I'm sure I've moved without telling quite a few people over the years, but 11 years is quite ridiculous. However I am writing a civil letter them reminding them of a few facts and politely requesting the search is removed. I have already submitted online to the CRA in question that I dispute the search, and considering reporting to the ICO as they've not received my consent to access my credit file.

postggj Thanks for the reply, very much appreciated. The search is showing under the heading "Recent Searches" the reason for the search shows 06 - TRACE (GAIN)

Received a letter from AK recently asking me to contact them for an amount I have no knowledge over, so I did phone them as curiosity was to great and I was interested to see who "I" owed this money to. Apparently it was a credit card, but wait for it ..... from 1998 (last payment made)! Now I know this is statute barred by the limitations act 1980 as it is well over 6 years old. The question here is, can Aktiv Kapital do anything to my credit file, as having just checked two of the CRA's on one of them a "foot print" is showing from Aktiv Kapital in the last 28 days. At present no default is showing, can AK default me on this? Thanks

Pat, Yes you are correct, I had miss-named it, it is a Traffic Regulation Order, under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

nic, I guessed that well! maybe because it's the place everyone gets "done" by Sunderland. From the details I was given by the council the on the Traffic Management Order for the area was only one side of the road was included. I've done a map to show you, the red line is where the TMO is enforce, the back side of Blandford street doesn't have any order in place. Hope this helps. I've just won my appeal against Sunderland Council at the appeal tribunal, and i'm not not happy with the staff in the place.

Bernie & Lamma, Your posts are noted, and with that I leave it where it stands, at least I won against the corrupt corporation. Thanks again

Bernie, I'm not looking for any payment, simply for the Council to admit it was wrong, and that the CEO lied, as the adjudicator said he was not satisfied that the vehicle was where the CEO said it was, nor that the PCN was handed to the driver... My interpetation of this is the adjudicator is stopping short of calling the CEO a liar.

Oddly enough, today the Council involved has sent me letter... copy of which is attached. Thoughts from anyone? CoS Letter.pdf

nicnic1971 is this the spot behind the Bridges (the old bus station)? - If so no TMO is in place for it. I made a request in May this for for a copy of the TMO's for the whole of the City and nothing is listed for Brougham St. But it does include the enclave which is the back of the stores. I would scan the entire document, but it is hundreds of pages and maps, and quite frankly I dont have time to do so. If it isn't this location let me know and i'll check and scan those individual pages.

Attached is a censored version of my representations to the TPT and the TPT Decision. When I say censored, I merely mean any personal and identifiable information is removed, which I'm sure most will understand the reasons as to why. TPT Decision.pdf HOBBIES SUBMISSIONS.pdf

Legalpickle, I hear you, but the adjudicator had hinted that he would be accepting the FC's offer to replace the vehicle. As it had made the offer to either repair or replace. In the formal summary we are to receive 50% of payments made, collection of the vehicle at no cost to ourselves, and the finance agreement withdrawn and the removal of any entry placed on both of our credit files, not an amendment, but full removal within 28 days, so it is to appear that no transaction took place between either party. Although it is not the resolution I would of liked, and by the sound of it, nor would you have preferred, but after a number of weeks of letters and counter offers flying back and forth it was on the day the best offer we think. I really do appreicate your advice LegalP.

BtB, I had requested £60.00 costs. Unforutnately the Adjudicator refused my application on this matter, simply citing. I do not consider that the Council has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that the Council's actions in resiting this appeal was wholly unreasonable. Accordingly i Refuse application or an order awarding costs and expenses. When I get a chance latter today, I'll PDF my representations (minus my personal details) and i'll scan the adjudicators decision. I am now considering action against the Council for questioning my honesty and integrity, I strongly denied the Council's allegations to them, yet the Council refused to accept I was telling the truth. I'll need to consider if any action I take next. Hobbie.

Update: The hearing took place, and my appeal was allowed, the adjudicator wrote a 3 page decision as to why he allowed my appeal and ordered the council to withdraw the PCN and NtO. The choice of words the adjudicator used was quite strong and stopped very short of calling the CEO a liar. Those who want to see the adjudication let me know and i'll scan/post it to here. Thanks again to those who responded. Hobbie.

Final update. The case reached an adjudictor and we entered into informal negationation, and reached an agreement. In that the Finance Company have agreed now to collect the vehicle at the own expense, and refund 50% of payments made. We accepted this on the basis that the Finance Co. had made an offer to repair the vehicle or supply a vehicle similar to that what we already had, and we simply wanted to end the agreement as we had lost of trust in the FC. Thanks to legalpickle and all those who also posted offering words of advice and support. Hobbie

Update: Finally.... Contacted by a FOS Adjudicator who is going over everything and will be writing to both ourselves and the finance company, although he was unable to give any date due to complexity of the matter, it would be investigated and a decision given on the result of the investigation by him. From the date an adjudicator is appointed, any idea on time scale involved now? Thank You Kindly

Sorry, yes the PCN was also supplied, although not in with my FOIA Request, the Council had refused to provide it until I filed the papers with the TPT in Manchester. Although I had sent a holding statement to TPT supplying copies all correspondence between I and the Council showing the Council refusing to supply a copy of the PCN in my FOI Request. The TPT accepted this.

That is the WHOLE evidence, just received today direct from the council. I am in the opinion that TPT may "kick it out" based on the evidence or lack of it, I had previously made a FOIA Request to the council concerning this which again was only a copy of the Pocket Note Book as evidence stating "HTD" Which according to the Council is 'Handed To Driver' although no description is recorded. But the wheel valve position is recorded!

Hi, I received a NtO few weeks back in which I made representation to the Council in question, although the Council rejected my representions. I have now requested a personal hearing with the Traffic Penalty Service, and also wishing to claim costs. How much can I request to be considered? - What is seen as reasonable costs to claim back. The council have no evidence, as I've received everything that council will use to rely up on, which is the CEO's pocket note book that is VERY badly kept. The council are acting totally without merit in this matter, as I've already provided them with GPS Data showing the vehicle was NOT even in the same city or for that matter same Country. On the date/time that the council are stating the vehicle was in Scotland and had been for 3 days prior and 2 days after. Thanks

No, but I am hoping before end of July.... Although one can only live in hope.

Monthly update. I have contacted the FOS via telephone and it is still with the Case Work team awaiting an adjudicator. Shouldn't be much longer within a month I am told....

Hi, Just a quick update. Received confirmation from the FOS that they've received the additional documents. Thanks

They've sent a form to have it go to the adjudicator, which will be completed and returned. The CEO's notebook entry also doesn't state any description of the person who he states was the driver, not even if the driver was male or female. It merely states 13:50 At issued code 02 Handed to driver. ----------- The GPS tracking company do issue legal statements concerning things like this, but at a charge, the charge is slightly less than the PCN it's self but still not an option to pay for it, as It is my opinion those who make the allegations (in this case the council) have to prove the contravention took place. And as of yet they've yet to prove anything.

Hi, I received a NtO on Tuesday for a vehicle which I am the keeper of, not the owner. Stating on 10th March 2009 a parking contravention took place "Code 02" The PCN Lists the vehicles correct make, colour and VEL serial number. But the vehicle was NOT parked at the location at the alleged date/time. (Evidence to support this is available, vehicle has GPS Tracking). I wrote back to the council the same day to make representation stating the vehicle was not parked at the location in question, but was parked a round the corner in a time limited bay (limited by 2 hours no return). The local authority have since responded with a "Notice of Rejection of Representation". Stating: "No loading is permitted on a yellow line that has the loading / unlioading restrictions indicated by yellow lines on the kerb edge and operating periods shown on the time plate. Your vehicle was observed pareked on a loading restriction in XXXXXXXX Street on 10th March 2009. The Penalty Charge Notice was issued at 13:50. This being the case the Penalty Chage Notice was correctly issued." I have made further contact via telephone with the local authority regarding this, and requested photographic evidence to substansiate the alleged contravention, also a copy of the CEO's pocket note book entry. I'm informed no photo's was taken and that the ticket wasn't actually placed on the vehicle but was instead handed to "The Driver" No PCN was handed to either of the authorised drivers of this vehicle nor was the vehicle at the location on the alleged date or time, as I have checked with the GPS Tracking service online. The closet the vehicle was to the location was stopped for approx 18 seconds whilst waiting a traffic signals. Any advice?

You'll never be able to prove that it occured fraudulently, not unless he either a) Admits it was fraud (which I doubt he'll do) or; b) You have some way to read his mind at the time he made the declaration/report. But all you have to do is prove on the balance of balance of probabilities (on a sliding scale) mroe serious the allegation more balance is needed, less serious the less balance is needed. Surely you'll need to prove beyond the balance of probabilities that your debt was included in the bankruptcy was a breach of trust before you can apply have have money deducted from monies earned?

LegalP, All changes made (added company name) printed, and posted. Just need to wait for a responce from them now. In the mean time do you suggest any correspondence with the finance company, just letting them know we refuse the "kind" offer of returning the vehicle in full and final settlement or just leave it? Thanks