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.    
    • Owners of older vehicles tell the BBC of their anger that their cars' apps will stop working.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
      • 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

Removal of a resriction to Title on Land Registry


4148boome
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 207 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

Hi all,

 

My debt with MBNA (on agreed token payments) was passed from Transcom to Arrow Global and then being delt with by Copes Solicitors.

 

Dec 2007 they went for CCJ and obtained judgement, i continued paying the same token payments.

 

October 2009 an Interim Charging order was aplied for, this has been adjourned until 28th Nov 2009.

 

I have sent an Objection to The Charging Order letter to The County Court and Copes.

 

I have now recieved a B136(CO) notice of application from Land registry with regards to the forthcoming hearing.

 

Obviously, apart from the fact that Arrow are turning an unsecured debt into a secured debt,

does anyone think that I have any chance of getting this dismissed?

 

any comments would be gratefully recieved

 

dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi all,

 

I am in a Debt Program, with agreed payments to all my creditors.

Suddenly out of the blue one of them takes out a charging order on my property (no missed payments or anything) thought this wast possible.

 

Anyone know the legals?

 

dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I'm not too clued up on charging orders but 'lifted' this.............

 

What is a charging order?

 

You have fallen behind on some of your debts and your creditors have taken you to court to obtain a county court judgment against you, ordering you to repay your debt. If you do not, they can get a 'charging order' against you, which may force you to sell your home to repay that debt, even if it is an unsecured loan or credit card.

 

However, the order not only allows creditors to force you to sell your home, but also other assets such as funds or stocks and shares.

 

However there are various things you can do to get out of this when you turn up in court to defend yourself (you will be told of this court date well in advance).

 

These include:

 

• An instalment order

 

An instalment order is issued by the county court and allows you to repay your debt in instalments. If you are up-to-date on these instalments, a charging order can not be used against you. The Ministry of Justice had plans to allow lenders to force you to sell your home anyway, even if you were up to date, but these charging order plans have been shelved. If you were supposed to pay back the entire sum in one go and didn't, then you're in trouble.

 

However if you have an instalment order in place, you must turn up to the court, provide proof of this and also that your repayments are up to date.

 

This is based on a case called Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Ellis in 1987, which shows on precedent that a charging order should only be made if the payments on a judgment are in arrears or you were ordered to pay the lot in one lump sum and failed to do so.

 

Even if you did not make a lump payment as promised, you may also be able to argue at the last minute that you would be more suited to an instalment order or an 'attachment of earnings' order, in which regular payments are taken straight from your monthly salary.

 

This is the most important defense – a willingness to repay the debt gradually – as even if a charging order is granted, your home may not be sold finally if you can prove you have some money that you are willing to part with.

 

There's a good thread here.............

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/203298-guide-charging-orders-orders.html

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing happened to me. As a DMP is an informal arrangement, your creditors can still take action against you, even if you are paying your reduced payments on time every month. It wasn't Creation Finance by any chance?

Bank of Scotland account 1 - £2,666 WON

Bank of Scotland account 2 - £2,500 on hold

GE Capital charges -£30 won (hey, every little helps!)

Barclays Partner Finance £425 charges - £225 offer accepted.

 

Finally debt free after 4.5 years, thanks to my Debt Management Plan through Payplan. There is no better feeling :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Debt Solutions the company your DMP is with, or the company that got the charging order against you?

Only asking cos Creation Finance is quite bad for going for charging orders even though you're on a DMP.

My DMP is through Payplan, they don't charge any fees.

Bank of Scotland account 1 - £2,666 WON

Bank of Scotland account 2 - £2,500 on hold

GE Capital charges -£30 won (hey, every little helps!)

Barclays Partner Finance £425 charges - £225 offer accepted.

 

Finally debt free after 4.5 years, thanks to my Debt Management Plan through Payplan. There is no better feeling :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Debt Solutions may say they can provide free and impartial Debt Advice but they have landed you with a CCJ and a Charging Order........not very good of them really.....in fact, it's shocking.

I would advise that you contact Debt Solution and ask for all the Court Paperwork so you could investigate the possibilty of getting the CCJ and the Charging Order set aside.

After you've got the paperwork from Debt Solutions; leave them immediately !

For a company that charges 15% of your monthly DMP payments they are a disgrace !!!!

You can get a similar service from CCCS or Payplan for free....or you could even do it yourself.

That 15% fee could be better used by yourself.

Finally, I would advise that you have a good look around the site to see what help is available here.

  • Haha 1

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I am sorry to hear of your current financial difficulties.

I too am with Payplan DMP, and I am aware that the creditors can take legal action against me at anytime.

However, I am assured by Payplan, that as they do with my letters from creds, that if I were to receive any legal action, they would suspend this and act on my behalf.

I think that a lot of the creditors are happy in receiving the monthly payments, but they want some security so that they know they are definitely going to get the full debt back,

I dont think it is very fair when you have come to an arrangement, that they are supposed to be happy with, however with the dmp being informal and not legally binding, they are within their rights :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Arrow/Copes got CCJ now going for CO - MBNA Card debt
  • 3 years later...

Hello to all,

My Wife and I are going through a re-mortgage and certain restrictions have been pointed out on the Land Registry Title by our Solicitor.

The removal of 2 have been successful but 1 is outstanding.

The restriction was placed in 2009 and there has been no other communication from the Claimant since.

The original debt was an MBNA card which was then sold on to Arrow Global who made the restriction.

Since that time I entered into an IVA, which picked up this debt and on completion of the IVA this old debt was taken into account (May 2014)

We have been 3 months communicating with Drydensfairfax who represent Arrow Global, and cannot get any acknowledgement of the proof we have sent them that the debt was dealt with.

We have been given an extension for the re mortgage and are being told that there will be no other, we are stressing that we are going to lose our offer, as Dydens are insisting the debt is secure and still stands.

We are saying that when you give us proof that a 'Final Charging Order' exists we will accept. Our proof from the IVA administers is that it was entered into the iVA and dealt with on completion.

Our Solicitor is at wits end and losing faith, as we have sent over 20 e-mails requesting that the restriction is lifted, Our new prospective lender is saying that the re mortgage cannot go ahead until this is implemented.

My question here is, when communication is this bad with Drydens is there another way.

Looking forward to any comments or further questions regarding all of the above

Regards

Dave 

Link to post
Share on other sites

is it a sole debt on a jointly owned property?

shouldn't need removing its a useless restriction k?

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

so whats your EXACT restriction wording?

as for drydens ... 

On 07/12/2009 at 08:43, supasnooper said:

I would advise that you contact Debt Solution and ask for all the Court Paperwork so you could investigate the possibilty of getting the CCJ and the Charging Order set aside.

After you've got the paperwork from Debt Solutions; leave them immediately !

did you ? if not you should have..

the IVA was a waste of time and only scammed you into paying on consumer debts you probably didnt need too.

have you got proof your IVA provider contacted and got agreement from arrows/drydens agreeing to being inc in the IVA?

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 dx100 uk

At the settlement hearing Arrow were invited re their restriction, and did not reply thus they were excluded. This I beleive is normal practice with the IVA system. (we have proof of invitation)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer my other Q'S please and type out the wording of the entry 

Sorry but if they did not agree  or there is no acceptance letter from them to the iva...this will need paying if you are remortgaging with a new lender 

 

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 again dx100uk

Please see below the wording of the restriction:

20.10.2009 RESTRICTION :No disposition of the registered estate, other than a deisposition by the proprietor of any registered charge registered befor the entry of this restriction, is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or their conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to Arrow Global LLC (territory of incorporation) at 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA (Virginia) 20190 USA and of 15 Old Baily, London EC4M 7EF, being the person with the benefit of an interim charging order on the beeficial interest of DxxxxxxPxxxxx made by the Bradford County Court on 7 August 2009 (Court Referrence: 7XT82667

I am told this is not a 'Charge' to the Title

regards  D.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a restriction k.

So as I explained 

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

you cant, if you are re mortgaging with a new lender then you'll have to pay it .

its only if you are selling or re mortgaging with the same lender that it can be ignored.

its not a full charging order ........no.

 

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...