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 2322 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

Apologies for my arguably over detailed 1st time rant !! ;)

 

Around 3 months ago (Oct 2017) I received a Notice of Enforcement (Compliance Stage) informing me that on the 4th Dec 2016 I had allegedly make a Dartford crossing that I had not paid the £2.50 charge for.

Fees at that point were £190.50 (£115.50 Debt and £75 Compliance Fee).

 

At this point I must point out that we had moved house and DVLA would have had our previous address details on file.

 

I spoke with my wife and neither of us could account for the trip,

I contacted Marstons and after numerous +40 min on-hold calls,

eventually spoke to their "customer service".

 

I explained the situation and requested further information relating to the alleged incident and any associated proof that we indeed made the journey in question.

I also asked that NFA would take place until this was received.

 

Less than 2 weeks later I was literally about to leave my house to catch a flight for a business trip (suitcase by the door) when one of Marstons finest knocked on my door.

 

After the customary pleasantries he revealed,

to my surprise,

that he was attending for this very matter.

 

As the vehicles registered owner was not I but my wife,

he said that he could not discuss any details with me,

yet still aggressively pushed the message that he was here to collect payment or issue distraint upon our goods.

 

I explained that I had spoken with their office and was awaiting a response and re-iterated the doubt that we had even made the journey in the first place

(we live 70 miles away and have no reason to ever make that trip).

 

He then EXPRESSLY STATED that they had records of us making payment for one way and not the other!!

Now this was new information to me and whilst I was sure that I still had not made this journey, maybe my wife had....

 

She was unavailable at the time as she was in regional meetings and I had a flight to catch,

we should really have been at an impasse at this point.

 

Unfortunately

I had told the Enforcement Officer to wait outside whilst I retrieved the original Notice of Enforcement,

to try and get him to deal with me in my wife's absence.

 

Yep... you guessed it, when I returned he was in my living room

(which I admit I did not respond to very well!!).

 

This now changed matters as he had (in his words) gained peaceful entry (despite my request for him to remain outside).

 

I of course should have known better,

especially as I have advised many before me.

 

Unable to speak with my wife to present this new "evidence" of us making payment for one crossing and not the other

(and also running the risk of missing my flight)

I was forced to make payment of just under £450 GBP to get him out of my house.

Yes, that's £450 for an alleged missed payment of £2.50!!!

 

Bear with me because the best part is yet to come....

 

Suffice to say,

this payment was only considered and then made,

due to the time restraints I was under,

the fact I could neither confirm nor deny my wife's involvement given the new statement made by the Marstons officer that

"they had proof that we had paid for one crossing but not the other and so we were definitely in that place at that time",

despite neither of us having any recollection,

and lastly due to the fact that he had "gained entry" and was not leaving until settlement was made.

 

Here is the best bit.......

I have now just had through (28th Nov 2017 & received on 2nd Dec) a 2nd Notice of Enforcement for the very same day!!!!!

 

This is surely impossible,

given the statement by the EO that

"Marstons had proof that we had paid for one crossing already"

and that a few weeks previously we had paid under duress nearly £450 for a missed payment for one trip on that day?

 

Given that the statement made on my doorstep was the only reason I had even considered our potential liability in the first place,

I will be damned if I fork out for a 2nd fraudulent claim.

 

I immediately rang their "Customer Care" number,

which strangely enough returns a "number not recognised" at the weekend?

 

When I rang it again on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday I was met with 40+ minutes of hold and

"we are experiencing a larger than usual number of calls" (unsurprising given their "invention" of offences).

 

I requested automated call backs,

only for the phone to ring a day later and then the line go dead when I answer.

Eventually I spoke to one of their "Customer Care" reps who told me to submit my response in an email.

 

I then sent 5 emails,

all of them resulting in a bounceback from Marstons servers.

 

I eventually saved my initial email as a word doc and attached it to a basic email header that would fool their filters.

This resulted in an automated "thank you for your email" response and that is all I have had to date.

 

On the 2nd letter it stated that unless payment was received by 23.59 hrs on 11th Dec 2017,

additional fees (£235) would be added to the existing £190.25

and a visit by an EO will be made to make claim upon my property.

The automated response to my email also stated that proceedings would not be put on hold should I contact them.

 

Advice?

 

I have requested in my initial email a copy of the bodycam video from the first officers visit which will show them claiming to have evidence of us making payment for one of the crossings on the day in question.

 

I have also requested any and all evidence used to obtain the initial warrant and a copy of the original CCJ and subsequent warrant served by the court.

 

The first instance I was made aware of any alleged infraction was via the 1st Notice of enforcement from Marstons,

received in Oct 2017 and relating to a penalty incurred in December 2016 (the previous year).

 

I am dissapointed in myself that due to circumstances at the time I was effectively bullied into making the first payment but I CANNOT and WILL NOT in all good conscience make the second...

 

Quick question....

In the course of enforcement for the original penalty,

the EO claimed to have gained "peaceful entry" to my home.

That fine was settled in full (albeit under duress).

 

Does that now count for the second warrant,

in the sense they can claim to have entered the property peacefully on a previous occasion, or did that right end when I paid the notice?

 

FACT

- Due to incorrect address details (we had moved house)

I never received any notifications from either Dart Charge,

the courts or any third party company involved,

up until Marstons made contact at my current address by means of a Notice of Enforcement for the first incident in October 2017.

 

Circumstances detailed in my opening post resulted in an "under duress" settlement of this initial charge

(although this has now riled me up sufficiently to consider re-compensatory action against Marstons).

They then made contact 28th Nov 2017 for the 2nd alleged infraction which occurred on the same day, 4th Dec 2016 , for which they had already stated I had paid.

 

As far as I am aware, a "Warrant of Execution" can only be issued to enforce an existing CCJ, correct?

It can also only be issued where willful ignorance of the original CCJ notification can be proved?

In turn, the CCJ itself can only be issued when the court is satisfied that willful ignorance of the initial penalty notice has occurred?

 

As I never received any communications prior to Marstons involvement,

for the reason explained above,

surely the Warrant of Execution is unlawfully issued,

as they cannot possibly have proved to a court my receipt of the notification and subsequent ignorance,

both of which are required in order to issue said warrant?

 

In addition the CCJ was therefore unlawfully issued, for the exact same reasons?

 

Given the above, should I now submit the TE7 & TE9 (Dart Charge) pdf's to transfer ownership of this claim away from Marstons and into the care of the TEC?

 

If you made it this far my heartfelt thanks and appreciation! :)

 

All advice gratefully received....

 

R

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing to do with any CCJ they are a penalty.

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

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

Apologies for my arguably over detailed 1st time rant !! ;)

 

Around 3 months ago (Oct 2017) I received a Notice of Enforcement (Compliance Stage) informing me that on the 4th Dec 2016 I had allegedly make a Dartford crossing that I had not paid the £2.50 charge for. Fees at that point were £190.50 (£115.50 Debt and £75 Compliance Fee).

 

At this point I must point out that we had moved house and DVLA would have had our previous address details on file.

 

I spoke with my wife and neither of us could account for the trip.

 

Less than 2 weeks later I was literally about to leave my house to catch a flight for a business trip (suitcase by the door) when one of Marstons finest knocked on my door.

 

As the vehicles registered owner was not I but my wife, he said that he could not discuss any details with me. I explained that I had spoken with their office and was awaiting a response and re-iterated the doubt that we had even made the journey in the first place (we live 70 miles away and have no reason to ever make that trip).

 

I was forced to make payment of just under £450 GBP to get him out of my house.

 

Bear with me because the best part is yet to come....

 

Here is the best bit.......

 

I have now just had through (28th Nov 2017 & received on 2nd Dec) a 2nd Notice of Enforcement for the very same day!!!!! This is surely impossible,

 

On the 2nd letter it stated that unless payment was received by 23.59 hrs on 11th Dec 2017, additional fees (£235) would be added to the existing £190.25 and a visit by an EO will be made to make claim upon my property.

 

Given the above, should I now submit the TE7 & TE9 (Dart Charge) pdf's to transfer ownership of this claim away from Marstons and into the care of the TEC?

 

Having read your lengthly question twice, I am surprised to note that in all this time you, (or more accurately your wife) has not called Dart Charge to make enquiries into these charges. Instead, you appear to have wasted an astonishing amount of time making enquiries with Marston's. For the avoidance of doubt, an enforcement company cannot 'go behind' a warrant. In other words, unless instructed by Highways England, their role is merely to enforce the warrant....not to question it.

 

Both you and you wife appear to be adamant that neither of you made a return trip using the Dartford Crossing. In the first instance, you must call Dart Charge on the following number. Their phones lines answer very quickly so you should not experience any delay. When speaking with the operator, ask them to confirm the address where all notices had been sent and the make, model and colour of the vehicle that incurred the charge. Request to view the contraventions.

 

Dart Charge enquiries: 0300 300 0120 (5am to midnight)

 

The operator will instruct you to file a witness statement and to contact the Traffic Enforcement Centre. They will provide you with their number. PLEASE....DO NOT CALL THEM !!! Even for experienced advisors such as myself, it is almost impossible to get through to TEC because of the huge volume of calls regarding Dart Charge penalties. The forms (Out of Time witness statements) are available from TEC's website.

 

Not only should you have submitted an Out of Time witness statement for the first ticket a few months ago.....you should have done the same with the 2nd penalty. Your delay will almost certainly lead to another visit any day now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Around 3 months ago (Oct 2017) I received a Notice of Enforcement (Compliance Stage) informing me that on the 4th Dec 2016 I had allegedly make a Dartford crossing that I had not paid the £2.50 charge for. Fees at that point were £190.50 (£115.50 Debt and £75 Compliance Fee).

 

At this point I must point out that we had moved house and DVLA would have had our previous address details on file.

 

Before considering submitting an Out of Time witness statement, it will be important to ascertain the following:

 

It would seem that your wife's car was identified as making a return journey on the Dartford Crossing on 4th December 2016. Have either of you checked your diaries for that day to see whether any of you had been in that area (close to the M25?).

 

You mention that you had moved address. When did you move from the previous address and most importantly, what date did you update your V5C (Log Book) with DVLA?

 

PS: Many people confuse updating their driving licence with updating their log book. You must update DVLA with both your licence and V5C when moving.

 

PS: It is very important that an Out of Time witness statement for this 2nd crossing is submitted TODAY. Your completed forms (TE7 and TE9) must be received at the Traffic Enforcement Centre by 4pm this afternoon. Please ignore internet myths that enforcement of the warrant ceases in 'real time' It doesn't.

 

After 4pm, the Traffic Enforcement Centre will email Highways England to inform them that they have received an application for an Out of Time witness statement and informing them of their duty to notify their enforcement company to cease enforcement of the warrant. It is usual for Highways England to process these applications by mid morning the next working day (which in your case, will mean Monday). I would suggest that you keep your vehicle out of the way until then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...