Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • dont go near them bunch of scammers! ive removed ref. dx  
    • I used to post regularly in order to provide factual information (rather than advice) but got fed up with banging my head against a brick wall in so many cases when posters insisted black was white and I was writing rubbish. I have never posted anything which was untrue or indeed biased in any way.  I have never given 'advice' but have sought to correct erroneous statements which were unhelpful. The only username I have ever used is blf1uk. I have never gone under any other username and have no connection to 'bailiff advice'.  I am not a High Court Enforcement Officer but obtained my first 'bailiff' certificate in 1982. I'm not sure what records you have accessed but I was certainly not born in 1977 - at that time I was serving in the Armed Forces in Hereford, Germany (4th Division HQ) and my wife gave birth to our eldest.   Going back to the original point, the fact is that employees of an Approved Enforcement Agency contracted by the Ministry of Justice can and do execute warrants of arrest (with and without bail), warrants of detention and warrants of commitment. In many cases, the employee is also an enforcement agent [but not acting as one]. Here is a fact.  I recently submitted an FOI request to HMCTS and they advised me (for example) that in 2022/23 Jacobs (the AEA for Wales) was issued with 4,750 financial arrest warrants (without bail) and 473 'breach' warrants.  A breach warrant is a community penalty breach warrant (CPBW) whereby the defendant has breached the terms of either their release from prison or the terms of an order [such as community service].  While the defendant may pay the sum [fine] due to avoid arrest on a financial arrest warrant, a breach warrant always results in their transportation to either a police station [for holding] or directly to the magistrates' court to go before the bench as is the case on financial arrest warrants without bail when they don't pay.  Wales has the lowest number of arrest warrants issued of the seven regions with South East exceeding 50,000.  Overall, the figure for arrest warrants issued to the three AEAs exceeds 200,000.  Many of these were previously dealt with directly by HMCTS using their employed Civilian Enforcement Officers but they were subject to TUPE in 2019 and either left the service or transferred to the three AEAs. In England, a local authority may take committal proceedings against an individual who has not paid their council tax and the court will issue a committal summons.  If the person does not attend the committal hearing, the court will issue a warrant of arrest usually with bail but occasionally without bail (certainly without bail if when bailed on their own recognizance the defendant still fails to appear).   A warrant of arrest to bring the debtor before the court is issued under regulation 48(5) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and can be executed by "any person to whom it is directed or by any constable....." (Reg 48(6).  These, although much [much] lower in number compared to HMCTS, are also dealt with by the enforcement agencies contracted by the local authorities. Feel free to do your own research using FOI enquiries!  
    • 3rd one seems the best option, let 'em default, don't pay a penny, nothing will happen, forget about all of this. As for Payplan don't touch them with a bargepole, nothing they can do that you can't, and they will pocket fees. A do it yourself DMP is pointless as it will just string out the statute barred date to infinity.
    • Because that’s what the email said. Anyway it’s done now. Posted and image emailed.    im doing some reading in preparation for defence but I will need my hand holding quite tightly by you good people.  I’m a little bit clueless
  • 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

kings hill/hodsons[cabot] claimform - mogan Stanley card **DISCONTINUED**


mrrj
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6069 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

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just like to add my well done message. From looking pretty worrying you have turned this around brilliantly and all by using the CCA against these shysters. Keep up the pressure. You may have felt even like giving up but this shows why you shouldn't. Bring Cabot and their dodgy dealings to book.

CFC RULES!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the OFT, when they replied to me, the response to a CCA request doesn't necessarily have to be a true copy but when it comes to enforcing it in court Cabot would indeed need to produce a genuine copy complete with prescribed terms and signatures.

 

I'd suggest that if they started court action without such a document then it could be considered vexatious litigation. In my opinion.

  • Barclays: WON!!! It took four months but was totally worth it!
  • Cabot: I'm still waiting for an enforcable agreement, more than a year after requesting it. Go on, Uncle Ken, take me to court if you dare. You know you want to!
  • Elephant.co.uk: VICTORY - they admitted there was no debt!
  • Ashbourne Management (gym membership): Finally got my default removed and out-of-court settlement; I'm not finished with them yet!

<--- If I've been helpful please remember the scales ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it's a question that should be asked...

 

M'lud (how do you address a judge? I think it's just Sir, isn't it?), I would like to ask the claimant to show the court the true, signed agreement, as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. WHat, you didn't know about that bit? Here, let me just show you. If you turn your copy of the Act to section.... etc, etc. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the OFT, when they replied to me, the response to a CCA request doesn't necessarily have to be a true copy but when it comes to enforcing it in court Cabot would indeed need to produce a genuine copy complete with prescribed terms and signatures.

 

I'd suggest that if they started court action without such a document then it could be considered vexatious litigation. In my opinion.

 

 

Cabot WILL start litigation without having any papers in place - they use this Hodsons firm in Rugby to do it. More recently they started filing claims MCOL to avoid a solicitor having to sign the claim form (stops us identify who is filing claim and complaining to Law Society about the individual)

 

Once you challenge them about papers they'll back off and allow case to be struck out of court to avoid following any Judges orders to provide the CCA and papers etc...

 

Cabots aren't fussy who they pick on at all - small issues like no papers won't bother them = for every one of us CAGGER'S who challenge them for the correct papers - there are dozens of persons out there who have no idea to challenge these bloodsucking T*ssers.

 

You see it's a bit of a game to them at Cabots - they basically wing it to see who'll just pay up. As we see from their profits plenty do because they don't know of CAG and their rights.

 

The only way to stop these people is to go back after them in court - challenge them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FOS and OFT will soon be getting some letters from me . In my case cabot were suppose to produce the notice of assignment by 10/08 but the DJ accepted the poor DOA as notice of assignment , i pointed out that in the DOA cabot supplied it says they must supply me a notice within 30 days but the DJ wasnt bothered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hows this for an order

"The best copy of the loan agreement together with a typed copy thereof together with a sworn affidavit of accuracy shall be filed and served" In default thereof the claim may be struck out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Judge wants them back in front of him so he can "play" with them. He want to see the best they can offer and have them swear to its authenticitiy and then he will rip it and hopefully them to bits.

 

great work.

  • Haha 1

If I have helped click my scales....

 

Find my threads by clicking here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hows this for an order

"The best copy of the loan agreement together with a typed copy thereof together with a sworn affidavit of accuracy shall be filed and served" In default thereof the claim may be struck out.

When did you get this??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Judge wants them back in front of him so he can "play" with them. He want to see the best they can offer and have them swear to its authenticitiy and then he will rip it and hopefully them to bits.

 

great work.

 

 

Me thinks a few Judges have this kind of "play" in mind :D :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well 14 days is up and no letters from cabot but i just noticed on the order that the judge has given them till 4 pm on the 3rd of october(15 days). I got all hyped up for nothing today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well 14 days is up and no letters from cabot but i just noticed on the order that the judge has given them till 4 pm on the 3rd of october(15 days). I got all hyped up for nothing today.

 

TICK TOCK - LOL

 

I wonder if they huddled around the couldron?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...