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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2363 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 guys long time no see, hope the old gang is doing well.

 

Have a huge problem here but please bare with me

 

My son had huge issues with dvla for a car he sold to a garage.

All paper work was sent off by him but the garage failed to do their part.

 

 

He got a letter from dvla saying the car was not insured.

he wrote off to them with all the details stating the car was no longer in his pocession and it had been sold to this garage.

 

Dvla wouldnt except that so they appealed, again they refused to accept it and again he appealed. Then nothing.

 

It had gone to court without his knowledge and fined.

Marstons have it on record that they wrote to him in February this year.

But my son has never received a letter from them or a court fine.

 

Today without any warning a bailiff turns up.

She threatens to take everything in the house bar the children's things.

She was asked to leave.

 

 

She then went ahead and clamped the car.

My son who is disabled and his wife who is a very anxious lady both on reciept of benefits so are classed as vulnerable with 2 children told her this and requested if they could pay in instalments by she refused.

 

No warning was given that she was coming round and they had no idea that a debt even existed.

 

She had no certificate on her and said it was in the middle of being transferred from Liverpool so she couldn't show it.

 

Their was no paperwork apart from what she showed on her tablet.

No break down was given.

She called the police and they immediately took her side letting her claimp the car.

 

She had her mother talking with her and the police officers who lived opposite my son.

Who stood there hands on hips staring at us whilst we tried to reason with this abnoxious woman.

Even try in to push past a 20 of stone man.

 

1. I thought that they had to give notice that they were coming 7 days before they turned up.

2. I didn't think they could turn up on a Sunday unless via a court order.

 

She even threaten to take my car off the drive so to get to my son's.

 

Before this visit she went to a friend of mine.

She clamped her car again with no notice for a debt for her daughter that hadn't lived there for two years.

The car was in my friends name so she hadn't even checked.

She went into the home and told a 7 year old boy to pick out his dba because she was going to take them.

She didnt care how upset this little boy was.

 

My friend had to pay this bailiff to get the clamp off her car.

Surely this bailiff cannot do this.

 

The bailiff then proceeded to tell my friend that she will be back to collect other debts of her daughter's that she openly discussed,

her is 21, surely she shouldn't be shouldn't that.

 

Any advice on this be for i put in my complaints.

 

By the way the car is worth 1800. The debt was only 600. It was paid but not by my son.

 

Cheers guys

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

As they are disabled was there a Blue Badge on the car? Since 2014 they can call on Sunday, I am horrified that Marston behaved in this way, perhaps BA will come along soon.

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

Hi brassy, no it wasn't in the car and she said it was too late she had seen the car without a disabled badge.

 

Hi brassy, no it wasn't in the car and she said it was too late she had seen the car without a disabled badge.

 

Surely calling on a Sunday can't help those who can check on what is happening.

This was totally out of the blue.

She even admitted that there was no other correspondence from marstons since February.

Such a rude and obnoxious woman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so they can clamp a car not belonging to the debtor.....???

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah read it wrong then..

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to know exactly what it is that you wish to complain about.

Marston will almost certainly claim that a NoE was sent out and they were quite within their rights to visit today.

Furthermore, the amount outstanding has been paid.

All Marston visits are filmed so it will be a fairly easy task to verify conflicting versions of events.

 

There appears to have been an awful lot of letters not received here,

posted by your son,

the court & Marston.

 

 

It is also worth pointing out that it wouldn't have mattered what the garage did with their slip,

it was your son' responsibility to give details of the new keeper.

 

The only possible thing that may help is if the court paperwork was sent to an incorrect address but I really think that you are wasting your time complaining.

What do you seek to gain from a complaint?

 

 

You must appreciate that a visit from a bailiff is never going to be a happy experience and the bailiff's job is to crank pressure onto the debtor to pay the debt.

If there was a blue badge inside the car, then it shouldn't have been clamped.

If there was no blue badge then the bailiff was entitled to clamp it.

 

 

It may have been prudent to have made more enquiries about the disability and the blue badge but as the clamp was removed, it is hypothetical now anyway.

 

Had the money not been paid, you may well have had a good, strong argument to be allowed to make payments in installments but this issue is also now hypothetical.

 

I would check with the court to see what address all of their paperwork was sent to but as regards to complaining, I don't think that you have much of a case.

You will not get the money back, you will not be compensated and the bailiff is highly unlikely to be disciplined based on what you have posted.

 

Wow! Did you actually read anything I wrote? For YOUR information I deal with ALL my son's correspondence . I prefer comments from people who are helpful not condescending or patronising.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No paperr work

2. No idea what court it was as no paperwork.

3 no notice.

4. Everything to do with the car was sent. I sent it I helped appeal twice, then nothing.

 

Nothing from the court...... No paperwork

Nothing from Marstons only a little note she had on her tablet.

Threatening to take children's items, clamping the wrong car. Discussing the matter with her mother.

No reason for complaint? I havnt started yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys long time no see, hope the old gang is doing well.

 

My son had huge issues with dvla for a car he sold to a garage. All paper work was sent off by him but the garage failed to do their part.

 

He got a letter from dvla saying the car was not insured. He wrote off to them with all the details stating the car was no longer in his pocession and it had been sold to this garage.

 

DVLA wouldnt except that so they appealed, again they refused to accept it and again he appealed. Then nothing.

 

It had gone to court without his knowledge and fined. Marstons have it on record that they wrote to him in February this year.

But my son has never received a letter from them or a court fine.

 

Cheers guys

 

First things first...when the car was sold to the garage, the responsibility for advising DVLA of new keeper, was with your son and not the garage. Furthermore, a motor dealer would not be required to inform DVLA.

 

You say that your son had been fined in his absence and furthermore, that the enforcement agent confirmed that Marston had written to your son in February. What this seems to indicate to me is that all notices from the court (the summons, the Notice of Fine/Collection Order and the Further Steps Notice) and the Notice of Enforcement from Marston Holdings had been sent to a previous address.

 

Has your son moved address since selling the vehicle?

 

PS: Good to see you back on this part of the forum. Its been a long time !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

First things first...when the car was sold to the garage, the responsibility for advising DVLA of new keeper, was with your son and not the garage. Furthermore, a motor dealer would not be required to inform DVLA.

 

You say that your son had been fined in his absence and furthermore, that the enforcement agent confirmed that Marston had written to your son in February. What this seems to indicate to me is that all notices from the court (the summons, the Notice of Fine/Collection Order and the Further Steps Notice) and the Notice of Enforcement from Marston Holdings had been sent to a previous address.

 

Has your son moved address since selling the vehicle?

 

No he hasnt moved in 3 years, he sold the car 2 years ago he sent in the correct paper work. The garage had closed down just after.

He got the notice from dvla and it was appealed twice then nothing. We don't even know what court it was heard at or even when.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nothing from Marstons only a little note she had on her tablet.

 

If it is the case that Marston Holdings sent a Notice of Enforcement in February and nothing further since that time, it would usually mean that the account had been passed to Marston's 'tracing department '. This was again indicate to me that all notices had been sent to a previous address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is the case that Marston Holdings sent a Notice of Enforcement in February and nothing further since that time, it would usually mean that the account had been passed to their 'tracing department '. This was again indicate to me that all notices had been sent to a previous address.

 

We asked her if she had the right address and she was adamant the address was correct. She was not very forth coming in giving anything. Not even a payment plan even though shevwas told that the family are classed as vulnerable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No he hasnt moved in 3 years, he sold the car 2 years ago he sent in the correct paper work. The garage had closed down just after.

He got the notice from dvla and it was appealed twice then nothing. We don't even know what court it was heard at or even when.

 

If it can be established that all notices from the court had been wrong addressed, then this in itself would mean that your son could contact the magistrates court to get an appointment for a Statutory Declaration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so they can clamp a car not belonging to the debtor.....???

 

This is what she did to my friend. She clamped her car before even knocking on the door, my friend had to pay for someone else's debt before she would unclamp the car, she was even shown proof that the car was hers and not her daughter's who didn't even live there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it can be established that all notices from the court had been wrong addressed, then this in itself would mean that your son could contact the magistrates court to get an appointment for a Statutory Declaration.

 

We need to find out what court that was then. Only Marstons know that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We asked her if she had the right address and she was adamant the address was correct. She was not very forth coming in giving anything. Not even a payment plan even though shevwas told that the family are classed as vulnerable.

 

I continue to be doubtful about the address used by the courts. This is because, it would be almost unheard of for Marston's to sit on this account since February. Furthermore, the contract that Marston has with HMCTS provides for a very strict period of time for retaining a warrant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I continue to be doubtful about the address used by the courts. This is because, it would be almost unheard of for Marston's to sit on this account since February. Furthermore, the contract that Marston has with HMCTS provides for a very strict period of time for retaining a warrant.

 

I will get onto them first thing to request for all paperwork pertaining this matter. I've already got a letter of authorisation to deal with this from my son.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is almost certainly the 'starting point'. I would suggest that you try calling the enforcement agent in the morning for further details. Please post back once you have done so.

 

No number on reciept just her name. She refuses to tell me or any one anything. I will have to contact Marstons direct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No number on reciept just her name. She refuses to tell me or any one anything. I will have to contact Marstons direct.

 

As you have authorisation, you should be able to make enquiries. You need to find out which HMCTS court had issued the warrant and what address the company had written to in February.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wasn't aware that the DVLA concerned themselves with insurance, they are normally involved in tax and sorn vehicles. If there is a discrepancy with the address,

 

For the last six years or so.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right a little update.

 

I have been up all night with this going over paperwork.

 

Although no court documents have been received, a letter from Marstons was received on the 1st of march.

 

An Email was sent to Marstons on or around about the 7th and then again on the 20th as had no response from them. I have proof of both of these being sent.

 

The bailiff in question is NOT on the bailiff register, albeit she told me she was certificated in Liverpool.

 

No notice has ever been sent and she admitted that nothing had been sent from Marstons since February.

 

My daughter in law sent, via emails to prove that it was a vulnerable household.

 

There was no break down of charges left and as far as my son can remember it was an £80.00 fine for not insuring a car that he sold in early 2015.

 

They had sent numerous letters as I have said to DVLA stating that the car was no longer in their possession after receiving a letter from Parking eye from up north and please could they change the details accordingly.

 

A few months later the letter arrived to say the car was not insured, again DVLA was told that the car was no longer in their possession as they had stated previously.

 

Nothing was ever heard from Parking Eye again so we presumed that DVLA had changed over the details.

 

Then nothing until February of this year from Marstons. Which was responded to twice.

 

Marston knew the address, but have done nothing until yesterday.

 

I am also dealing with another incident with regards to the same bailiff that happened yesterday.

 

The bailiff was shown proof that the car she had clamped was not the debtors, but refused to take the clamp off until money from a credit card was taken.

she actually tried to take the money twice.

 

she threatened the lady and her son stating that his mummy would go to prison, she questioned the little boy asking where his sister worked and made him take out all his wii games and said she was going to take them to pay off his sisters debt and if she didnt get payment mummy could be arrested.

 

The bailiff threatened to call the police and say she had been assaulted but wont call them if the debt was paid.

 

she made the lady open all her daughters mail so that she could read them.

 

The lady has been in touch with her credit card company and has stopped her card plus they have explain to her that what this bailiff had done was fraud and they will be taking action.

 

I am now going to contact Marstons and see what they have to say about this.

 

Forgot to mention that the amount she was charging was £680.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no it was a cashed deal, the car was sold for scrap value.

There was a receipt, but it was so long ago now its been either binned or lost.

The garage went bust a short while after so we cannot even get a duplicate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right a little update.

 

I have been up all night with this going over paperwork.

 

Although no court documents have been received, a letter from Marstons was received on the 1st of march.

 

An Email was sent to Marstons on or around about the 7th and then again on the 20th as had no response from them. I have proof of both of these being sent.

 

The bailiff in question is NOT on the bailiff register, albeit she told me she was certificated in Liverpool.

 

No notice has ever been sent and she admitted that nothing had been sent from Marstons since February.

 

My daughter in law sent, via emails to prove that it was a vulnerable household.

There was no break down of charges left and as far as my son can remember it was an £80.00 fine for not insuring a car that he sold in early 2015.

 

They had sent numerous letters as I have said to DVLA stating that the car was no longer in their possession after receiving a letter from Parking eye from up north and please could they change the details accordingly.

 

A few months later the letter arrived to say the car was not insured, again DVLA was told that the car was no longer in their possession as they had stated previously. Nothing was ever heard from Parking Eye again so we presumed that DVLA had changed over the details.

 

Then nothing until February of this year from Marstons. Which was responded to twice.

 

So Marston knew the address, but have done nothing until yesterday.

 

I am now going to contact Marstons and see what they have to say about this.

 

 

Thank you so much for updating the forum with more background information. It helps a great deal.

 

I would suspect (but I could be wrong) that after receiving the letters from your daughter in law dated 7th and 20th March that Marston may have returned the warrant back to the court. If so, the warrant may have been reissued hence this could explain the absence of any involvement from Marston's until the weekend.

 

Can I just mention a little about 'vulnerability'. Firstly, exemption does not apply to a 'vulnerable household', instead, it is applicable to the debtor ( in this case; your son). With vulnerability, your son would need to provide evidence to outline what it is about HIS vulnerability that makes it difficult for HIM to deal with the debt.

 

You mention in your post that apart from the letter that had been received from Marston's in March that your son had not received the summons or any other documentation from the court. In most cases, I would suggest that an application could be made to the court for an appointment for a Statutory Declaration. Unfortunately, I think that this option is not going to be available to your son given that such an application must be made within 21 days of 'becoming aware' of the fine.

 

Please do post back once you have spoken with Marston's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no it was a cashed deal, the car was sold for scrap value. There was a receipt, but it was so long ago now its been either binned or lost. The garage went bust a short while after so we cannot even get a duplicate.

 

I am assuming from your post that the vehicle was not scrapped and instead, was either sold on or used by others connected with the garage. In many cases such as this, DVLA will usually agree to amend their records to remove your son as being vehicle keeper if proof can be given that road fund licence and insurance were cancelled around the time of the disposal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...