Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I agree with what you are saying, I only mentioned the governing body code of practice as a nod to the fact that I wasn't dismissing the BPA or whoever out of hand, thought that would go in my favour before a judge. I wrote a long post about the BPA CoP earlier but then deleted it because I realised I wasn't talking about points of law but a set of guidelines drawn up by one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans. It is ludicrous that the 5 minute consideration period doesn't apply if the motorist parks, such nonsense. As for legislation, I was referring to the government legislation (if it is legislation?) document which has been withdrawn. Does that stand until it has been reintroduced? In the explanatory document it is quite clear. Otherwise, how does one hold them to the consideration and grace periods? Or is that at the discretion of the judge?
    • Thank you all   JK, I agree; if they were to accept my full claim today, then the interest would be around 8-9 pounds. If I were them, I would have offered to pay the interest and said no to the 12 pounds for the letters. These have not been mentioned, which is my mistake.   As you pointed out, if the judge were to award at 4% and I did not get the letters, I would get less.   Bank, thank you. I do hear what you are saying. If I am to continue with this, then I will need to pay an additional trial fee of £59. If I win everything, then great, but if I win less the claim and court fee, then I lose out. I am not sure what the judge will think about the interest. I think we have to remember that I won the item and, therefore, did not pay a penny for it. Yes, I have had to purchase an additional one, but maybe the judge will hold this against me. I am content that this is a win. I have not signed any non-disclosure clauses, and they do not ask for this either in their offer. 
    • Are you saying that both businesses were closed? Yet you stayed there for over two hours. . If both were closed than to charge £100 is a penalty since Horizon had no legitimate interest in keeping spaces clear for the company. sake as there were no customers..
    • Well you would think that would be the case. Sadly i doubt there is one honest broker within the BPA or IPC and most of their members. they are there to take as much money as they can from motorists regardless of PoFA.   Take the Consideration  period for example. This is a minimum of 5 minutes to allow motorists to find a parking space, read the T&Cs giving them enough time to leave the car park without having to pay if they decide not stay. Simple. Well it would be simple if it were any other company than BPA [or IPC who have now fallen into line with BPA's "reasoning"].  You see if you decide to stay then despite the fact that during the Consideration period when you still weren't classed as parking , once you accept the terms [with all the underhand little tricks designed to trip you up] that five minutes is now included in your parking time. [No not the parking period because the poor dears who ANPR cameras are apparently unable to work out what the exact parking period is since their ever so infallible cameras [yeah right] are incapable of tracking cars once they are in a car park]. After 12 years they still haven't worked out a way of doing it. Some of them fudge and the majority [with a wink fro their ATA [Accredited Trade Association though it should be Discredited Trade Association] just ignore the parking period all together. This is what BPA claim is the Consideration period Entrance grace period: This is for when motorists enter a car park, read the signs and/or attempt to make payment then leave. In these instances, motorists must be offered a reasonable amount of time before an operator takes enforcement action, but we do not define this time, due to the variance in size and layout of car parks. An entrance grace period for a small, permit-only car park could be below 5 minutes, whereas for a large multi-story this could be 15. But  heaven forbid that anyone should leave 6 or 7 minutes after entering  their member's car parks. . They are dutybound to receive a PCN. This is regardless of how busy the car park would be [Christmas eve for example ] .Our minimum is their maximum. Moving on to Grace periods. Again BPA gobble degook. Exit grace period: This must be a minimum of 10 minutes and this is when a motorist intends to stay – for example, if you paid for an hour but spent a total of 1 hour 10 minutes on-site, you will not receive a PCN. It is important to note that the grace period is not a free period of parking however and should not be advertised as such. If that ten minutes in not free parking what is it. their members all think they can send out PCNs for anything after 1 minute after the exact time never mind ten minutes. Our snotty letters have stood the test of time. Do not try to reinvent the wheel -especially with DCBL . They don't even know what a non compliant PCN is for goodness sake! You already know more about PoFA then they do. However if you include that they will find a way to disabuse the Judge of your logic and the law. So don't give them the chance.  I am sure you have the Parking Prankster going on about the rogues misusing the rules on planning permission by lying and stating that they had "retrospective permission". There is no such thing in English law yet Judges were swallowing it until one Judge pulled up Parking Eye about one of their Witness Statements alluding to "rp" by claiming it was "tantamount to perjury".  It wasn't tantamount,it was plain and simple perjury. Parking Prankster: The great private car park planning approval scam PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM Guest blog from shuteyepark, from the Consumer Action group forums In December 2013 my daughter received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) fro... Hope it wasn't too long winded Nicky Boy.🙂
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3949 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, I need some help. I had one of these left by Peter Nonle Watt.

 

I had a CCJ in April for some outstanding rent on a business unit. I had no notification that bailiffs may be attending.

 

They want £3000 which I don't have.

 

What can I do about this??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he;s a HCEO. I'll flag your thread for admin notice and to get it moved to the right forum.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I need some help. I had one of these left by Peter Nonle Watt.

 

I had a CCJ in April for some outstanding rent on a business unit. I had no notification that bailiffs may be attending.

 

They want £3000 which I don't have.

 

What can I do about this??

 

Is it possible you can start from the beginning so we can see what we are dealing with?

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible you can start from the beginning so we can see what we are dealing with?

 

Ok, I had a business unit three years ago which I vacated.

 

The landlord wanted to charge me money that I didn't agree with.

 

Up to this point I've been ignoring the request for payment.

 

He applied to the court for a CCJ which was granted in April. I'm only aware of this after checking my credit file.

 

I did have the blue Northampton forms, but chose to ignore those as well. (Stupidly)

 

I have had no correspondence from anybody, including the court. Today high court bailiffs turn up while we were out and levied on items outside the house.

 

I don't know what to do. Should I have had paperwork to say the court decided in the creditors favour?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you ignored the original paperwork from the Court your Creditor will have been awarded Judgment but you should have been informed of this by the Court. As for it now having been transferred for enforcement then unfortunately there is no requirement for anyone to inform you and the first you will know is when someone calls - which is what has happened.

 

In what capacity did you trade - sole trader, partnership, Ltd Co etc? Is the Writ in this name? You say they have levied on goods outside - can you list them exactly as described on the Notice of Seizure?

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You also state that the High Court Enforcement Officer "levied upon goods outside". Can you be a bit more specific...such as; did they levy upon a car, lorry, caravan etc. If so...do these items belong to you....are they on finance etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You also state that the High Court Enforcement Officer "levied upon goods outside". Can you be a bit more specific...such as; did they levy upon a car, lorry, caravan etc. If so...do these items belong to you....are they on finance etc.

 

I traded as sole trader.

 

They levied on two unroadworthy cars (restoration projects) in my drive, along with a trailer, set if alloy wheels and garden patio furniture. All of which I own. Along with "all other goods required to satisfy writ"

It also seems that I'm missing a page, as there are some numbered points, but these only start at point 5.

I just want to get this resolved. I don't know how/who to make an offer of payment by instalments

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to apply for a stay of execution to the writ N244 and also make a realistic offer by way of an N245

 

With both of these if you are on any benefits you need to check if you qualify for fee remission(see form ex160)

 

Take a look at the aforementioned forms and if you struggle to complete or understand them, then come back here and help will be at hand.

 

Applying for the stay has to be your priority and if your local County Court is classed as a district registry then you can file your application there in person and explain it is urgent, if not then you will need to send to the High Court as given on the writ.

 

The N245 is pretty straight forward and you will need to complete an income and expenditure sheet to show your offer is the maximum amount affordable to you. When doing this always remember you are allowed to have a 'life' so only ever offer what you can comfortably afford and will be able to sustain payment to.

Edited by wonkeydonkey
Link to post
Share on other sites

Following the above and if successful all enforcement is halted and unless you fail at a future date to make a payment on time the matter is under your control.

 

I would suggest you write to the HCEO company concerned and advise them of your set aside application but remember until such time as the stay is rubber stamped they are entitled to continue with enforcement, if they return while everything is being processed then it will be frowned on by the courts if they fail to take everything into consideration.

 

It will also pay you to rquest a full breakdown of the fees applied to the writ (in writing) and then post them up here so we can see if they are'questionable' as if often the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It also seems that I'm missing a page, as there are some numbered points, but these only start at point 5.

 

Usually it is page one of a three part form 55 (2 x NoS and the WPA) that has the amount owed which includes points 1 to 4. As you know the amount owed I would presume you have points 1 to 4 also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your help

 

Breakdown of the Total Levy

 

Judgement Debt - £1853.95

Judgement Costs - £0

Execution Costs - £60

Interest 8% to 1/5/13 - £27.23 @ £0.41 per day from 1/5/13

Sheriff's Fees - £822.76

VAT - £164.55

TOTAL - £2928.49

 

Sheriff's Fees seem pretty damn high to me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to any High Court Enforcement Officer who may be reading this reply but I personally consider that "Sheriff fees" of £822 on a debt os £1853 is steep.

 

i totally agree with you... WD will vouch that we had similar amounts to a similar debt.........not right at all they make things ten times worse in my eyes as people who cant afford the debt certainly cant afford the debt with there "steep" fees added.......... and i for 1 would not say sorry if my comment is read by any but i think they are the lowest of the low

 

and in fact after checking they added £1300 for a debt of just £695.....making it £2100 pound near enough ....rant over

Link to post
Share on other sites

Distress as a remedy is problematic, as if the debtor cannot afford to repay the original debt, there is no chance they can afford it after the fees have doubled or tripled it.

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

I'm still to be convinced that HCEO's are any more different than any other type of Bailiff particularly with regard to the fees they charge.

 

 

i agree PT they like to think they are different because they have "special" powers so they say ...the words "high court" give them super powers so they think...but when it comes down to it they are not much different and they charge ridiculous amounts of money that most dont have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What worries me about HCEO's is the frequent way in which an officer attending the premises of a debtor levies upon 5 or 6 random cars and, when questioned try to rely upon the old "chestnut" of Observer v Gordon which was even dismissed by the Ombudsman in the case of council tax. In so many cases that I have seen the officers knows perfectly well that the vehicles in question are nothing to do with the debtor and to my mind "levies" in any event so as to ensure that he can charge such high fees.

 

The case of Observer v Gordon has long since been overtaken by the appeal case of DSI Foods where the owner of a High Court company ( Shergroup Ltd) attempted to claim protection from the court for a significant PERSONAL claim when her officers went to the WRONG address. Despite being shown evidence that the goods in the premises were nothing to do with the debtor, the officers "seized goods" and in doing so.....barged their way into a "secure area" of the premises and contaminated a a significant amount of food ( the company have contracts with various airlines to provide in flight meals for passengers). The officers only left after the company's accountant was forced to pay the debt from his personal credit card.

 

The Judge made it clear that the officers must NOT assume that all goods on the premises belong to company "A" and instead, they MUST ensure that they read any documents shown to them and take into consideration what is being told to them VERBALLY by the owner of the goods.

 

The owner of Shergroup LOST the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...