Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

Form k Restrictions on 2 different properties - one RE: HMRC Business vat CCJ 2012 - 1 property sold OK 1 to go!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 109 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

Well that arcticle says they can't use HMRC bailiffs as they could of used those in the 1st place without any court 

 

Something smells here and I think it means nothing more they can do nor they want to .

 

Dx

  • Like 1

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

  • 5 months later...

Open 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sale of Property one has now gone through half  Funds transferred to ex

Creditor 1 (divorce solicitors) have already contacted our solicitors asking to be repaid (too Late) 

I am still wary about what can be done so I shall keep all updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing ignore them.

 

dx

 

  • Like 1

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

  • 2 weeks later...

SD for who ? from who? about what?

 

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

to remind posters ,

.......................

the default CCJ was from 2010 and resulted in a CO/Restriction k - debt was from her divorce solicitors who totally saw her coming, we owned several properties,

my divorce bill was £2,000

hers was the order of 15k and rising.

.......................

im not too sure they can issue an SD - its an abuse of process? 

the default CCJ/rest k (now gone due to sale)  is 13yrs old - 

p'haps @Andyorch will clarify . 

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

The creditor may present a petition to court for a:

·       bankruptcy order if, after 21 days, a statutory demand claiming a debt that equals or exceeds £750; or

·       winding-up order if, after 21 days, a statutory demand claiming a debt that exceeds £750

 

 is not:

 

·       paid;

·       secured (an agreement reached for payment); or ( Existing K Restriction is security)

·       set aside or an injunction is granted.

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 OTHER

 

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

brrr....working...brrrr...working....

so an SD can be issued as the security (the rest K) no longer exists....i think....

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

Ex is vulnerable, has been bedridden for 10 years, and she is willing to pay sols costs but  8% interest doubles the debt.

 

Sols still have security on second property that she stills lives in that I am renovating in order to sell in the coming few months so the debt continues to be secured (as we have found not very easy to gain payment on from k restriction)

 

I've been reading about interest on CCJ after 6 years not being enforceable under limitations act also that the creditor would need to go back to court for permission to enforce.

Is SD enforcement or action? I dont know the difference

 

As an interesting aside as her divorce sols knew they about the HMRC debt and on the charging order stated that they knew of no other creditors and so gained priority over HMRC!! I think that telling them that we  would report this to the court to HMRC and SRA may help in negotiations

 

Can the additional costs of SD and further court action be added to the current total debt if not then this would help in negotiating  a reasonable settlement

 

Ideally I would like someone to negotiate with them to reduce interest

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah right so security still exist for this CCJ/CO now SD debt.

then i dont think they can go for an SD.:noidea:

and as for interest, thats cheeky. but the CCJ no post judgemental int plays no part.

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

I shall wait and see exactly what the server was trying to serve once it arrives at the correct address

Security is still on one property and as I am also the beneficial owner of 50% I dont think they can force sale

50 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

and as for interest, thats cheeky. but the CCJ no post judgemental int plays no part.

I dont understand this sentence could you explain please

Link to post
Share on other sites

cant force sale no and never could. 

if the ccj did not mention post judgemental interest then it cant be added. and a s the sun of the rest k has not changed, i dont think they can add interest on a statutory demand no. but anyway the security still exists on the debt (so they had a rest k on both properties?  i didnt ask this before) so sd cant be done too from what i understand. 

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

CCJ did add post judgment interest so far 0ver 3000 days

copied from tinterweb:The sheriffs office:

I thought it was interesting, I dont know the difference between action and enforcement

Limitation Act 1980

Section 24 of the Limitation Act 1980 states that:

  • An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable
  • No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall de recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.

Lowsley v Forbes

This situation was considered by the House of Lords in the case of Lowsley v Forbes where the claimant wished to enforce the judgment 11.5 years later, when the defendant returned to the country.

The Lords ruled that the legislation barred the bringing of a fresh action, but that execution of the existing judgment did not count as a fresh action. Therefore the claimant was able to take enforcement action.

However, the Lords did rule that the limit of six years’ interest did still apply.

Impact of delays

The main impact of a long delay in enforcement will be whether the judgment debtor can be located, has sufficient assets and is solvent. In the case of a business, it may have been wound up or gone into insolvency.

There will also be the fact that only six years’ interest can be recovered.

Permission will be required from the Court to obtain a writ of execution on a judgment more than six years old under RSC Order 46, rule 2(1)(a). The Court is likely to ask why there has been such a delay and will take this into account when making its decision.

The judgment debtor may also challenge enforcement on the basis of delay. However, he will have to provide compelling evidence of the extent of prejudice to the debtor by reason of the delay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

an SD is not enforcement of a CCJ.

 

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

i dont think they can.

if a restriction still exists on her other property for the same debt.

is this true?

 

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

Yes there is still a standard form K restriction in place on our jointly held house where she is now bedridden.

I havent seen the document that was attempted delivery so best to wait until something turns up at property 2 where ex now lives

Link to post
Share on other sites

but does the existing rest k name her  like the one that was removed from the other sold property?

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

hope im right im sure @Andyorch will clarify further about if the SD is ok to be raised......

 

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

If the restrictions are still in place they cannot issue a SD as the existing CCJ/s acts as security.

  • 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 OTHER

 

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

:cheer2:

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...