Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

How long can bailiffs leave my car clamped?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5741 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

My car was clamped at 5.30am this morning, together with paperwork put through the letterbox for an unpaid PCN.

I telephoned the bailiffs company to tell them that I had filed a statutory declaration and and out of time declaration which I did only yesterday.

 

I also informed them that the vehicle was owned by a finance company, and left a copy of the finance documents on the doorstep, and asked them to return and remove the clamp.

 

They said "we will make our own enquiries".

 

I am wondering firstly what their next tactic will be, and secondly, how long can they leave the vehicle clamped

 

. In theory would it not be against their interests to return and have it proved to them that they cant take the vehicle?

Therefore could they just leave it clamped in the hope that I pay in any case?

Any advice gratefully received :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Old_andrew2018

Hi Gatto,

Any news, it is 18.00hrs has the clamp been removed, do you need to use your car urgently if so you could consider clicking on the red triangle, this will open a pop up window, you can leave a message for the site team I am sure they can direct a forum member with expertise to your post.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately I don't need the car for work....or for a few days in fact, thankfully!

 

I had a couple of conversations with the bailiff today.

I left a copy of the finance agreement on my doorstep as I had to go to work, and I told the bailiff this on my first phone call, I also informed them that the car belonged to the finance company and they could satisfy themselves of this by reading the documentation.

 

Incidently they clamped the car just after 5 am and didnt knock on the door....I don't know if they are supposed to....or if they aren't allowed to knock before a certain hour?

 

At approx 4pm they came back to the house and my brother observed them taking the paperwork and reading it in their car. They then put the paperwork back through the letterbox and drove off leaving the clamp in place.

 

I telephoned them again and asked them where we now stood. They said that nothing had changed and that according to a clause in the paperwork I was liable for any fines due to be paid against the car. I pointed out that they were trying to bamboozle me as this did not mean that the finance company gave them the right to take a 30k car for a £500 fine it simply mean that I was liable to the finance company for fines etc. I also pointed out that they had undermined their own argument as clearly they were admitting knowledge that the car belonged to the finance company.

 

I also pointed out that stat dec and OOT were being filed and would be faxed to them this afternoon which they were. They tried the usual wind ups and arguing about what was in the stat dec which is clearly nothing to do with them.

 

I finished by insisting that as they had demonstrated that they knew the car was not mine they didn't have a valid seizure of the vehicle and that if they didn't remove it by tomorrow afternoon I would take further action. The end of the conversation was:

 

ME: so are you going to remove the clamp?

THEM: I might.....

 

It was a pretty heated conversation :)

 

I feel I am on strong ground but I don't know whether I have provoked them into removing the vehicle or frightened them into removing the clamp, so I will wake up worried tomorrow...

 

Have I done the right thing?

 

Thoughts and observations welcome :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure there is a difference between clamping and seizing goods. They have not seized the car with the intention of selling it to pay the debt but immobilised it until you pay the fine, therefore ownership is not relevant since your agreement says you are liable. Having said that once the TEC has received the Stat Dec all enforcement of the fine should cease.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised that the bailiff has not removed the clamp....most that we deal with would normally return to tremove the clamp within a few hours of receiving confirmation from the local authority that the Out of Time had been filed.

 

The Out of Time is of course a "feezing action" and clause 8.1 of part 75 of the CPR rules specifically state that the local authority must cease all enforcement when an application has been filed. This would mean that the vehicle cannot be put of a tow truck and removed.

 

Did the bailiff leave a Notice of Seizure of goods & Inventory and a copy of the warrant of execution ? He MUST by law do this.

 

If you send me a PM with the name of the bailiff and the firm he works for, I will check our database to ensure that he is certificated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...