Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "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; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • @dx100uk no, haven’t received any correspondence as of yet. Still waiting on a court date but seems to be taking forever. Have noticed an increase in unhappy customers on here
  • 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
      • 160 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

IDR statutory demand served by process server for UAE debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 237 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

I left UAE in 2017 and returned to the Uk after being made redundant and unable to pay an eye watering debt I took out.

It’s been a struggle to get a job that stuck.

Idr have pestered me throughout and I always told them I couldn’t afford to pay just yet which is true.

I have now received a SD.

What do I do and how do I respond.

I’m of retirement age and only just paid off the mortgage on the house I own with my wife.

We can’t lose that house!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to IDR statutory demand for UAE debt

you wont lose your house, whatever gave you that idea........

anyone can download that form and send it..doesnt mean its not a fake threat.

IF IF IF they ever progress this to court is a totally diff matter.

you found the right forum here

i see you've not read any threads mind.

 

clickme^^^

and keep reading up on other threads too.

tell us about the debts

and scan up everything to date both in/out to one mass pdf. read upload

we need your full comms history with them in whatever format.

and if you've moved around too.

did they use the guarantee cheques and then racked up the fake interest when they bounced...

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

use my clickme link above

already searched for 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

Around about fifteen years ago 1st Credit was very busy sending out Statutory Demands.

This is potentially serious as you only have a limited time to reply (about eighteen days I think).  If you do not respond before that time has elapsed the creditor can then move to make you bankrupt.  But.....

1st Credit sent their SD's out second class post with no proof of service.  It costs nothing to print out an SD form and send it.

However, the Ministry of Justice took a dim view of 1st Credit using Court documents as a debt collection tactic.  The reason was that if you are serious about  issuing an SD then you would normally be expected to have it served in person.   1st Credit had no intention of paying around £700 per Creditor to start proceedings which, if successful would cost them more in Court fees and result in the Creditors assets being passed to a receiver who would (eventually) share them out at pennies in the pound to ALL creditors.

First ask yourself if this is a serious threat.  How did it arrive?   Was it normal post, recorded delivery, signed for or a personal service?

I ignored all the SD's I got from 1st Credit as I had no assets to protect.  However, you have a house and it is possible the Creditor has researched you and identified you may have assets.

So second, evaluate what the risk is of the Creditor moving to an Application for Bankruptcy.    I question who IDR is and if they actually own the debt, and if they do not then are they in a position to actually progress an Application for Bankruptcy.

I write the above not because I have any specific ideas of what to do next but to give other CAGers some further food for thought.  Having said that I think it important to understand if IDR can start proceedings and if so the SD should be responded to avoid a Court asking the awkward question of why it was not answered when or if the case does come up for a Hearing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an excellent link andyorch, much more up to date than my experience.

Looks like the OP needs to respond in some way.

I am no expert but based on your link I would say an S78 is a good start.

I also wonder how an overseas debt can be enforced in a UK Court.  Wouldn't the original agreement be subject to the Laws of the Country in which it operated?

I am following as I am interested in learning more about this stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do issue and they do follow through :-

 

never treat it as a bluff

32 minutes ago, comebackjimmy said:

That is an excellent link andyorch, much more up to date than my experience.

Looks like the OP needs to respond in some way.

I am no expert but based on your link I would say an S78 is a good start.

I also wonder how an overseas debt can be enforced in a UK Court.  Wouldn't the original agreement be subject to the Laws of the Country in which it operated?

I am following as I am interested in learning more about this stuff.

Debt is a debt as far as SDs are concerned they don't need a judgment and they are not enforcing/executing a foreign judgment. In practice, statutory demands are served in respect of foreign unregistered judgment debts on a regular basis. Provided that the requirements set out in section 123 of the IA 1986 and the jurisdictional requirements are met, there is no reason why a creditor cannot proceed in this way as per the above linked topic.

 

 

.

 

 

.

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

1 hour ago, comebackjimmy said:

I question who IDR is and if they actually own the debt, and if they do not then are they in a position to actually progress an Application for Bankruptcy.

IDR never buy these UAE debts.

they act for the original Bank as their client

though i will say that 9/10 when the bank are approached by the debtor, they always appear to know nothing about the SD nor the IDR had even sent one.....i'll let people relate that to your (and others here) 1st credit experience.

anyone can print that form out and sent it...

just remember the court are not involved unless the claimant (not IDR) progresses it to court after 18 or 21 days cant remember

there are lots of UAE IDR SD's threads here MOST turn out to be bluffs and go nowhere , though as @Andyorch points too, there have been some real ones. but again i will say, thats sometimes the fault of the receiver by actually engaging and to put it mildly touting/winding up everyone they can think of to write too.. sometimes its just better to keep quiet as long as the bank know and have been informed by the receiver of the SD their correct and current address.

just musings

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

3 hours ago, Notalawyer said:

Thanks, I am unable to click the link.

hold and click on the words 'programmable search engine' above^^^

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 everyone. A very important info I missed out. The SD was personally handed to me by someone dressed similarly to law enforcement and recommended I get a lawyer after agreeing to the amount on the SD. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to IDR statutory demand served by process server for UAE debt

right so it was served by a process server

you need to act on it.

WWW.GOV.UK

Use this 'application notice' for all applications to the court about insolvency, except when applying for an administration order, winding-up petition or...

 

 

 

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...