Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Coumty Court Judge Out of Order??


Valdez is Coming
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6204 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

Can any of you legal brains help with this pls?

 

At a recent hearing a bank rejected my offer of monthly payment on a CCJ and asked the judge for permission to apply for a charging order against my property.

 

This was granted by the judge who then directed me to provide the bank's solicitors with details of my debts to other creditors (amounts, account numbers, etc). She said this was in order not to show preferrence to the litigant bank.

 

On reflection, l have come to wonder if this is legal (it is certainly not fair).

 

I am not involved in legal action with any other financial institution at present and to give the bank in queston details of other debts would only allow them to contact other creditors who might then form a queue to apply for charging orders against my property. This would effect severely my financial position and, therefore, it seems to me that the judge is acting beyond her county court authority ???

 

I do have ongoing issues with several creditors over bank charges, some in default over CCA requests, but l have not gone to court yet and none of them has sued me yet.

 

Any thoughts or information on this would be much appreciated

 

Thanks.......................Valdez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gizmo...thanks for replying. Seems like there's no other interest, but l think there is something very odd here.

 

No default on CCJ. It has only recently been granted by the court.

I screwed up on the original court action response forms and asked the original judge in court for time to pay. He gave me two weeks to present my budget/proposals.

 

At the second hearing l presented my personal budget (income/expenditure) and this was rejected by the bank's solicitor (A&L by the way) on the grounds that it would take too long to pay off the debt.

It amounted to approx £30.00 per month from a provable disposable income of £100 per month. I am working hard but am totally strapped for disposable income and thought the rule was that a judge cannot order one to pay more than one can afford? Obviously not true in Sussex!

 

Despite the fact that l offered the most l could afford monthly and informed the Deputy District Judge that banks regularly sell on such debts to third party DCAs for 15-25% of their total value, judge gave solicitor permission to apply for charging order.

 

l declared to the court (maybe foolishly, but in an attempt to be honest) that l have other debts to other creditors. None of these are currently involved in legal action with me (either suing or defending), though they might possibly be in future. There again, they may not be.

 

My point is, this is a single legal action by A&L against me. From the outset l have told A&L they are not my only creditors and have made offers of payment based on my income/expenditure. They have been negative & obstructive throughout. Why then should l be required to give them info which will help other creditors - nothing to do with THEIR claim against me - perhaps apply for charging orders against my (jointly owned by innocent partner) property???? This is A&L v Valdez, not A&L and various-other-creditors-with-help-from-the-court v Valdez.

 

I am going to fight their charging order request tooth and nail and have a very good argument. I can't, surely, be ordered to supply A&L with free 'ammunition' against me?

 

I just can't see how the court/judge has the authority to order this when no other party is involved in legal action and may never be. All the other accounts are in dispute - most in default over CCA requests.

 

Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks and regards........Valdez

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've had exactly the same thing from 1st credit and had to provide details of other creditor as well.

 

they refused my offer and wanted 8 times more than i was paying a few other creditors. they got an interim charging order and then had it made final.

 

it also happens in Lancashire, not only Sussex (and many other places).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gizmo

 

Court sent me a General Form of Judgement or Order letter stating:-

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. Judgement forthwith do stand

 

2. Any application by claimant (A&L) for a charging order must be served on xxxx, xxxx & xxxx (other creditors)

 

3. Defendant (me) to supply relevant account numbers for such creditors in the next seven days

 

4. No order for costs.

 

If you can throw any light on the legality of this, l would be eternally grateful

 

Tifo, l sympathise. Hope we can fight this

 

regards.........Valdez

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if A & L were to start contacting other creditors leading to exchange of information, that would have serious data protection and confidentiality implications.

May be you can request from the judge an explanation of the need for this additional information and what limitations will be put on its use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think the judge may be trying to help you on this. One of the main factors in a judge refusing a charging order is that it would put that creditor in front of other creditors in the queue. Clearly this would not be fair on those creditors.

 

As far as the other creditors are concerned, they would be in breach of the Data Protection Act if they were to provide any information without your consent. I would suspect that it is more to do with the judge wanting to feel confident that the information is correct - rather than an intent for that information to be used by A&L.

 

Indeed, I would say that A&L would be in breach of the CPR on use of documents obtained during the court process, if they were to use that information.

 

However, I would certainly have a conversation with the court manager over this - but I do think it is more down to the judge wishing to go along with your offer for instalments, rather than acceding to the banks application for a charging order.

 

Of course, that is just my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...