Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • as my learned friend above...and.. sadly because just like DCA's and initially yourself in this case, you believed they have some magical powers ...they DON'T. 85% of people blindly pay DCA's cause they know no better and think they are BAILIFFS. only the RETAILER can ever do court and none have done this on a silly member of joe public that did something stupid since the infamous 2012 Oxford case on retail loss. BAILIFFS can only ever be involved after you've been to court and lost a CCJ, fat chance re above... and anyway, no BAILIFF has any right of forced entry anyway on consumer debts even with a judgement so......... stop panicking and thinking everything that doesn't apply.. forget about them but p'haps a confidential GP visit might be a very good move... what slightly concerns me more here is:  who are 'them' that told you they'd reviewed a week of CCTV and come up with several shoplifting instances over that time amounting to the above? have you directly contacted or had contact from Sainsbury's? and know they HAVE done this? or is this DWF willy waving and they tricked you into  admitting several previous successful thefts... this is not the norm...  dx      
    • next step then await the N157 from her local court giving the time and date of a future hearing some month in the future. now she MUST file a witness statement 14 days (typically) to both the court and kearns .  so cant allow to much of a time lag before you are aware of that and get her WS done. wack us up 2 multipage pdf files please  one of what they returned for the CRP reply . and one for everything they sent back in 2022 you've found.  we do not need statements. ideally it would be nice to see their WS before hers is finally filed. dx  
    • Another interesting article in the Grauniad - Counterfeit barcode stamps furore carries echoes of Horizon scandal | Consumer affairs | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Royal Mail admits its scanners ‘make mistakes’ but stands by the process it uses to detect fakes as ‘robust’  
    • DWF can't do anything as they act for a client. In this case, Sainsbury's. Sainsbury's could take you to court and ATTEMPT to get a CCJ but it's unlikely. They had no interest in dealing with you at the time. All DWF can do is send out pointless threatograms. They'll threaten to divert an Iranian drone to your house if you don't pay. However, they can't attempt to get a CCJ against you. IGNORE THEM. It's more important now to understand why you were allegedly shoplifting, and you should speak with your GP and try and get yourself signposted to the support that's available.
    • Boeing told US regulators it might not have properly inspected its 787 Dreamliner jets.View the full article
  • 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

Bailiffs (Licensing) Bill 2006 - As Introduced


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6367 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

NEW BILL TO REGULATE BAILIFFS A Bill to regulate bailiffs was introduced by Lord Lucas at the House of Lords today. It requires all bailiffs to hold a licence, and all companies that employ them to be approved by a new regulator.

 

Lord Lucas, an elected hereditary Conservative backbencher and chairman of the London Motorists Action Group, said ‘Every year hundreds of thousands of people (many of them the most vulnerable in our society) have money forcibly extracted from them by bailiffs. We know from our own experience, research and from tv programmes such as the Whistleblower exposé, that abuse is rife and that many people are being grossly overcharged.

 

This bill will give us an opportunity of setting the affairs of this necessary if unpleasant business in order.’ The Bill introduces a single licence for all bailiffs, which will be renewed annually if the bailiff completes the refresher training prescribed by the regulator. Apart from initial set-up costs, the licence fees paid by bailiffs and their employers will fund the system.

 

Philip Evans, Chair of the Enforcement Law Reform Group, said, ‘The Government’s own proposals for bailiffs in the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill would leave many private bailiffs unregulated, including most of those featured on the BBC Whistleblower programme broadcast on 26 September. The blanket civil service exemptions for Government would make it very easy for rogue bailiffs to impersonate them and go undetected.’

 

The Bill will strengthen the civil and criminal justice systems by regulating the people who enforce court orders, both for civil debt and criminal fines. It will empower the regulator to impose clear forms and a simple fee scales so that people facing bailiff action will be better able to understand their rights and obligations.

 

‘There’s a crisis of confidence’, explains Simon Aldridge, a founder member of LMAG who earlier this year won an important case against Equita, one of Britain’s largest bailiff companies. ‘People just don’t trust bailiffs. Fourteen years of Government review hasn’t produced any change and so now we’ve produced our own proposals, which I urge people to support.’

 

Advice UK’s National Money Advice Coordinator, Nick Pearson, said, ‘This Bill provides the legislation required to protect poor and vulnerable people from unscrupulous bailiffs.’

 

Barrie Minney, chair of the Local Authority Civil Enforcement Forum, the group that represents bailiffs directly employed by local councils, said,’ We support the Bill and its proposals to regulate all bailiffs.’

 

The Bailiffs (Licensing) Bill was drafted by Lord Lucas and Franklin Price, a solicitor and partner at Jeffrey Green Russell (solicitors) who advises LMAG. Notes

 

 

The London Motorists Action Group was set up in 2005 to help motorists fight the abuse of parking tickets and other road traffic penalties which are issued primarily to generate revenue and the fraudulent activities of bailiffs sent to enforce them. The Directors and legal adviser have extensive personal experience of bailiffs who are, as portrayed on the BBC Whistleblower programme broadcast on 26 September 2006, not subject to regulation and ‘out of control’.

 

 

Bailiffs (Licensing) Bill 2006

Link to post
Share on other sites

PRESS NOTICE 13

 

MINISTER WELCOMES LMAG’s BAILIFFS BILL

 

The Minister responsible for regulating bailiffs has welcomed the Bill introduced to the House of Lords yesterday by Lord Lucas and is looking for ways to incorporate it into the Government’s own Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill.

 

Speaking at the end of the second reading debate in the House of Lords on the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, said that she would listen to the issues raised both in the debate and by organisations outside Parliament. ‘I will be looking at whether there are further steps we might consider’ she said.

 

Lord Lucas, an elected hereditary Conservative backbencher and chairman of the London Motorists Action Group, said, ‘I’m looking forward to working with other organisations who have supported the this quality of regulation, to bring this initiative to a successful outcome.’ Addressing the House of Lords earlier, he said that groups as diverse as Citizens Advice and the Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies had contacted him seeking his help persuading the Government of the need for proper regulation.

 

Alex Henney, General Secretary of LMAG said, ‘Were looking forward to working with the Government on proper regulation for bailiffs. The Government’s own proposals in the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill are wholly inadequate.’

Philip Evans, Chair of the Enforcement Law Reform Group which bring together representatives of bailiffs, creditors and debt advisers, said, ‘It’s not just a matter of rooting out rogue bailiffs but of supporting ethical bailiffs who do a good job but who nevertheless struggle to demonstrate their accountability in the current climate of mistrust.’

The Bailiffs (Licensing) Bill requires all bailiffs to hold a licence, and all companies that employ them to be approved by a new regulator. Licence fees paid by bailiffs and their employers will fund the regulator.

 

Nick Pearson of Advice UK said, ‘I am delighted to hear about the Government’s openness to LMAG’s initiative. Debt advisers realise that bailiffs have a difficult job to do and a clear regulatory structure will benefit everyone.’

 

The Bailiffs (Licensing) Bill was drafted by Lord Lucas and Franklin Price, a solicitor and partner at Jeffrey Green Russell (solicitors) who advises LMAG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...