd,

What a great article, I really wished I had been sent this before, so I could have given it to the court as part of my defence. I'm certain it would have helped. As the case is tomorrow and they ask for docs 3 days before, do you think they would accept it? If not. I will have to work out how to include the best parts in my statement, so the judge can hear what another judge has said against the antics of OBS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Minimum debt for baillifs to become involved is £600.

If you are certain that they do not have planning perm. for their signs then 

a] the signs should not be there

b] there cannot therefore be a contract with motorists

c] they are in breach od Town & country [Advertisements] Regulations] 2007 and Consumer rights act 2015  s 71  [look up what it states]

d] they are in breach of their own Code of Conduct [they must comply with all relevant Laws to run their business

e] calls into question whether they should be able to access DVLA information

f] they have breached GDPR by accessing your details

I haven't seen the signage but the Code of Conduct usually stipulates dimensions and where they should be sited.May not be relevant if the Judge accepts the signage should not have been there but it is always better to hit them with everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thbe PDF is the actual judgment transcript so verbatim what the judge said and considered in giving the PPC a beating.

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

 

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

Thanks lookinforinfo.

I spent 30 minutes on the phone to the council today.

The planning applications for St Johns Retail Park Wolverhmapton, are easy to look up online 

on the councils planning portal (they directed me to this) and there's never been an application.

 

The cameras are on existing lamp posts I believe, as are the signs apart from the ones at the entrance disguised by the shrubbery.

The council told me it's  grey area and after 4 years they more or less don't care as there's nothing they can do.

 

I mentioned about the OBS needing for advertising permission for their signs and again the council were very vague.

They assume the OBS signs are warning signs, when from what it says on Parking Prankster they are actually advertisements, as they do not say anything about a warning and they are an advert of a so called contract. 

 

The retail outlet just up the road has just applied for planning for their signs and cameras etc,, the council simply said it was probably to avoid problems later. 

 

Having said all that, it does suggest that the cameras and signs did not have planning for the first four years they were installed, and if this breaks their own contracts etc, then many could be eligible to claim against them if they were not legally allowed.. 

 

 I cannot find out when the cameras where installed, to try and workout if they were valid in 2015

Link to post
Share on other sites

cameras on already existed poles or lamp posts still need planning.

 

just be mindful, an N244 hearing is very very short.

the judge will not be interested in the finer details of why you are claiming XXX wrong , just that it's one of a list of issues, that he might TIC when considering your main point - which is - you were in lockdown caring for a very ill relative and did not know about nor could respond to the claim .

 

 

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

It isn't a grey area at all. They do need PP to comply with Town and Country [advertisements ]regs and also with the Consumer Rights Act since under that Law  if they say they have to observe a Code of Conduct, it is not enough to say that they comply with it, they actually do  have to comply with it. It is illegal [ie a criminal offence] not to comply with the Council regs. Too many Councils don't have the personnel to understand plus they may be worried that motorists may have a claim against them for not enforcing it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note guys. What are your thoughts on the inconsistance in their paper work which caused me to doubt the reliability of the PPC, from this discredited car park operator...!! Notice how the dates move from the 15th, to the 20th etc. and the date of even and issue switch. The March PCN was the last one they sent me and that has 20th as date of event not 15th. Confusing.

 

*Original 2015 PPC:  Date of event:15th August:: date of issue 20th Aug. "On 20th August a PPC was issued against the above vehicle"

*December 2017 PPC:Date of event 15th Aug, Date of Issue 15th Aug  (changed to 15th now) On 15th August a PPC was issued against the above vehicle"

*January 2018 PPC:  Date of Event 15th August:: Date of Issue 15th August...(wording as Decemeber)

*Februry 2018 PPC:   Date of Event 20th August:: date of issue 20th August. On 20th August a PPC was issued against the above vehicle"

March 2018 PPC: Date of event 20th August... date of issue 20th  August ( wording same as february)

I have uploaded these in a pdf previously. These inconsistencies change the date of issue with the date of event etc, surely they can't be classed as simple clerical errors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like safe to assume no planning then

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

 

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

 

Must confess, am panicking a bit now, tomorrows the day, not slept in three days and have flu coming on - hope I can talk tomorrow if needed.

 

I am certain DCBL will be going for the jugular, but I must admit I feel clueless at the moment, what to say and what will happen on the phone.  After everything everyone has said, I feel like a lamb to the slaughter, and what with all the extra fees have been added it could be very costly. 

 

I guess I have to plan some kind of verbal statement I guess???

 

***  Any advice on a format for the hearing and which points if anything you guys think is my best chance with the judge, to convince him it's worth Setting Aside would be very much appreciated.

 

Dx you say the hearing will be short, will I have the opportunity to speak and how long for? 

Has anyone heard if Erics brother is around for his input, if he's been to court?

 

It seems very unfair that DCB legal were able to see what I wrote in my N244  and then write their witness statement, which is 4 sides of A4, like a full on defence hearing to counter my reasons for not receiving the docs etc.

 

I thought this was just supposed to be an easy decision for the judge, to look at the fact I was not home to receive/act on the claim and then give a few reasons for a defence to show why it would be worth while setting it aside. 

Twelve hours to go, any calming words of advice anyone?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to OBS PCN CCJ/Judgement - set aside now rehearing

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...