Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Local Government Ombudsman decision.....PCN debt at £65..Council reject offer of £5 per month...Bailiffs wants £513


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2222 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

This very recent Local Government Ombudsman's decision (released 10 days ago) is another one of importance.

 

In this particular case, a motorist had incurred a penalty charge notice from London Borough of Haringey for wrongful parking.

 

As the contravention was for parking as opposed to a CCTV contravention, she received a Penalty Charge Notice on her car advising that the charge was £130 but if she made payment within 14 days, she would be entitled to a 50% discount bringing the penalty down to £65. She told the council that she could not pay and offered to clear the debt over a 15 month period at £5 per month; the Council refused but offered here a further 14 days to pay at the reduced rate.

 

She refused to pay. A warrant of control has been issued and passed to bailiffs to enforce and the debt has risen from £65 to £513 (to include bailiff fees of £310).

 

PS: Please see the next post for a copy of the decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/17-013-451

 

 

London Borough of Haringey (17 013 451)

 

 

The complaint

 

1). The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council refused to agree a payment plan for a penalty charge notice (PCN) at the initial discounted rate.

 

What I found

 

4). There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs and handling appeals against them.

 

5). If a council issues a PCN and the motorist does not pay or (through informal representations) provide grounds to cancel it, the council may send a ‘notice to owner’. Within 28 days the motorist must then either pay the charge or make formal representations against it. The council must respond to any formal representations within 56 days and in the event it rejects them the motorist may appeal to either the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (for PCNs issued outside London) or London Tribunals (for PCNs issued within London).

 

6). If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations the council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.

 

7). In this case the Council issued Mrs X a PCN for a parking contravention in February 2017. The full amount of the penalty charge was £130 but for the first 14 days the Mrs X had the opportunity to pay at a discounted rate of £65. She says she could not afford to pay that amount in one go so asked the Council if it would accept £5 per month; the Council refused but offered Mrs X a further 14 days to pay at the reduced rate. When she did not, the Council progressed the case as set out above. It has now passed the case to its bailiffs to recover payment from Mrs X and the full amount owed is now £513. Mrs X complains about the Council’s refusal to agree a payment plan and about the addition of extra fees which she cannot afford to pay.

 

8). The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault. The Council issued Mrs X a PCN for parking in contravention of the rules and Mrs X has not formally appealed against it; she therefore seems to accept the contravention occurred. It is the responsibility of any motorist to comply with parking restrictions and to ensure that they can afford the cost of PCNs if they do not. Here the Council has followed the statutory process and allowed Mrs X additional time to pay at the initial discounted rate. Mrs X had opportunities to pay the PCN at £65, £130, £195, £203 and £278 before the bailiffs progressed the case to the enforcement stage which increased the amount owed to £513.

 

9). Although Mrs X has not seen the bailiffs instructed to recover her debt, she is aware the amount has increased to £513; it therefore appears the bailiffs may have missed Mrs X and left a letter at her property confirming the additional fee. The Ombudsman will not take this point forward as it is unlikely we could say this visit did not take place.

 

10). The Council is under no obligation to accept a request to pay by instalments in the initial stages and it is only where the Council receives full payment at some point in the process that it must cease further action. Now the debt has been registered and passed to the Council’s bailiffs Mrs X may be able to arrange a payment plan with the bailiffs directly. She may also explain her disabilities and ask that they accept her as a vulnerable debtor; the bailiffs would then have to ensure they take her circumstances into account when deciding how to pursue her for payment.

 

Final decision

 

11). The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council or that we could attribute the injustice Mrs X claims entirely to its actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...