Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Aesmith - Thank you for your recent interest in my issues.  Input on people's topics can be most useful from specialised experts or those that have similar experiences.  Some people really struggle with knowing what to do (I certainly do) - so it is most useful and helpful and reassuring when solid sensible advice is offered.  I have found there to be some very kind, helpful, supportive and legally knowledgeable people here on cag over the years - who give sound legal advice for people to roll up their sleeves and follow up on.   Of course, sometimes it can be quite challenging sifting the wheat from the chaff.  I don't have lawyer or barrister.  I sometimes attend pro-bono legal clinics for help.  And sometimes have access to barristers via a pro-bono service called Advocate.  Both ad-hoc. Pro-bono means 'free'
    • The Judge was wrong. The keeper is only INVITED to say who was driving, there is no obligation for them to say.
    • Member of the Question Time audience asks Richard Tice about Donald Trump.    
    • I hope Lord Frost is OK. Islamists and the woke Left are uniting to topple the West ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 19:12:37 UTC  
    • Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e]  says the PCN must "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc.  All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could  still have been within the  time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing you . 
  • 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 1932 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

We are being chased for a council tax bill from 2010. The council says they had commenced action within a couple of years of the bill becoming due but the bailiffs were unable to collect. To date the council have provided no information as to the court order or why they were unable to collect. I believe this is now a statute barred debt but I have already received two letters through the door by bailiffs chasing this debt.

How should I proceed?

Jb2019

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and Welcome to CAG

 

I have moved your thread to a more appropriate forum..please continue to post here to your thread.

 

Regards

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Council need to inform you of when the Liability Order was issued - date, Court & amount as a minimum. Providing this was within 6 years of the debt becoming due then doesn't matter how long since it will never be Statute Barred.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it that you have moved since 2010. Some Councils aren't great at updating their records so may not have picked up on your new address.

Ploddertom is right on both counts so you do need to contact the Council urgently to see if you can put the bailiffs on hold until you have all the relevant details. And if it is correct that you do owe something confirm that you will pay.

If you have changed address then you will need to ask the Council when they applied for a new Liability order with your new address on it.

You say that you have had two letters from the bailiffs-one would have been to advise you about the debt and giving you time to contact them to sort out payment. For that £75 will have been added to the debt. If you fail to contact them within the timeline they will then call round to collect the money in person. If that was the second letter then a further £235 plus 7.5% on any amount over £1500 will already have been charged.

 

Could you please give us further information to help us advise you. For instance when did you receive the first notification of the debt. did you contact the Council and /or the bailiffs and how long after you knew of the alleged debt. What did they say. Was the second letter from the bailiffs delivered by them by hand or are you still within the Compliance stage where their fees are "only" £75. And how much are they asking for and is it the sort of amount you expected.

You also need a breakdown from the Council of how they arrived at the amount owed and what else has been added since. do the same thing for the bailiffs. You want to know what fees they have added to the Council's on what dates , how much and the reason for each charge.

 

In the meantime, if you have any vehicles outsjde your house you should move them further away to prevent the bailiffs from clamping it/them.

 

The second thing Ploddertom was right about was the bit on Statute Barred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you but despite several letters to the council but they haven't come up with anything solid. They say the account has been ON HOLD due to bailiff activity as of 2011 and then say a Liability order was applied at a summons hearing on the 11th January 2012 but no paperwork was received by us or it would have been dealt with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

was it an old address and you never informed then you'd moved.

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

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/34/made

 

Regulation 34 Rule 3

 

It's only statute barred if they didn't try to recover it within 6 years. If proceedings were commenced within 6 years it never goes statue barred.

 

Personally, I'd email my local councillor from that area, tell them that you really want to come to an affordable arrangement to pay it off, but you need to see details of the liability order etc first before you pay. Also please could you call the bailiffs off.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/34/made

 

Regulation 34 Rule 3

 

It's only statute barred if they didn't try to recover it within 6 years. If proceedings were commenced within 6 years it never goes statue barred.

 

Personally, I'd email my local councillor from that area, tell them that you really want to come to an affordable arrangement to pay it off, but you need to see details of the liability order etc first before you pay. Also please could you call the bailiffs off.

 

The section quoted is from the council tax regulations, and refers to the period between when the default sum is called for and the application to the Magistrates Court for a liability order. It has nothing to do with bailiff enforcement. It is also nothing to do with Statute Barr, as that term is used exclusively for actions which fall foul of the SOL act.

 

 

Also there is no statute barre for judgements, only "new actions taken upon a judgment". Enforcing a judgment is not a new action see forbes vs I forget.

 

The bailiff would however have to apply to the court to enforcie an order after 6 years of inactivity.

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

pers i'd godo these tomorrow:

 

stay off that phone to the bailiff follow this:

.

Here is something to be getting on with.

 

First of all establish from the Council how much was owing etc

You need to speak to someone at the Council and ask the following questions:

.

1 - how many Liability Orders they have against you

2 - the dates they were obtained

3 - the addresses they were for

4 - the period of time each covers

5 - how much each one was for

6 - how much is still outstanding

7 - the dates they were passed on for enforcement

8 - the dates & amounts of any payments

.

.

Next you need to send off for a breakdown of the charges the Bailiff applied.

Here's an example, use and ADAPT at will and best sent initially by email

backed up by a copy in the post.

..

"From:

My Name

My Address

.

To:

Acme Bailiff Co

Bailiff House

.

Ref: Account No: 123456

.

Dear Sir

.

With reference to the above account, Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the charges.

.

This includes:

a - the time & date of any Bailiff action that incurred a Fee.

b - the reason for the fee.

c - the name(s) of the Bailiff(s) that attended on each occasion a Fee was charged.

d - the name(s) of the Court(s) the Bailiff(s) was/were certificatedicon at.

e - the date of the Certification.

.

This is not a Subject access request under the Data Protection Act S7 1998 so does not incur a fee of £10. You are obliged to provide this information.

.

I require this information within 14 days.

.

Yours faithfully

.

Ripped off customer"

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

Just a quick clarification DX, does the Acme bailiff letter need amending due to GDPR regarding SAR and £10 fee?

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 would think so that's an old text needs updating.

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

The section quoted is from the council tax regulations, and refers to the period between when the default sum is called for and the application to the Magistrates Court for a liability order. It has nothing to do with bailiff enforcement. It is also nothing to do with Statute Barr, as that term is used exclusively for actions which fall foul of the SOL act.

 

 

Also there is no statute barre for judgements, only "new actions taken upon a judgment". Enforcing a judgment is not a new action see forbes vs I forget.

 

The bailiff would however have to apply to the court to enforcie an order after 6 years of inactivity.

 

Good information, thanks for that.

 

Sometimes it seems when dealing with Council Tax all rules go out of the window.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good information, thanks for that.

 

Sometimes it seems when dealing with Council Tax all rules go out of the window.

 

 

 

Excellent, someone who actually reads difficult replies to queries. Just for you more info:

 

https://swarb.co.uk/lowsley-and-another-v-forbes-trading-as-i-e-design-services-HL-29-Jul-1998/

 

 

 

An application by the judgment debtor to set aside the orders on the ground that they were statute barred under section 24(1) should be refused. A judgment can be enforced after six years, but not any claim for interest on that judgment. Execution was not a fresh action and so was not caught by the statutory restriction. Execution has historically been treated other than as a separate action. s24(1) does not apply to proceedings by way of execution of a judgment in the same action: the expression ‘action upon any judgment’ in s24(1) means, as it did in s2(4) of the 1939 Act, bringing a ‘fresh action’ upon a judgment for another judgment. It did not include the execution of an existing judgment, which could proceed despite the expiration of more than 6 years from the judgment.

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

It will be interesting to see what the OP's request for information shows up.

 

I think he's missing a trick by not going through the local councillor / elected head of local council to get the bailiffs off his back, finding out what he actually owes (if anything) and coming to an affordable arrangement if necessary. This has worked for me on 2 occasions now.

 

Also it's worth the OP looking (if applicable) at the local council's own Code of practice when it comes to debt recovery. Usually it describes vulnerable people in households, eg pregnant women, chronically ill people.

 

In my case I sent the council a consultants note with a list of meds my wife was on, the bailiffs were off our case in 24 hours and fees removed.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...