Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6279 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, after a little help here. My mother received a summons for unpaid council tax, I paid the bill for here prior to it getting to court, however it appears that there was an aditional charge of £30 for issuning the summons. She had a visit from the baliffs today, demanding £125 which included a fee of £16.50 for their visit today.

I contacted the council and asked what the remainder of the money was and they told me that £30 was for the council, the remaining £95 was for baliff charges.

 

Can they actually charge £95 for one visit to recover a council tax debt of just £30.

 

I paid the £30 direct to the council today, as I didn't want the people at Brisow & Sutor to get their grubby mits on the £30 and put it towards their charges

 

Thanks in anticipation

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you paid the council tax upto the date of hearing you can demand the £30 back. If you paiud after the hearing date then your lumbered with the £30

CLICK HERE FOR A LOOK AT ALL OF MY FILES: http://s134.photobucket.com/albums/q82/bailiffchaser/

do not forget to click on my scale if i am giving you the right advice or advice is making sense click my scales otherwise others think i am not helping you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The baliffs pitched up again today whilst I was there, didn't hear them though as we were chatting in the kitchen of an upstairs flat.This time they left a note advising that they had attended in order to seize goods to the value of the outstanding debt and would come at any time even weekends with a van to collect these goods.Anyway I sent them an e-mail advising them that the payment had been made after their previous visit and we had a receipt to show that. I also advised them that I would send them a cheque for £16.50 which was the amount their chap had said was the charge for his previous visit. Should they make any further attempts to collect this debt by either visiting my mothers property or communicating with her in any way, then I would be reporting them to the relevant stautory authorities and consider legal action for harrassment in pursuing a debt that does not exist.Question:Can they carry on pursuing this debt, even though it no longer exists?Mum isn't very well and this is really starting to get to her

Link to post
Share on other sites

The baliffs pitched up again today whilst I was there, didn't hear them though as we were chatting in the kitchen of an upstairs flat.This time they left a note advising that they had attended in order to seize goods to the value of the outstanding debt and would come at any time even weekends with a van to collect these goods.Anyway I sent them an e-mail advising them that the payment had been made direct to the council after their previous visit and we had a receipt to show that. I also advised them that I would send them a cheque for £16.50 which was the amount their chap had said was the charge for his previous visit. Should they make any further attempts to collect this debt by either visiting my mothers property or communicating with her in any way, then I would be reporting them to the relevant stautory authorities and consider legal action for harrassment in pursuing a debt that does not exist.Question:Can they carry on pursuing this debt, even though it no longer exists?Mum isn't very well and this is really starting to get to her

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received the following reply to my e-mail:

 

Dear Sir,

We acknowledge receipt of your email, the contents of which have been duly noted.

Please be advised that I have confirmed, with our clients xxxxx Borough Council, that you have paid to them the sum of £30.00.

Two visits have been made to your property. The first visit was on the 05/01/07 where no contact was made (if they did attend on this date, they certainly didn't leave any paperwork to prove to my mother that they attended). The fee for this visit was £22.50. A second visit was then made on the 01/02/07 where again no contact was made and the charge was £16.50.

We have not as yet received your cheque in the sum of £16.50. Therefore your outstanding balance is £39.00.

Under the terms of the Liability Order and the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992, you are liable for payment of the Council Tax plus the costs incurred by both the Local Authority and ourselves.

Payments must be made direct to ourselves in cash, postal orders, or by banker’s draft. Cheques are also acceptable except where payment of a previous cheque sent to us, by you has not been met by your bank.

Payment can also be made by CREDIT or DEBIT CARD by telephoning our office on the above number. (Note: All card payments are subject to a 4% surcharge). Seems a bit excessive

A receipt will only be issued if you send a stamped addressed envelope with your payment. Your reference number is xxxxxxx. This must be included with your payment and written clearly on any letters which you send to us.

We expect to receive your remittance by return, failing which we will have no alternative but to reattend your property for the removal and sale of your goods and chattels, which will incur you in further additional costs.

I'm off down to the council today to get a statement of account from them to confirm when the payment was made, and then off to the court to confirm when the liabilty order was made against mum, so, if the payment was made before the liability order granted then I can get the £30 back and tell the baliffs to get stuffed through the courts

Is this correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I toddled down to the council offices today and it would appear that according to the statements of the account, the outstanding balance was paid on 24th November by cheque, however the £30 charge is for issuing the summons on 30th October, the liability order was granted by the court on 27th November.

Mum wasn't aware of the £30, as she never recived any notification from the council about it. Anyway the council were pretty sympathetic and suggested we write to both them and the baliffs disputing the charge so that no further action can be taken til the matter is resolved and if they find mum liable then we'll just have to grit our teeth and cough up the £39 to Bristow & Sutor

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...