Parking Ticket and Balifs

yellowplum · 30th August 2006, 12:49

Someone borrowed my car and it seems managed to accumulate two parking tickets. I have recently received information and a visit from two bailiffs demanding the outstanding funds. Firstly I was not driving the vehicle at the time, does this mean I am still liable for the two tickets. Secondly since I never received the tickets if I am liable for them how can I dispute the amount?

Any comments suggestions would be gratefully appreciated as I am little lost here as to what route to take with them. I am also trying to find out whether the area I parked in had signs to stipulate it was a controlled zone or not.

patdavies · 30th August 2006, 15:24

Who issued the tickets?

Police
Council or council comtractor
Private individual/company

yellowplum · 31st August 2006, 12:30

I believe it was the Council.

patdavies · 31st August 2006, 17:44

If it was the council, then this is DPE (Decriminalised Parking Enforcement). Under the RTA 1991.

If baliffs are involved, then this means that the Council has obtained a CCJ for each of the tickets from the Bulk Procesing Centre in Northampton.

However, you should have recieved a Notice to Owner for each of the tickets before the council may lawfully go to Court, even if you never saw the ticket itself.

Unfortunately under DPE, the owner/RK is liable.

You need to get the baliffs re-kenneled by getting the court judgement set aside and then you need to get onto the council to obtain copies of the tickets and NTOs. There is a very good chance that the original tickets are unlawful and therefore unenforceable.

I would strongly suggest visiting PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justice and following their advice closely - they specialise in speeding and parking problems. Members there have been party to getting Council's parking tickets overturned across the entire council due to unlawfulness of the tickets issued

miss_squeezy77 · 3rd September 2006, 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by patdavies

If it was the council, then this is DPE (Decriminalised Parking Enforcement). Under the RTA 1991.

If baliffs are involved, then this means that the Council has obtained a CCJ for each of the tickets from the Bulk Procesing Centre in Northampton.

However, you should have recieved a Notice to Owner for each of the tickets before the council may lawfully go to Court, even if you never saw the ticket itself.

Unfortunately under DPE, the owner/RK is liable.

Be aware though that many councils are operating under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 without being part of the DPE - not sure that the owner / rk is liable under this act.

rambo · 5th September 2006, 01:43

Provide the bailiff with the name of so called friend who was driving.

patdavies · 5th September 2006, 07:16

Doesn't make any difference. RK/owner is liable.

lancs24 · 4th November 2006, 18:37

As you have not had the NTO 'notice to owner' you need to register a late stat dec with Northamption TEC (County Court). They will then arrange for the ticket to be pulled back from the Bailiffs and re-issued at 30 ish quid.

You will need to ask a solicitor or a district judge to countersign your stat dec confirming that you have not recvd any of the notices.

5th November 2006, 17:43

you can also pop into your local county court counter and they ill do it free of charge as well.

kermit2482 · 2nd July 2008, 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowplum

Someone borrowed my car and it seems managed to accumulate two parking tickets. I have recently received information and a visit from two bailiffs demanding the outstanding funds. Firstly I was not driving the vehicle at the time, does this mean I am still liable for the two tickets. Secondly since I never received the tickets if I am liable for them how can I dispute the amount?

Any comments suggestions would be gratefully appreciated as I am little lost here as to what route to take with them. I am also trying to find out whether the area I parked in had signs to stipulate it was a controlled zone or not.

There is a crucial point here which everyone so far has failed to pick up on, firstly yellowplum says they were NOT DRIVING!!!!!!

Then they go on to say QUOTE ( I AM ALSO TRYING TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE AREA ( I ) PARKED IN HAD SIGNS TO STIPULATE IT WAS A CONTROLLED ZONE OR NOT )

Im sorry but this tells me that the poster was driving and is now just trying to wriggle out of it, Their typing not mine, so my opinion is pay it and stop trying to wriggle out of it!!!!

Al27 · 2nd July 2008, 17:24

Who's driving is irrelevant at this stage. The registered owner is liable (unless the car was taken without consent). This is not a speeding ticket.

Would you pay if you had never received any paperwork and bailiffs suddenly turned up? Of course not.

We're trying to establish if the person received a Notice to Owner and then a Charge Certificate. I don't think he did, so he needs to make a Statutory Declaration: Penalty Charge Notice,PCN,Representation ,Statutory Declaration,Out of Time Statutory Declaration,TEC,NPAS,PATA S,Adjudicator,Contraventi on Codes,Warrant of Execution,Road Traffic Act 1991,RTA 1991

kermit2482 · 2nd July 2008, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al27

Who's driving is irrelevant at this stage. The registered owner is liable (unless the car was taken without consent). This is not a speeding ticket.

Would you pay if you had never received any paperwork and bailiffs suddenly turned up? Of course not.

We're trying to establish if the person received a Notice to Owner and then a Charge Certificate. I don't think he did, so he needs to make a Statutory Declaration: Penalty Charge Notice,PCN,Representation ,Statutory Declaration,Out of Time Statutory Declaration,TEC,NPAS,PATA S,Adjudicator,Contraventi on Codes,Warrant of Execution,Road Traffic Act 1991,RTA 1991

The original poster states QUOTE ( MY CAR ) Therefore i would say its registered to them, or at least it should be!!!!!! Oh and how many times do we hear i never had any paperwork before the bailiffs turned up, in most cases thats absolute tosh, funny how most want to try and defend it when the bailiffs turn up isn't it and yet prior to that they would have had several opportunities to oppose it, you know darn well im right but the trouble is the truth on this forum doesn't go down too well, this and most other forums like it are all about how most people can wriggle out of something, dont get me wrong there are the few genuinely hard done by ones too and those i feel and say the forum definately helps them but you know exactly what im getting at and this thread in my opinion is just 1 such example!!! Just my opinion of course.

RichardM · 2nd July 2008, 18:41

Why drag up a thread that was last posted on 20 months ago?

Surely if you wanted to prove a point you could have done so with one a little more current. The fact that you had to go back to November 2006 sort of destroys any credibility of your arguement.

kermit2482 · 2nd July 2008, 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardM

Why drag up a thread that was last posted on 20 months ago?

Surely if you wanted to prove a point you could have done so with one a little more current. The fact that you had to go back to November 2006 sort of destroys any credibility of your arguement.

Probably as i didn't look at the date, wow you have got me on that one!!!

What on earth does the date have to do with any credibility, my post is correct and this is a poor attempt at trying to discredit a truth, just what i mean about this forum, some of you dont like the truth!!

Anyhow the mind boggles

crem · 2nd July 2008, 19:58

Have you searched the the posts from 2005 yet kermit2482? I'm sure you will find a post or 2 from then that will warrant your pointless resurrection also.

RichardM · 2nd July 2008, 20:06

Crem, give him some credit, this forum only started on August 1st 2006.

Obviously he feels that so few of us speak the truth, yet had to go back to page 76 out of 80 in order to find an example to educate us as to the folly of our ways in challenging the perceptions that everything done by authority is right, proper and lawful.

Like a county court judgement, the reason for his resurection of this thread should be based on proponderence of evidence.

On one hand, was it done to provide enlightened guidance to someone in need (albeit a little too late to be of any use whatsoever)

or was it done to troll?

I let the other members decide.

Al27 · 2nd July 2008, 22:37

Bloody hell. Why are you dragging up dead and buried threads anyway?

Coming onto a forum whose sole purpose is to help people only to post that you don't think they deserve any help is an odd way to spend your time.

siege1976 · 3rd July 2008, 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al27

Bloody hell. Why are you dragging up dead and buried threads anyway?

Coming onto a forum whose sole purpose is to help people only to post that you don't think they deserve any help is an odd way to spend your time.

The reason he's brought it up appears in on of the other threads here where he admits to being...tadaa! A BAILIFF!

CAG Products - We think that these will help you to make your claim or Reclaim your Right These sales also help us to keep helping YOU and ensure this site will remain free to use!

Small Claims Kit--	Small Claims Court Guide New Edition	Consumer Action Group envelope labels	Last Will & Testament Kit	Fight a Motoring Ticket

Alternatively you could purchase a CAG email address here, or maybe you'd prefer our address labels here
UPDATE: Consumer Forums ConsumerWiki is now LIVE - click here: ConsumerWiki