Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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 5432 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

Its a line I couldnt work oy either

 

:rolleyes:

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 430
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Wherever you send a Subject Access Request, the recipient is the data controller. It matters not if the council holds personal data duplicated by the bailiffs they are under an obligation to provide data they process if requested.

 

Quite right dw, they can't slither out of it that way.

 

Chris, if you go here http://www.esd.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/esd/search.asp

and enter your councils name, they will come up as a data controller. QED!!

 

Elsinore

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite right dw, they can't slither out of it that way.

 

Chris, if you go here http://www.esd.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/esd/search.asp

and enter your councils name, they will come up as a data controller. QED!!

 

Elsinore

 

Elsinore is there anything you DONT know :D

 

Your ability to extract and post the actual links is nothin short of genius :)

 

But dont tell the dcas :rolleyes:

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Awwww thanks.

 

But as Ive said already I am still with you lot...........I may not have Baliffs at my door at the moment but they could come back at any time........when the neigbours take me to court for playing ABBA songs :rolleyes:

 

 

I have got serious business with dcas tho..........none of which I have paid or intend to pay.....They can be just as troublesome as MrB.

 

I am really looking forward to spending some of my penalty charges on taking these b*******s to court.

 

Nothing would make it more worthwhile being on here than to see everyone get a result from both the banks AND the baliffs.

at the moment the banks are being defeated.......I would love to see the baliffs in the same boat !!

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wherever you send a Subject Access Request, the recipient is the data controller. It matters not if the council holds personal data duplicated by the bailiffs they are under an obligation to provide data they process if requested.

 

My SAR was sent to Philips not too the council, but surely the Council will be a data conroller anyway under their normal legal obligations.

Chrismc v Vertex Data Science Ltd

SD Set Aside WON + Costs

 

 

Chrismc v Barclays

Won - Settlement Agreed at 11th Hour.

 

Philips Bailiffs

Lost - Judge changed at last minute, it didn't help!

 

G-MAC Early Redemption Charges Waived

Won - Early Redemtion Fees Waived in Full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite right dw, they can't slither out of it that way.

 

Chris, if you go here http://www.esd.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/esd/search.asp

and enter your councils name, they will come up as a data controller. QED!!

 

Elsinore

 

Thanks Elsinore

 

When you search that register it states:

 

This data controller states that it is a public authority under the

Freedom of Information Act 2000 or a Scottish public authority under the

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

and

 

Data Controllers further description of Purpose:

ELECTORAL REGISTRATION

THE PROCESSING OF INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY TO THAT CONTAINED ON

THE ELECTORAL REGISTER

Data Subjects are:

MINORS CURRENTLY SIXTEEN OR SEVENTEEN YEARS OLD

THOSE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR JURY SERVICE (I.E. OVER SEVENTY YEARS OLD)

OTHER MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD

Data classes are:

Personal Details

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

MEMBERS OF THE DATA SUBJECT'S FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD

OTHER OCCUPANTS OF THE DATA SUBJECTS ADDRESS

COURTS

Data subjects themselves

MINORS CURRENTLY SIXTEEN OR SEVENTEEN YEARS OLD

THOSE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR JURY SERVICE (I.E. OVER SEVENTY YEARS OLD)

OTHER MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD

Data classes are:

Personal Details

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

MEMBERS OF THE DATA SUBJECT'S FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD

OTHER OCCUPANTS OF THE DATA SUBJECTS ADDRESS

COURTS

Data subjects themselves

 

Plus tons and tons more too many to mention, plus this which is more relevant

 

Purpose 5

Assessment and Collection of Council Tax and National Non-Domestic Rates

Data Controllers further description of Purpose:

CALCULATION AND ASSESSMENT OF RATES/TAX DUE

CONDUCT OF COUNCIL TAX CANVASSES

ISSUE OF NOTICES AND DEMANDS

COLLECTION AND PROCESSING OF PAYMENTS

DEBT TRACING AND COLLECTION OF COUNCIL TAX AND RATES

Data subjects are:

Relatives, guardians and associates of the data subject

Advisers, consultants and other professional experts

COUNCIL STAFF (INCLUDING PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES, ELECTED

MEMBERS, VOLUNTEERS, CONSULTANTS, SELF EMPLOYED AND OTHER PERSONS CONTRACTED TO

PROVIDE SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL)

COUNCIL TAX OR RATE PAYERS (PAST, PRESENT AND POTENTIAL)

Data classes are:

Personal Details

Family, Lifestyle and Social Circumstances

Employment Details

Financial Details

Business activities of the data subject

It goes on and on and also covers all the benefitrs sections, council tax, housing etc etc etc. the list is endless.

 

Chris

Chrismc v Vertex Data Science Ltd

SD Set Aside WON + Costs

 

 

Chrismc v Barclays

Won - Settlement Agreed at 11th Hour.

 

Philips Bailiffs

Lost - Judge changed at last minute, it didn't help!

 

G-MAC Early Redemption Charges Waived

Won - Early Redemtion Fees Waived in Full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost as endless as Philips excuses no doubt?

 

:rolleyes:

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi There,

 

I havent read all of the post, but this might help: http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/debt_basics/bailiff-guide.htm

 

Also take a look at this post I posted a few days ago:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-bailiffs/19991-debt-collectors-doorknockers.html

 

hope this helps.

 

Cheers

 

Adrian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ade your missus isnt russian by any chance ?

 

 

:confused:

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A certain person we know with the same name..........but obv ur not him !!

 

 

;)

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No its not you Adrian!!

Chrismc v Vertex Data Science Ltd

SD Set Aside WON + Costs

 

 

Chrismc v Barclays

Won - Settlement Agreed at 11th Hour.

 

Philips Bailiffs

Lost - Judge changed at last minute, it didn't help!

 

G-MAC Early Redemption Charges Waived

Won - Early Redemtion Fees Waived in Full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi There,

 

I havent read all of the post, but this might help: http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/debt_basics/bailiff-guide.htm

 

 

Yes I have all that Adrian al;ready listed in this thread and various others I am contributing too.

 

 

Also take a look at this post I posted a few days ago:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-bailiffs/19991-debt-collectors-doorknockers.html

 

hope this helps.

 

Cheers

 

Adrian

I haven't read all your thread, but taking a quick look and if you read the whole of this thread you will probably find I have covered all your circumstances and probably a lot more besides. I am a lomng way down the road with this and on the verge of issuing a County Court Summons aga9inst the Bailiffs.

 

But thanks anyway for your help!!

 

Chris

Chrismc v Vertex Data Science Ltd

SD Set Aside WON + Costs

 

 

Chrismc v Barclays

Won - Settlement Agreed at 11th Hour.

 

Philips Bailiffs

Lost - Judge changed at last minute, it didn't help!

 

G-MAC Early Redemption Charges Waived

Won - Early Redemtion Fees Waived in Full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin and I could find you one OK!! or at least tell you where and how to look he he

Chrismc v Vertex Data Science Ltd

SD Set Aside WON + Costs

 

 

Chrismc v Barclays

Won - Settlement Agreed at 11th Hour.

 

Philips Bailiffs

Lost - Judge changed at last minute, it didn't help!

 

G-MAC Early Redemption Charges Waived

Won - Early Redemtion Fees Waived in Full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin and I could find you one OK!! or at least tell you where and how to look he he

 

 

True Chris.........but he will need a good claim in first !

 

:D

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well outside the passport offices would be a good start ROFL

 

that was a joke and meant no offence to any Eastern European peple on this baoard!

 

You wont find any RW hanging around outside passport offices ;)

 

They are too smart for all that queuing

 

:D

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hnmmmmm 2 claims x700 quid (fingers tapping....)

 

A return flight to Mioscow 7 days in hotel alpha and a crate of Baltika

 

plus some change for the babooskas new headscarf

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You wont find any RW hanging around outside passport offices ;)

 

They are too smart for all that queuing

 

:D

They sure are...BTW you have a spare one at home don't you he he

Chrismc v Vertex Data Science Ltd

SD Set Aside WON + Costs

 

 

Chrismc v Barclays

Won - Settlement Agreed at 11th Hour.

 

Philips Bailiffs

Lost - Judge changed at last minute, it didn't help!

 

G-MAC Early Redemption Charges Waived

Won - Early Redemtion Fees Waived in Full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes he can have her..........if he can speak Russian he will be ok

or maybe spend some of that 1400 giving her English lessons lol

 

;)

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

 

Where are the points of dispute with Phillips?

Presumably you have records/proof whether complete or not, of what payments you made to them. Do they match up with what documents Phillips have sent you with their version of what's been paid? If not, how do they explain the discrepancies?

 

I'm a bit lost with reference to what is "reasonable" in terms of charges - where has that come from?

 

Bailiffs do seem to think they can make duplicate charges for one visit if they have more than one account to chase. You should ask what authority they are relying on for such a proposition - it isn't in any regs. I have seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

 

Where are the points of dispute with Phillips?

Presumably you have records/proof whether complete or not, of what payments you made to them. Do they match up with what documents Phillips have sent you with their version of what's been paid? If not, how do they explain the discrepancies?

 

I'm a bit lost with reference to what is "reasonable" in terms of charges - where has that come from?

 

Bailiffs do seem to think they can make duplicate charges for one visit if they have more than one account to chase. You should ask what authority they are relying on for such a proposition - it isn't in any regs. I have seen.

 

Hi

 

The main thing and which started this was excessive charges, over £800 on a debt of £1600 around 54% fees on the debt. They have already agreed they have overcharged me 2 x van fees and are supposed to be sending a cheque for £160 to me. However, they charged 4 x van fees, and part of my argument is that the Bailiff only ever visited in a small van as that was his only mode of transport, so how can they add another 2 van fees on top. They visited maybe 3 or 4 times in total and their fees including a WP could be legitimately calculated to around £80 - £100 max.

 

However, I DO have a record of all my payments and there is still a small discrepency, but the paperwork they sent me does not all tally with mine, I have paperwork they left me which clearly shows WP, First visit and Levy fees etc way above the rates they are legitimatly allowed to charge, but as this went on they seem to have not stuck to these figures and instead charge 3 or 4 times the same fee for the same visit, and they say they can do this because there was 4 x accounts with them. I queried this also with National Debt Helpline and they said they cannot do this, the fees have to be "fair and reasonable" and if they are visiting, they charge one fee even if you do have 2 or 3 or 4 accounts with them.

 

Philips however, do not agree with this and state they are "legally allowed to charge fees for each liability order issued" Now the problem is, I have searched and searched and I cannot find anything in print that states they can or cannot do this, it is always stated as "fair and reasonable" or set fees eg £11.00 £22.50 etc etc. Van fees are stated as again "fair and reasonable" which leaves it open to much interpretation.

 

I am now at the stage where I have to issue a court summons or drop it!! also as I stated they have told the council they posted a cheque to me 2nd August, the council confirmed this in writing, but this has still not arrived. The Council say the matter is closed, but I could quite easily arrange a meeting with the Local Taxation Officer and show him what I have, but the Council and Philips are not really interested they will only take notice if I go through with my threats, so my only course of action in my opinion now is to issue the summons.

 

So I was going to go over things again this weekend then decide!! any advice BotB is welcome.

 

Chris

Chrismc v Vertex Data Science Ltd

SD Set Aside WON + Costs

 

 

Chrismc v Barclays

Won - Settlement Agreed at 11th Hour.

 

Philips Bailiffs

Lost - Judge changed at last minute, it didn't help!

 

G-MAC Early Redemption Charges Waived

Won - Early Redemtion Fees Waived in Full.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5432 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...