Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 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. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • 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.
  • 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

Help!! Car towed by VRP bailiffs for PCN fines owed by previous owner!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4507 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,am having a hellish time trying to get my car back from bailiffs who stole it & towed to their pound. I purchased my car in july from a girl that used to rent room in my place, sold as seen. I then proceeded to insure car in my name and have used it without incident. On monday I returned to where I left my vEhicle with 3 young kids, only to find it was GONE. I didn't know where it was, was miles from home & contacted TRACE & Police to see if they knew of its whereabouts. They didn't, after numerous calls to every agency imaginable, I found out from the LA it was taken from, that a lovely bailiff firm hired by the council, had my car in a pound in relation to 2 PCN's incurred before I bought the car from previous owner. They gave me bailiff no. I phoned & was basically told that unless I pay £1401.xx my car would be sold @ auction in 7 days wtf!!! I explained that I bought the car,am the new owner and am not liable for these 2 PCN's. I was told that I should pay up & then take the issue up with the previous owner!! The previous owner used to rent a room in my place, has since moved & I have no forwarding address for her, in fact all mail for her is returned to sender. There begun the beginning of a nightmare. Realising I was going to get nowhere with bailiff, I contacted LA again explaining my situation & that their agent had stolen my car, a simple DVLA check would have revealed my name as new registered keeper. They asked me to submit logbook, insurance certificate, proof of purchase & covering letter...no problem I did this, only to be told after repeated phone calls and chaseups (after faxing over...they allegedly don't deal with members of public in person...I wonder why!) That I have to deal with the bailiffs, as "its out of their hands". I argued that its far from being "out of their hands", as these bullying extortionists are employed by them as their agents and so they must be liable for their actions. Long story short, didn't get anywhere...something about make a complaint & meanwhile bailiffs are still detaining my car and could sell it think. This is horrible, I've explained I 'm not liable, have 3 young kids & we've been deprived of our only means of transport just before xmas, but these people are heartless & are only concerned with getting paid. Don't know what to do, but am thinking to report my car stolen by these thieves, if only to prevent car being sold & lost forever :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Times not on your side here because of the time of year. Normally you would write to them and give them 48 hours to return the car on the threat of court action. You can still take this path but decide yourself what time limits to put on it.

 

Don't threaten court action unless you are prepared to go through with it. It can be done on line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right to approach the council rather than the bailiff.

 

Did the bundle of documents you gave them prove beyond doubt that you purchesed the car on such-and-such a date? If so, I would suggest phoning the council again and insisting on speaking to a senior manager in parking and explaining what happened. (Don't just settle for speaking to the first person who happens to pick up the phone).

 

They have authority to withdraw the debt and instruct the bailiff to return your car - although you'll probably be told to go and get it yourself! If your documents support your case, they ought to allow this. After all, they asked to see them for a reason, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the problem underlying the log-jam is that the OP has registered the car at their home which is the same address as that of the previous keeper. The council (and the bailiffs) may well suspect that they are being snowed and with good reason as the passing of vehicles between family members, for example, is a common manoeuvre used to shake councils and the like of their tails.

 

With this in mind the only route that I can currently see by which the OP is likely to recover their car is to commence proceedings seeking an immediate injunction to prevent the bailiffs from disposing of the vehicle. The proceedings will also have to include the council because it is their debt the bailiffs are pursuing. At the heart of the OP's case there will have to be a detailed affidavit setting out their relationship with the previous owner, the purchase of the vehicle, their complete ignorance of the outstanding issues (if this is true) and the fact that they have no knowledge of the previous owner's whereabouts. Statements from witnesses in support of this affidavit would be very helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx For your replies. I went to police & that was a waste of time, they still told me 'its a civil matter'lol.the council are just as bad, after asking me to submit all my documents, which I did, they then turned around and said "its out of their hands the bailiffs have to make a decision",,so what was the point in asking for all my docs?? I was told out of goodwill they are submitting them to bailiffs on my behalf!! Aarrrgghh!!!sorry needed to do that...& u are right Jamberson, the so called customer service agents council places on the frontline are totally useless, but getting to speak to a senior member of this team has alluded me so far. I keep hearing references made to a top secret, hidden specialist team in the 'back office' & it seems I would need a Mi5 pass and a few tons of dynamite to get past this frontline! There is no accountability, I've demanded to speak to a senior & keep getting told their policy is they don't deal directly with members of the public...if don't laugh, I swear I"ll cry! Bailiffs, at least, have told me their senior manager will look @ my case BUT she won't be back until next wednesday,,however they have said my car won't be sold until decision is made,I don't know do you take a bailiff's word for anything?? Am just feeling so frustrated & violated,,could the timing of this be any worse? I Am prepared to go all the way to court on this, its my car, I'm not liable for these pcn's & its a bloody cheek that they can just steal someone's property, without even checking with dvla, as to who the reg. Keeper is,, diabolical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Snowy thanx for reply, yes I can appreciate that they might suspect that, but that is not the case and I thought the burden of proof was 'beyond reasonable doubt', but even in cases where relatives passover ownership, is that illegal in eyes of law? I explained in the cover letter I submitted to council, that previous owner was a previous lodger and that I don't know her new address and no I didn't have prior knowledge of her debts. If she is using a redirection service would I be able to trace her through this, as I don't even see mail for her arriving anymore?

Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread should be in the bailiffs forum

 

 

Put your complaint in writing (use e-mail ) head letter FORMAL COMPLAINT addressed to the revenues dept and the chief executive of your council

 

can you tell us what local authority and what bailiff firm you are dealing with

 

looking for Equita or bristow & suitor as the bailiff firms and your council using Capita (who own both bailiff firms) to administrate PCN

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tour Formal Complaint and any legal claim must name the council as the PRIMARY defendant, as they are WHOLLY LIABLE the actions of their tame TWOCERS the bailiffs I would follow the advice given PDQ as after tomorrow it will be game over and you won't get the car back until next year if at all.

 

(TWOC take without owners consent which as you aren't the debtor, the bailiffs are, and are therefore thieves no matter what plod says)

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

Mr Martin [email protected]; [email protected]: 020 8825 7089

http://directory.londoncouncils.gov.uk/directory/ealing/officers/

 

 

I suggest you send an e-mail (then phone) to Mr Martin smith informing him that

you are not the debtor

there is no Distress warrant in your name

you have provided proof to both ealing council and collect services ltd that you are the owner of the car

the car was removed and no notice or seizure or removal notice was provided (the notice of seizure/distress would have given you the chance to inform the council you were not the debtor before removal)

you may also want ask him why a dvla check was not performed before removal to conform the debtor was still the owner of the car before removal

ask him to arrange for the return of your car or you will have to issue formal proceedings against ealing council

Edited by hallowitch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Contact your local councillor and his/her opposite number and ask they intervene in this disgraceful affair NOW or you will be going to the press in the first instance and issuing a Form 4 complaint to the magistrates naming both bailiffs and council as the defendants.

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to phone and email the contact posted by hallowitch ASAP, as they will slope off for Christmas by lunchtime tomorrow.

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

When someone takes something that does not belong to them with the intention of permanently depriving them of that something, then it is legally described as theft.

 

This car does not belong to someone who has commited an offence, criminal or civil, and it has been taken with the intention to permanently deprive them of it, therefore the police have to take it as theft.

 

You should write to the chief constable and copy it to police complaints, (annotating that at the bottom) and send it by recorded delivery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, was busy doing all the letter writing, emailed the chief executive. Havn't received a reply from him, but got confirmation that he has received. I managed to get a phone call with a senior member of staff @ council...finally. She said she managed to get hold of the director of bailiff firm on holiday in spain lmao! And that the bailiffs would like to see aLl 4 pages of logbook, as they've only got 1st page (even though I faxed through all pages! Ggrrr) and asked if I have a paper trail which shows how I purchased car, e.g bank account, showing withdrawal...do I really have to provide such personal details to a motley crew of bailiffs??! I can resend my logbook, but to dig up old bank statements, that wouldn't conclusively show one lump withdrawal made, is a bit far fetched. Anyway she repeated the same spiel about it being out of council's hands & ultimately the bailiff's decision. I obviously restated that actually they do have authority to order the return of my car, just as they have the authorisation for its seizure & removal in 1st place. Long story short, she got the supposed assistant manager of firm to contact me. He called, confirmed he had spoken to council & that he needed copies of all 4 pages of logbook (no problem) and some kind of papertrail showing how purchase was made. I made it clear that proof of ownership has been proven by receipt and insurance, I'm hardly going to insure a car I don't own! Yes I changed registration details @ a later date, (but in any case, as the bailiff didn't hesitate to tell me the 1st time I had the privilege of being threatened by him, the logbook isn't proof of ownwership, just the reg keeper) and it was certainly changed before they seized & towed my car. He also said my receipt isn't neccessarily proof, as anyone could have knocked it out, they'd prefer a printed receipt. I retorted it was a private sale, how many of them come with printed receipts! Its amazing how new hoops to jump through get invented :0 Anyway, he said if I send the logbook again, they'll make decision quicker?? In the meantime, I will phone/email chief exec again...(thanks hallowitch, ur are a star!) Will keep u updated & would still like to know how I can file relevant court claim?,,just in case...

Link to post
Share on other sites

When someone takes something that does not belong to them with the intention of permanently depriving them of that something, then it is legally described as theft.

 

This car does not belong to someone who has commited an offence, criminal or civil, and it has been taken with the intention to permanently deprive them of it, therefore the police have to take it as theft.

 

You should write to the chief constable and copy it to police complaints, (annotating that at the bottom) and send it by recorded delivery.

 

Exactly Conniff, but try telling that to your local bobby! I will try again though

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell us you have recorded all the calls that clearly show the Council being in denial to any responsiblity ?

 

I still say you should contact your local Councillor and if needs be arrange to go and see hm/her TONIGHT, with all the documents that show you are not the person they have a liability order to collect upon and all the evidence to show the car is registered to you?

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...