Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Police getting "clued-up" at long last ?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6096 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

very interesting reading

worth copying to everyones Chief Constable asking for similar guidelines to be publicly issued...?

 

I am a little concerned with one aspect ... they do not appear to realise that bailiffs collection for Council Tax need to be Certificated?

 

I have contacted Devon and Cornwall Police and pointed out this error - I will let you know when I get a response.

 

It would be worth getting ALL police forces to adopt similar "advice" - if only for the benefit of their own officers (and as this has been produced by a police force already, they would be more willing to accept it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well researched Watcher.

THis answers many questions posters are asking. In particular, that a bailiff might be arrested for breach of the peace depending on how he/she is conducting him/herself, what ID and documentary evidence they can show and what documentary authority they have.

It's excellent. Given that it's Drakes they're dealing with it's hardly surprising they're so concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well researched Watcher.

THis answers many questions posters are asking. In particular, that a bailiff might be arrested for breach of the peace depending on how he/she is conducting him/herself, what ID and documentary evidence they can show and what documentary authority they have.

It's excellent. Given that it's Drakes they're dealing with it's hardly surprising they're so concerned.

 

Yes, thanks ... it may also start to get the police to look at the situation in a slightly different light - especially when they realise that a FRAUD is being committed by anyone claiming to be able to levy but not having the relevant certification?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely.

There is another thread detailing a conversation in Parliament on this very point but I didn't make a note of where I saw it today. I think it was Baroness Scotland in the Lords, answering Lord Lucan.

 

I thought he'd done a runner years ago.:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have sent a copy to the police sargeant at the abergele north wales branch asking will he adopt a simmallar response well done watcher

 

Please let us know how you get on.

Let's see if we can get ALL forces to at least educate their officers as to the law !

 

If we are able to show them what the law really is (at the time that it matters) they will be less inclined to simply "accept" whatever a bailiff tells them.

 

At present, through ignorance, the police are often unwittingly an accessory to a crime, where they actually "assist" a bailiff even though he may not be Certificated and therefor acting unlawfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid that you should not take that report as concrete. They have copy and pasted some of this report relating to the law. In 4.7, it does not mention that a bailiff can lawfully have a locksmith with him to gain entry into a premises on a magistrate court warrant.

 

It is also interesting to read point 4.9

 

THERE ARE NO RESTRICTION FOR WHEN A LEVY CAN TAKE PLACE.

 

SUGGESTED TIME OF 6AM and 10PM. It does not say you can not do this before 6am or after 10pm.

 

Then again this is only Devon and Cornwall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the two "dates" mean? One is Jan 2007 (Policy Version date) - the other Jan 2008 (Review date).

 

Does it perhaps mean that this has been put forward for consultation and they will make a final decision in Jan 2008?

 

One thing is for certain - we CANNOT have the law interpretted differently in one county to the rest of the UK.

 

I'll let you know whan I get a reply from Devon & Cornwall police.

 

Your point (4.7) is covered by 4.6.d - is it not?

 

Re 4.9 - "suggested times for levying" - as you do not have to admit the bailiff, you can simply send them away until a "reasonable" time. Sane people would not consider 6am (or after dark) as being a "reasonable time" to open your door to a stranger. Calls made at such times are intentionally made to catch the debtor in their nightclothes and make them feel even more vulnerable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pizzamaker is right. This report is not "The Law" set in stone but only one forces (innacurate) interpretation. It is flawed in many areas such as the Bailiff being required to produce a Court Order or a photocopy of one. There is no legal requirement for a Bailiff to be in physical possession of a warrant "but only have knowledge of the existence thereof".

And the part where it is stated that the Debtor may remove or conceal goods to avoid distress. In actual fact, under "bound seizure" the Debtor is prevented from doing so.

This report is so flawed that in my humble opinion it would be dangerous for a Debtor to rely on its contents as fact

:!: :idea: :!:
Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll have to see ... but it IS (apparently) what Devon & Cornwall police will use as their guideance, so it's "the law" as far as "the law" is concerned !

 

I think any Court would be very sympathetic, if someone had relied on (and followed) official police guidance.

 

As for not removing or hiding goods - I've read many times that this IS allowed (if goods have not already been seized).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not allowed to remove or hide goods.

 

WHAT IF I HIDE THINGS OR GIVE THEM AWAY?

If the bailiffs haven't yet been in, you can hide things or take them somewhere else.

 

Taken from National Debtline - National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice | Factsheet 02 Bailiffs And Council Tax

 

also, from the same link as above -

BAILIFFS PROCEDURES

 

If the bailiffs are distraining for Poll Tax or Council Tax there are certain procedures that they have to follow.

They must have with them:

  • written authorisation from the council for them to call. They should show you this if you ask.

>>

 

Exactly - is that not exactly what this guidance information is for?

 

>>

 

Possibly, but you DON'T have to let them in or deal with them, do you? It would be a very foolish person who merely opened-up to anyone who happened to claim that they were a bailiff and had a warrant (but didn't have it with them)!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It would appear that the link to Devon and Cornwall Constabulary on post #1 no longer works.

On some things I am very knowledgeable, on other things I am stupid. Trouble is, sometimes I discover that the former is the latter or vice versa, and I don't know this until later - maybe even much later. Read anything I write with the above in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm let me guess...... no !!!

 

10 points to you, B.A.Ts !

 

If you got six policemen in a room and asked them all to explain bailiff law, I doubt one would get it right.

 

Thats why they tend to avoid the subject (fear of acting wrongly) and hide behind the "its a civil matter" banter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I live in the Devon & Cornwall policing area and would be very supprised if they took any notice at all of this statement. In my opinion they are lazy, self opinionated and bend the rules to suit the situation.

 

I have had to ask for their services on a number of occasions, they are either too busy or not interested. "Civil matter, sir"

 

If you are a motorist, then beware they will be on you like a ton of bricks, but if you are a vandal, thief, mugger or violent then ply your trades in the West Country. The boys in blue look the other way. Paperwork is too much for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 points to you, B.A.Ts !

 

If you got six policemen in a room and asked them all to explain bailiff law, I doubt one would get it right.

 

Thats why they tend to avoid the subject (fear of acting wrongly) and hide behind the "its a civil matter" banter.

 

Police are not trained in bailiff matters so it's not surprising you would get 6 different responses. It's not a question of hiding behind "It's a civil matter", that is what they are trained to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Northern Ireland. In 1971 the office of bailiff was abolished due to the fact that, what with the Troubles at their height no one took them seriously anymore.

 

ie: they were classed as Crown Forces by the IRA, and as such, a lot of them had errr...warrants of execution served on them by someone wearing a balaclava.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...