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

Hubby's potential Insolvency / bankruptcy


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5814 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

If its owned as a beneficial tenancy then it is assumed it is a 50/50 share, regardless of who paid deposit etc. Any different and you would have been tenants in common with shares divided in % agreed

  • Haha 1

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

beneficial tenancy is the more normal and the net result is whichever party dies their share automatically reverts to the other party, bypassing the estate etc. The law assumes that if beneficial tenants then 50/50 split.

 

Tenants in common = the two parties decide to state that their shares are seperate (and can be left to anybody else) and can determine the ratio i.e 20 % to 80%.

 

Just a word about secured debts - check that your husband was able to no longer be liable because I was under the impression that secured loans and child maintenance (for example) can not be wiped out by BR. In other words if secured loans are owned jointly creditors can come after you but also him when out of BR. If secured debts in his name alone then they could come after him at end of BR.

 

I may be wrong but it would do no harm for you to clarify the position with the OR.

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the tenants in common thing could be errr back dated:p

 

 

 

No it can't be as it has to be done formally and registered at the Land Registry and the OR has the power to revisit transactions for I think the previous three years if the OR considers its a manouvre to deprive creditors.

 

If you weren't aware that you are tenants in common then you most probably have a beneficial tenancy.

 

You can normally negotiate a 10 -15% discount off the official value of beneficial interest with the OR.

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like you both own it beneficially. It would state as tenants in common.

 

As to the car issue,

 

Registered keeper does not prove ownership. If you have been making payments out of a joint account etc then you should be able to prove part ownership at least. In which case the 700 you've just paid out - the OR owes you half. Whose name was the insurance in? If your husbands were you named driver?

 

Had you had the car liveried in any way for your business? In what way is the car specific to your business - you mentioned cards etc being printed.

 

The more reasoned argument you put up the more likely the OR is to settle.

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is established case law where the other half is owned by the wife. I'll root it out for you

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I have noticed a lot more threads regarding Statutory demands, which has got me pondering:

 

Could I still receive an SD for my personal debts (which are over £1k each time)?

I am sure that I know the answer, but just wondered where that would leave all my OCs? And whether action would be more or less likely in my situation!?

Just to clarify, I have not yet taken any further formal action regarding the BI, other than providing my IP with paperwork

Red

 

 

Yes if the debt is for more than 750.00. As to your other creditors if they're unsecured they will have to wait in line. A secured creditor or say the Inland Revenue would take priority

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...