kcdhs9878b
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by kcdhs9878b
-
It won't be long till we give over our name and addresses to TV licensing when you buy an iPhone, tablet or other device capable of viewing TV. We will have iPad detector vans going round, or an internet connection tax like thay already have in Germany.
-
Yes it does, this guy. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/protection/memo/pf43.htm bit of a cock up!
-
reg 18 deals with vehicles but it is limited to public roads because section 54 makes it an offence to immobilise vehicles on private land. Otherwise a regulation is superceeding an Act, not possible in England.
-
----------------------------------- 16.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an enforcement agent who is securing goods of the debtor on the premises on which they are found (under paragraph 13(1)(a) of Schedule 12) may secure the goods— (a)in a cupboard, room, garage or outbuilding; (b)in the case of goods on premises (or on a part of the premises) which are not occupied for residential purposes, by the enforcement agent remaining on the premises to guard the goods of the debtor of which the enforcement agent has taken control; ©by fitting an immobilisation device (which must be provided by the enforcement agent); or
-
Lynne Featherstone MP dated October 2011 may assist: -allows clamping by bailiffs on private land. That is not what 54 of the 2012 legislation says-but the new controlled goods reg 16 allow for clamping on commercial land but not residential land 16(b) Lamma, the goods regs is secondary legislation and an act is primary which cannot be superseded by secondary-in a judicial review the primary always takes precedence.
-
lamma i think you are right the regs are secondary, but i see that clamping has not been allowed on residential property in these regs, only commercial and highways which cause a problem with primary legislation 54 of the protection of freedom act
-
New regulations. Whose the regulator?
-
I had this many years ago. I loaned some amateur radio equipment to a friend who had it seized by bailiffs and I had to make an interpleader claim. I had to produce receipts, serial numbers and my life history, I then had to collect it from an office miles away and I was left out of pocket because I was not refunded my application fee.A commercial landlord seized computer equipment for unpaid rent but the equipment was leased, the leasing company reclaimed it all through the small claims court and was paid everything.Interpleader = don't bother, too risky, waste of money.Small claim = less burden of proof, get paid everything.
-
or anyone else as to that matter.
-
where did you send it tom?
-
Sorry I thought it was all the same site, it was a bailiffs poll I saw http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387101-Bailiff-Poll(4-Viewing)-nbsp a line of communication I saw this forum saying. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?388754-Form-4-Complaints-and-the-matter-of-costs.&p=4213873&viewfull=1#post4213873 My mistake all these websites all look so similar.
-
Reading further if Marston wanted to clean up the industry, there is nothing stopping it. There is a poll running another thread and its top gripe is about charges and Marston just needs to adhere to the law when setting them. Gripe numbers 2 & 3 is about behaviour and exceeding authority, both manageable by proper staff training. There is no excuse. If other companies can properly train staff there is no excuse for Marston Group. This link up with CAG is a smoke screen by the Marston group to deliberately damage public confidence and report complaint information back to Marston. I just read on another thread something about asking the Marston group for information, suggesting a line of communication is already established.
-
Like a health warning of sorts, but a declaration of of non endorsement doesn't assure members that Marston have foreknowledge to a potential complaint and take steps to hide certain evidence.
-
If the industry is out of control, then why do Marston continue to behave as such? Forming an alliance with CAG benefits Marston than CAG.
-
I doubt a PR stunt is the motive, moreover the Marston company wants inside information about forthcoming complaints and have bought it nby giving free rail travel.
-
I agree with the concerns made, neutrality has been lost because of an alliance with this company. Aligning with a bank who mandates PPI and high bank charges wouldn't happen.
-
how does someone get advice from marstons advisory group?
-
Barclays & Welcome Finance a Tomlin Order – what now?
kcdhs9878b replied to kcdhs9878b's topic in Welcome Finance
because after donzens of letters and telephone calls, Barclays stuck two fingers. They knew I could not or did not know how to enforce payment without a CCJ. I wanted to make a third party application to transfer the sum from their account. -
I took Barclays to court for bank charges before the Abbey–OFT case and I was offered and accepted a Tomlin order and it was approved by the court. I wanted judgement but I felt brow-beaten into conceding for a Tomlin order. Barclays never paid it and I gave up after that, it was for about £3500. I have a court appearance with Welcome finance, for £5800 PPI on Friday and I have received an 11th hour offer of a Tomlin order. They already tried to get me to back down but I want to ask the Judge for everything I have lost and everything that court rules says I can ask for.' If I accept this so-called Tomlin order with welcome, what if they don't pay?
-
this looks like a capital contribution order.
-
I also looked in LexisNexis and Halsburys and the case you described is nothing about quoting old case law to a local authority in any spelling alternative. You will find a bailiff and a local authoirity legal department will have access to either or both of these sources.
-
the logic is sound but the case of Moir v Munday 1 Burr. 582 drawn from Butterworths makes no mention about quoting case law from 1700's to a local authority.
-
That is an interesting book but it doesnt contain the text you quoted in your post, I was hoping there was a regulation that either enabled or prohibits excessive levy apart from know case law but the book passage you quoted cites a case of Moore v Munday a known case the plaintiff successfuly sued for excessive distress.
-
that advice does appear to be accurate because an occupier can ask the police without a search warrant to leave and police officer is under a duty to do so. and a levy is NOT a walking possession.
-
the regulation doesnt appear to extend to assisting the enforcement officer to enter by force without a levy, only for the execution of the writ but as the debtor named on the writ is not there, there is not much the police or the enforcement offcier can do other than leave the premises.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS