Thanks for the info so far. I'll write back to them requesting they send the relevant letters through. I don't suppose they need to provide proof of posting do they?

I received a breakdown of fees from equita regarding a parking fine they collected. I'd be grateful if anyone could let me know if their are any discrepencies in them

Initial warrant amount £110.00

02/07/09 Bailiff letter sent to defendant requesting they contact us (£12.88)

03/07/09 The DVLA report the vehicle LD** *** is registered to Mr D**** ***** at (My old Address)

09/07/09 Bailiff called to levy, no contact made, left letter (fee £39.10)

16/07/09 Further bailiff visit made to contact debtor.

21/07/09 Case issued to bailiff; (bailiffs name) to visit

22/07/09 (bailiffs name) attended a mid terrace house in good condition with multi lock and wood glass front doot. Our Bailiff reports nobody was present in the property at time of call, left notice of attendence. UNable to confirm if defendant is still resident with neighbours (visit/attendence/removal fees: £223.10)

27/07/09 C/card payment of £385.08 recorded

I had moved from the property but my car was still registered to the address. However my previous landlord only contacted me to notify me of the bailiffs visit on the 23/07/09. She claims that no previous letters were received.

My questions are basically,

1) Do the charges seem fair

2) should equita have also sent me copies of the letter sent in the SAR (copy I sent below)

3) should they give me an individual breakdown of the visit/attendence/removal fees or is it ok for them to total it up together

Thanks in advance

Write pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and enclose payment of £10 the maximum prescribed under the Act and request you send me the following.

An itemised breakdown of all the fees charges orders costs and other monies that make up the total obtained by your bailiff.

Name of the Bailiff

Name and address of the court that certificated your bailiff.

All letters documents emails comments faxes personal opinions memos and other related information which would qualify as information defined under the Act.

All other information relevant and related to this request and occurrences therein.

Whilst I appreciate the Act allows you 40 days from the date of this request to fulfil your obligation, I look forward to receiving the above at your earliest convenience.

Yours Faithfully

MR **** ********

thanks for the quick reply - So just to clarify I have no need to contact equita again then. Is there a specific website that has a list of fees that should be applied for bailiff visits?

Thanks

On the 18th of August I sent a letter recorded delivery to equita bailiffs requesting a breakdown of fees charged for collection of an unpaid parking ticket. The £10.00 enclosed cheque was cashed around six weeks later but I have not yet received any information.

As this is over the 40 days stipulated and no reply has been received can somebody please advise me of my next course of action. DO I go straight to the small claims court or write to them again?

Thanks

Hi,

I recently send a subject access request to equita requesting a breakdown of the charges applied to a parking ticket. I have enclosed the £10.00 and sent it recorded delivery. The letter has been signed for and around 30 days have passed but the cheque is yet to be cashed.

Can somebody please advise where I stand after the 40 days required under the Data protection act and what my next step should be

Thanks in Advance

Excellent,

I look forward to seeing some updates in the future

keep up the good work

I haven't given up.

 

Manchester City Council have been sent a number of emails and when I am satisfied that they really have no answer or are avoiding their responsibilities in law, then this will be taken further with or without their co-operation.

 

I have not been involved with the Westminster incident

This illegal practice ceased on 26 July 2008 but only in Greater Manchester and not due to any police action or any realistion on their part that they had acted illegally.

 

Manchester City Council were made to realise that passing on private information was contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998. Not that MCC themselves stopped passing on private information in their possession to bailiffs but because they were limited to the impression that the bailiffs could not pass on the same info to the police.

 

Since then the formerly helpful council has failed to answer the question as to why it feels that it is exempt from the Act.

 

On February 6 2009, Westminster Council and it's bailiffs used the Metropolitan Police to illegally stop and detain motorists.

 

If anybody knows of other instances please let us know

Thanks for the information. May I ask why you gave up on this one? Is it a dead end or worth me following it up with my local force?

I did post up a reply to this earlier, but it took 4 days for it to appear:rolleyes: and when it did it found its way into the NHS forum! Lets hope this one gets posted more promptly.

 

It's necessary to seperate the initial actions of assisting the bailiffs (which has stopped)

Hi,

Can anyone tell me when the practice of police assisting bailiffs on roadside checks actually stopped

Thanks

This is really interesting.

Any updates?

I wouldn't call the bailiffs till you know exactly what you are being charged here .. they are probably trying to defraud you with their fee;s as they always do

That's all well and good but when they are threatening to turn up at your house and take your car then we would sooner settle the debt and reclaim it at a later date.

Again I'm just after advice on how to pay and whether the equita can refuse to accept payment.

I bet the fine wasn't that muchwas it?

 

 

You need to check out the fee's here as that's alot of money for one parking ticket

I think it was around £60.00 so obviously it's a substantial increase

Thank you for the link but the parking fine isn't really the issue as we admit liability in that respect. I was after advice on how to deal with the bailiff who failed to respond to our calls etc

Hello,

My partner recently received notification from her previous landlord that a bailiff from equita had visited her previous property in regards to an outstanding parking fine.

We're not disputing the fine went unpaid and we obviously didn't receive any correspondence from them as she failed to change the address via the DVLA

After she called him the bailiff refused to accept either full payment of £382.00 this coming Thursday (payday) or ANY offer of installments. He then stated that she had 24 hours to pay or they would seize her car.

She managed to borrow the money and notified the bailiff who said he would call back the following morning (after her father had placed it into her account) to take payment.

The bailiff failed to call so my girlfriend called and left two messages. asking her to call so she could make a payment. He failed to call back so she called the equita office stating that she would like to make a payment. They then refused and stated that the payment must go via the bailiff who is still uncontactable.

I'm basically looking for advice on what to do next as the cynic in me suggests the bailiff is trying to justify his fees and will be in touch soon with a revised and higher fee for phantom letters and visits.

Do we contact the council and make payment to them or do we insist that equita office accept the payment (if so how)

Finally, £382.00 seems excessive for a letter and a visit are the fees fixed and is their anywhere I can view them?

Any help would be gratefully appreciated

Yes, you have to appeal.

Bear in mind that the "wrongly marked" bay may in fact be a grandfathered bay correctly marked under old rules.

Hiya,

I'm in the same situation - the bays seem to be incorrectly marked after looking at the various diagrams on the web but are there any images of these "grandfarthered" bays?

Thanks

Hello All,

New to the forum so a big hello to everyone. I recently received a pcn for overstaying my ticket. The bay is marked correctly but the only signs that were visable were ones that stated "pay at meter" or words to that effect. am I correct in thinking the parking times etc need to be displayed on a sign or are they ok just on the actual meter?

Thanks

Dave