Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Birmingham City Council and Equita Bailiffs


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4536 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

Hi everyone,

 

Im looking for a bit of advice regarding equita and birmingham city council.

 

I broke my leg and ankle in may, 2 operations later....

 

I owe birmingham city council £345.22. This was passed onto equita bailiffs. The first letter I received from equita, dated 8/11/2011... stated I owe £387.22 to birmingham city council. £42.50 was adding on just for sending out this letter.

 

The second letter dated 15/11/2011 had a big removal notice across the middle of it.

 

Yesterday 22/11/2011 - There was a hand deliver letter, from the "local area bailiff" with his contact details. When I rang him, the total owing had some how gone up to £582.

 

I had been away from my property the beginning of november, I have just got back to see all these 3 letters.

 

I've been on the phone to the council all morning and they are basically shrugging their shoulders. I dont want to pay the bailiffs because I'm not paying these ridiculous fees. I've asked the council to deal direct with them but they basically say its out of their hands.

 

Even though on their website, it clearly states, the maximum bailiffs can charge is £24.90 for the first visit and £18 for the second visit. (LINK: birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=SystemAdmin%2FCFPageLayout&cid=1223092602862&packedargs=website%3D4&pagename=BCC%2FCommon%2FWrapper%2FCFWrapper&rendermode=live] ).

 

I asking for your help on what to do next, because its basically illegal what they are doing.

 

The bailiff did say he would give me until the 5th of december (what happens after this)?

 

Sorry for such a long post

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing you need to know is that BCC outsourced their back office admin to a Company called Capita - therefore when you ring you don't actually speak to the Council. On top of that Capita also own 2 Bailiff Companies one of which happens to be Equita - I assume you see where this is going so won't explain any further.

 

The Bailiff cannot charge for posting letters to you - were the first 2 sent by Royal Mail? As you have found out he can charge for visits (a maximum of 2 only) where he fails to make a levy. It would appear from what you say he is also attempting to charge an enforcement or similar fee - certainly not allowed if he does not have a valid levy.

 

Send off for a breakdown of their fees to date, adapt this as you see fit and send initially by email followed by a copy in the post:

"From:

My Name

My Address

 

To:

Acme Bailiff Co

Bailiff House

 

Ref: Account No: 123456

 

Dear Sir

 

With reference to the above account, Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges.

 

This includes:

a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.

b - the reason for the fee.

c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.

d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were Certificated at.

e - the date of the Certification.

 

This is not a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information.

 

I require this information within 14 days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Ripped off customer"

 

You could of course contact your local Councillor(s) and advise them that their Contractors are attempting to claim for work not done. In the meantime you could ignore the Bailiff and pay the Council direct by online banking, Council website or automated phone. You will have to allow for lawful Bailiff fees however.

 

Whatever happens do not allow him access to your home.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks so much for the quick response.

 

The first 2 letters did come via royal mail.

 

The 3 was hand delivered. I wont be letting them into my property. I have no car they can take. All my windows will remain shut.

 

What do you mean by levy? is that when they take something or access the property?

Link to post
Share on other sites

a levy is when they seize a car or you let them in and they list your goods on a walking posession

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what your new best mate may tell there is actually no law that says you have to speak to or deal with a Bailiff - although I believe there is a perfectly good Anglo Saxon saying you can utter. Providing you do not allow him access to your home or prevent him seizing goods outside then he is absolutely powerless and can do nothing. Mind he wouldn't be the first to seize a car outside and claim he thinks it is yours but that can be dealt with if it happens. Have good read of some of the other threads to get a flavour of some of the tricks they try.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the amazing help! Ive emailed the Chief Executive of Birmingham city council. To my surprise he has replied 2 hours later.

 

"I write to acknowledge your email of earlier today concerning the above.

 

I am investigating the issues you have raised and will return to you as soon as I can. "

 

Lets see what he says. The bailiff gave me till the 5th dec, do i just ignore them now?

 

 

Thanks once again guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been on the phone to BCC. What a joke they are, they are basically saying they cant help me. Because the debt is now with equita. They also say that they have received my complaint, and it is being looked into, but the issue is still with equita.

 

Im willing to pay the lawful charges, but the ridiculous bailiff charges? NO CHANCE.

 

I have a good mind to contact birmingham mail.

 

Where do I do from here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday 22/11/2011 - There was a hand deliver letter, from the "local area bailiff" with his contact details. When I rang him, the total owing had some how gone up to £582.

 

phone the bailiff record the call and ask him to confirm the total amount outstanding fees charged the reason for each fee charged and the date of each fee charged

 

before you phone him make sure you have checked he is certificated to Equita

www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/CertificatedBailiffs

 

when you get that post back

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just done a search. I searched for the bailiff name first. Nothing.

 

I then searched for equita, sorted through all the pages and the bailiff name doesnt appear there! infact, theres only a few from birmingham!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been on the phone to BCC. What a joke they are, they are basically saying they cant help me. Because the debt is now with equita. They also say that they have received my complaint, and it is being looked into, but the issue is still with equita.

 

Im willing to pay the lawful charges, but the ridiculous bailiff charges? NO CHANCE.

 

I have a good mind to contact birmingham mail.

 

Where do I do from here?

 

As I said previously 9 times out of 10 you are speaking to an employee of Capita who own Equita. You will need to ask to speak to the Head of Revenues. Mind I suspect the only language he may know is Bailiff. Instead involve your local Counciloor(s) if they refuse or are reluctant then next step is Leader of the Council and his oppsite number.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive asked to speak to head of revenues and they said this is not possible. Well I just had an interesting calls with the bailiff.

 

I asked him to break down the charges and he said that there was an enforcement charge added on. When I questioned him about being a certified bailiff, he basically hung up.

 

I've already emailed the BCC chief executive. How would I find the leader of the council and his opposite number.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The matter of Birmingham Council and the use of Equita Ltd has long been to subject of complaints on here. Birmingham Council use CAPITA LTD as a "back office" provider and strangely, it would appear that at each council that use CAPITA LTD their "preferred" bailiff provider is always EITHER Equita Ltd or Ross & Roberts.

 

CAPITA LTD own BOTH companies!!!

 

The concern with Equita has been surrounding the charging of an "enforcement fee" to an account at the very first visit when the statutory regulations provide ONLY that a charge of £24.50 can be applied for "attending to levy" (where no levy was made.

 

The statutory regulations DO NOT provide for an "enforcement fee" and in reality, this is really an "attending to remove fee". HOWEVER, the regulations as laid down by Parliament provide that in order to charge an "attending to levy" fee, there MUST first be a valid levy made on goods.

 

If a "valid levy" had been made, then once again, there is a legal obligation that the goods levied upon MUST be listed on a Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory.

 

Due to the extreme seriousness of charging this "enforcement fee" I will shortly be putting together a NEWSLETTER for Consumer Action Group on this subject and providing advice on who the debtor should do.

 

One suggestion is that letters should be sent to the Chief Execution and also to all COUNCILLORS. The local authority are wholly responsible for the fees charged by THEIR AGENTS.

 

PS: Currently, in the background I know of 7 similar complaints that have been made to the District Auditor of various local authorities !!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The matter of Birmingham Council and the use of Equita Ltd has long been to subject of complaints on here. Birmingham Council use CAPITA LTD as a "back office" provider and strangely, it would appear that at each council that use CAPITA LTD their "preferred" bailiff provider is always EITHER Equita Ltd or Ross & Roberts.

 

CAPITA LTD own BOTH companies!!!

 

The concern with Equita has been surrounding the charging of an "enforcement fee" to an account at the very first visit when the statutory regulations provide ONLY that a charge of £24.50 can be applied for "attending to levy" (where no levy was made.

 

The statutory regulations DO NOT provide for an "enforcement fee" and in reality, this is really an "attending to remove fee". HOWEVER, the regulations as laid down by Parliament provide that in order to charge an "attending to levy" fee, there MUST first be a valid levy made on goods.

 

If a "valid levy" had been made, then once again, there is a legal obligation that the goods levied upon MUST be listed on a Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory.

 

Due to the extreme seriousness of charging this "enforcement fee" I will shortly be putting together a NEWSLETTER for Consumer Action Group on this subject and providing advice on who the debtor should do.

 

One suggestion is that letters should be sent to the Chief Execution and also to all COUNCILLORS. The local authority are wholly responsible for the fees charged by THEIR AGENTS.

 

PS: Currently, in the background I know of 7 similar complaints that have been made to the District Auditor of various local authorities !!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

tomtubby, any help in the meanwhile would be great. I seem to be getting nO where.

 

I spoke with BCC, who sent me to equita who sends me to the bailiff, who thinks he's right to add these charges. I also checked him out and it looks as if he isn't certified.

 

I've emailed local councilors and email the chief executive's office. They say they are looking into it and hope to get back to me by end of today.

 

There isn't much that needs looking into. I've even referred them to their own website (Birmingham.gov.uk) on there it states the £24.50 first visit £18 second visit.

 

I'm not even worried by these people now and if you're in the same boat as me, don't worry just keep payment Birmingham city council. Don't pay these thieves a penny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

will be waiting with interest for that newsletter tomtubby. In my neck of the woods it is Excel that the council use, but Jacobs seem to be appearing also

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...