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

Oh The Audacity of DG


Audreygreeneyes
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5587 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

Auburn, go pack your wetsuit and surfboard because nothing is going to happen while your away.

 

You get back 2 days before DG's submission deadline and they will be late anyway so I would call that perfect timing to stop you panicing all over the place .

 

If you get board while your away you could always play spot the Crusher he lives down there somewhere, shouldnt be too difficult to find a green darlek

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I would think the OFT and the Judicary have turned round to the banks and said if they dont get their arses into court room for a test case every defence will be thrown out for abuse of process, or in other words they would have to pay everything to everyone.

 

This way the banks might have a chance of limiting some of their loss, I just hope the OFT dont cave in.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed... but why deduct what the credit card companies seem to think they are allowed to charge and say the remander is what the banks will charge ?... I think if a charge is set it will be the same as the credit card companies £12,,,,,, :p

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont think so, your probably right that we wont get all we want but thats just life and the old boy network (a lot of the OFT and FSA personel are ex bank).

 

I do think the Judicary have had an input into this, why have the banks suddenly agreed to a court case to set president after running away for so long?

 

The directions we have been getting from the various regional County Courts have slowly been increasing the pressure on the banks solicitors to prove they are actualy going to court or face a strike out of their defence, if this had carried on the banks would have been faced with absolutly no defence against unlawful charges claims.

 

This way I think they can seek to minimise their losses

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont need to comment you do it all for me Auburn

 

and the legal stuff for your claim looks good too... last paragraph

 

We ask this matter be treated with urgency as the court date is the 7th August 2007 as we have until the 2nd August 2007 to make any representations to the Court we may wish to be considered in the Preliminary hearing, obviously if the judgement was awarded in our favour there would be no requirement for this.

 

I would reword this to make it your representation because I dont think a Judge will get to look at it before the court date now.

asking jsut that as they have faile dot meet the corts deadlines.......

 

will wait for Unlce Pete to have a look see.......... ( just hope there ae no spelling mistakes in it)............lol

Sayin nawt

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

copy corespondence isnt going to add much to your "mini bundle" its not like any of it has been answered :) and it is a core point of your request for a defence strike out... you have tried to resolve things... HSBC/DG have ignored everything.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Auburn you will only join a very notorious list if you throw one .... hope you all saw this ...

 

Sent it by email yesterday to a few of the email addresses i got and i got an automatic reply from rachel. It said:

 

Im out of the office until 2070 - Ive left the bank!!!!

 

Looks like someones got the strops!! ha ha!!

makes you wonder what will happen now the king pin has gone

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you taking any notice of what DG say ? they have ignored you.

 

Write a letter to the court, make sure its there before monday morning, saying you have had the letter from DG and you object to this further provaracation... add the stuff from this thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/108430-stays-info-guidance.html

 

and just keep your fingers crossed your Judge agrees.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

The big point you have to get over is HSBC (DG) have just been delaying things and using the court system to do this, They had no intention of defending any case in court and you believe they are using the OFT test case in the same manner.

 

If the banks refuse to accept the courts judgement it the test case and keep appealing to higher and higher courts the case could drag on for years (my thinking is six years and they will clean up there act in the mean time) this would efectivly time bar a lot of the claims they are looking at currently and you can bet they will try to get the time bar included in the outcome of the test case to limit their liability.

 

Where did you find those powers of management rules ? I need to look at the whole thing before I comment ;-)

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

That section deals with the courts powers to strike out a statement of case (your claim or the defence)

 

Your case has been stayed pending the outcome of the test case, what we need to do is get the stay set aside on the grounds that this is a further abuse of process.

 

Everyone expects the banks to loose but regardless of this if the BANKS choose to apeal this will take years to resolve.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...