Does not know the debtors current bank account impact third party debt orders? I'm assuming it would but if you could advise that would be appreciated. Thanks

I'll google Third Party Debt Order (never heard of it). His bank account has been closed down, so I don't have his latest bank account details.

Thanks for the response. He's not a sole trader, he has a partner (in crime, they're definitely scammers). Not a limited company. However, I transferred the money to his private account so the debt is against 1 "builder" (scammer) only. He doesn't own his own home (I've checked the land registry or whatever it is) but he has a car (not a great one) and I know that he has a caravan (just don't know where it is (yet, although not sure how I'll find out)). So he has the means to pay site fees. I also know that he's continuing to scam people out of money. So he has money coming in, just not legitimately. I've also been in touch with my MP who said he'd written to Parliament about the issues of scammers but that was last October and he's ignored any further emails. I've also reported him (not the MP) to HMRC for tax avoidance. I've contacted Citizens Advice Bureau who seem, online at least, to be happy to offer guidance on how people can avoid paying their debit but are not willing to offer any advice if you're owed money. That's legal assistance and they don't receive funding for that! Whilst, I'd like my money back (or some of it), I just want to now cause as much grief as I possibly can and if I can, stop him from ripping other people off.

Been a while seen I've been here. Last time was "builder" troubles and here I am again. You'd have thought I'd have learnt! Paid £6,600 to a "builder" for materials for a garage conversion by bank transfer. Any work was to be paid for once the work was completed. No materials arrived and "builder" gave us the runaround. I contacted my bank and the Police. My bank contacted the receiving bank who put a hold on "builders" account. "Builder" delivered £449 of materials, ripped the windows and doors out, laid a few shoddy rows of bricks and took photos of evidence of work and that they intended to do the job at the advices of their bank. Bank account was unfrozen and we didn't see them again. The bank account was subsequently cancelled due to not complying with the banks terms and conditions. Spent so much time talking to the Police but they eventually decided it was a civil matter as they'd done some work and there was no evidence that they wanted to permanently deprive. Police advised that he advised them that if we sued him and we won, he would pay. Contacted Trading Standards who didn't want to know. Said it was a 1 off incident. However, following my negative feedback on social media, I now know it isn't and I know of others who have since contacted Trading Standards. Banks didn't want to know and a complaint has been made to the FCA. My complaint was rejected (I'm in touch with someone who has received 50% back from their bank) and has been appealed (I'd used CEL Solicitors originally who were a waste of time and have appealed with the FCA directly and with additional info). I also made a complaint against the Police and the complaint has been upheld and the Police need to review the case again, although I suspect they'll just fob me off again. Not heard from the Police since they agreed to review 4 weeks ago. In the meantime I issued online small claims court proceedings. The "builder" contacted us to ask us to drop the case as if we didn't they would file for bankruptcy. So they clearly received the court papers. Refused to drop the case but he said he would pay us £200 a month. WhatsApp messages were exchanged. He never responded to the claim so judgement was made in our favour by default. I then applied for a CCJ. The CCJ has since been returned as "undeliverable". I'm pretty certain that this would have just been sent normal mail and not signed and would therefore have been pushed through his letterbox. The same letterbox that the court papers were sent to and which he acknowledged to us he had received. According to the correspondence received from the courts, the CCJ remains registered with the Registry Trust Ltd, so it could still cause him some issues. Not sure what he thinks he's gaining by returning the CCJ notification. He's told us he's no longer working due to disabilities but I've been contacted by someone who paid him money this year and have seen other negative reviews in April and May. So he's clearly still scamming people. So my question is, should I appoint a bailiff or a debt collector? I'm pretty sure he's still in the same house and is just playing games. Any thoughts / suggestions would be appreciated. Debt now stands at £7,650.29. Thanks in advance.

That's my worry. As each party is usually liable for their own costs in the small claim court but not at Fast Track or Multi Track. I've been to through the small claims and fast track processes previously and was hoping to keep it to the small claims due to it being more informal and the cost implications. I was going to keep the claim amount lowish. It's not about the money, it's the principal and the council being accountable. Almost 7 months after my accident I am still having ongoing tests to establish the extent of my injuries and have been told that I will never have full movement in my left arm following the injuries

I have photographic evidence of the pothole, witnesses to the accident and medical evidence re the injuries sustained. However I need to prove that the council were negligent. They inspected the road in May 18 and identified that the hole was big enough to warrant repair. So they can prove that they have a schedule for inspection. That's in the Council's favour. They need to show that they have an adequate system in place for the reporting of potholes. This, in my opinion, is debatable but I'd need to get a judge to agree with me. They need to show that they have an adequate system in place to repair potholes which are large enough to warrant repair. I need to get to the bottom of this. They identified that the pothole was large enough to warrant fixing but did they fix it? They haven't advised. If they didn't fix it, they could be held liable. However if they did fix it following their inspection in May 18 was the repair reasonable? If it was repaired why were the potholes present in Feb 19? Although to add confusion, they state there were no potholes in November 18 when the road was inspected. So I need to get to the bottom of the repairs. It doesn't matter that they accept that a pothole caused the accident and injury, I need to prove negligence. I'm not in a position to issue proceedings but just wanted to know whether this type of claim could be made in the small claims court.

"In order to question the validity of their pre-accident inspection we would need to be able to prove that the defect was in situ at that time, would have been deep enough to require intervention and that it was missed. Whilst I take on board your comments, I consider it likely that a Judge at trial would prefer to rely on the inspection records and dismiss your claim." We know from the inspection report that the pothole was present in May 18 and was scheduled to be fixed, ie it was deep enough to require intervention in accordance with the Council's own rules / guidelines. What we don't know is whether it was fixed and if so whether the repairs were reasonable. I would want to know this prior to pursing any action.

I'm waiting on copy correspondence but they've denied liability, as you would expect. I'm told that they've not disputed that there was a pothole which caused my injury (& which they have subsequently repaired) but they are maintaining a section 58 defence. I know from their inspection report that they were aware of the pothole in May 2018 and that it should have been repaired. They say it was but I haven't been provided with any evidence. Maybe the solicitor has it but hasn't provided it yet. However, I do know from the inspection report that there are other potholes which they were aware of which weren't repaired. My solicitor said it'll be difficult to prove the size of the hole at the time of the accident however I have photos and they have confirmed in writing that it was large enough to warrant repair and have subsequently repaired it. I'm also told that it'll be difficult to prove that they were negligent but I'm coming at this from the view that they were aware of it in May 18 & I had my accident in Feb 19. I want them to show that a) they fixed it and b) it was fixed adequately. If it was fixed adequately why had it reappeared in Feb 19? Thanks

Thanks Andy The council are already aware. I did have a no win no fee solicitor but he won't proceed on this basis.

Hello Hopefully the title sums up what I want to know. I'm considering taking legal action against my local council for injury sustained due to a pothole. The council have not disputed that there was a pothole and that it caused my injury but I'm told that I will have an uphill battle to prove that the pothole was sufficient enough to warrant repair (although it has subsequently been repaired) and that the pothole was missed during inspections. I know for a fact (in writing) that they were aware of the pothole in May 2018 and that it warranted repair. But I do not know if it was repaired. I had my accident in February 2019. If the pothole was repaired, I need to prove that it wasn't repaired sufficiently. I can prove that the council have not repaired other potholes reported to them effectively but need to do more digging to get to the bottom of the pothole in question. But what I'd like to know in the first instance is what court system I need to use? Can I use the small claims court? Or is that just for commercial claims? Of course if anyone wants to add any other comments that would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the comments. Honestly, I'm not worrying. I'd just like to understand why the charge is not enforceable. Thanks

Photo of signage attached. As this is a TfgM car park does Byelaw 14 apply? I'd never heard of this till yesterday and have done a little reading. Byelaw 14 is part of the Railway Byelaws but according to the signage the car park is for tram users only not rail users. However, signage in the car park does state tram and trail station this way, with an arrow, which would indicate that train users use it. Also, if it does apply, not sure how this helps. Sorry if I'm being stupid. Thanks in advance again Metrolink Rochdale signate.pdf

Hopefully I've attached the parking charge notice parking charge notice.pdf

Sorry, but how do I add a photo of the t&cs which are on display? Will also scan the charge notice when I get to work But don't know how to do that either

Morning According to TfgM it's owned by them and Care Parking monitor the car park. I've had a quick look online and can't find the full t&vs, so I've emails TfgM requesting a copy. I can only find info regarding overnight parking. Thanks

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions.... 1 The date of infringement? 05 December 2018 2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] N if you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it, suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide has there been a response? please post it up as well, suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide] If you haven't appealed yet - ,......... have you received a Notice To Keeper? N (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] what date is on it Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? 3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?] N/A 4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK, did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process? N/A [it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances] 5 Who is the parking company? Care Parking 6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Metrolink Rochdale .............. if I wait for an NTK will I be entitled to the 40% "discount" still? Seems an awful lot of info that they need to provide including the period. Does this just mean the day or do times need to be provided as well? That would be tricky. Morally car was parked in an electric car park space but just don't see that there was an alternative and already paying alot more train fair since other car park closed making it nor difficult to park.

Thought I'd answered the questions in the link It was a windscreen ticket, issued today and states parking charge notice. I've not entered into any correspondence with them. I've not had a NTK as the parking charge notice was only issued today. Note the link states that they have to do within a timescale but the reduced charge time period will have expired by then. It says on the back of the notice that failure to pay within 28 days may result in the charge being passed to the registered keeper whose details may be requested from the DVLA under the reasonable cause criteria of recovering unpaid parking charge notices and that the charges notice has been issued lawfully and meets the criteria of schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012. It then goes on with the usual jargon about passing on to debt collectors and solicitors. Thanks

Hello It's a parking charge notice issued today by Care Parking at Metrolink Rochdale. The ticket was stuck to my windscreen. I haven't entered into any correspondence with them yet. Thanks

Evening all After some advice please. Did post in FB but received a moral telling off . As the title says petrol vehicle was in an electric vehicle bay. Ticket is for £100 or £60 if paid in 14 days. There were no other spaces available. It wasn't a case of being lazy otherwise the car would have been parked in a motorbike or disabled space which are closer to the entrance/ exit. Driver has a train season ticket and the car park is for tram and rail users (the t&cs actually state it's for tram users only but the signage say trains and trams this way.....!). Driver used to travel from a different station but northern have closed the car park at the station of choice to use as a site office for work to the station. But have ran out of money, aren't doing work but have kept the car park closed. Now paying 30% more for a train ticket to travel from a station with a car park. The only other option would have been to drive 15 mins home, park up and catch a bus and whilst this would have been an additional cost, would have been cheaper than a parking ticket. But would have taken approx 90 mins rather than 10. The car was in an electric space but where could the car go? There was nowhere else to park & a train ticket from that station had already been purchased and situation has been made worse by Northern closing a car park at another station close by. I spoke with a warden this evening who suggested appealling and wished me luck. If I appeal as the registered keeper how can they prove who was driving the car / parked it? & without breaching GDPR how can they find out who owns the car / drove the car and enforce the ticket? I think that £60 / £100 is excessive considering there was nowhere else to park, driver already had a train ticket from that station and driver is paying 30% more for train ticket since northern closed other car park. After a bit of advice please. Thanks in advance.

Evening all Thank you for comments, I really do appreciate and value them all, but.....! I don't understand why we couldn't sue them for the cost of taking out a warranty with another company. I understand that we can actually sue them or anyone for anything but have to weigh up what our chances of success would be. I feel they've breached the contract by not reactivating the warranry when we complied with everything we needed to. They've requested more than was needed, 3 months after the vehicle was inspected by Vauxhall (this additional work wasn't requested by Vauxhall when they inspected the car, so why now?) citing late reactivation when it was simply an admin error, in my opinion. There's no reason not to reactivate the warranty other than to get another car off their system. I have spoken to Vauxhall on numerous occasions but have no evidence of this. But I have also emailed them on numerous occasions requesting the warranty be reactivated and pointing out that this is an admin error. My last email from 2 weeks ago remains unanswered. Whilst I like the idea of needling away at them I don't have the time or inclination, I just wanted my warrant reactivating. Should I call into our local Vauxhall at the weekend and have a final attempt with them? They are aware as my hubby has spoken to them also. I will have a look at the court cases quoted above - a bit of light bed time reading . Thanks again

Thanks for the responses. We are allowed to have the car serviced elsewhere and have had for 3 years without issue. The issue is "late reactivation" of the warranty. Car needs to be service & mot'd then have a vehicle inspection at Vauxhall within a specified timescale, which it was. Local Vauxhall then need to press a button / paperwork to reactivate, which they didn't do. We were advised warranty not reactivated in November & got in touch to get reactivated as we had done what was needed. Vauxhall advise that due to "late reactivation" they want us to have work done on the car which wasn't required at the service, not or vehicle inspection. our view is, it isn't a "late reactivation" its an admin error but Vauxhall seem to want to cancel the warranty as this is something which they no longer offer. my loss is no warranty, so I want to sue for the price it will cost to buy a warranty independently. hope this makes sense. thankd

Thanks dx The title is fine, just wanted to clarify that, as far as we're aware, we've done everything we should have.

Hi Notice that the title of the thread has been changed. However car could be serviced at an independent garage providing they were VAT registeredand used any Vauxhall parts. Vauxhall simply unhappy as they wanted the business. Thanks

Hi Noticed that title of thread has been changed to ".....didnt Service at recommended centre". This is incorrect, it was. Vehicle could be serviced at any reputable and independent garage providing they were VAT registered and used any Vauxhall parts. Vauxhall weren't happy that we went elsewhere because they wanted the business. If we had used a garage that we weren't allowed to, the warranty would have cancelled after the first year. Thanks

Hello all Been a while since I've used CAG but you were very helpful before so I'm hoping for some more help please. I bought a Vauxhall from new in September 2013. At that time Vauxhall were still giving lifetime warranties up to 100,000 miles. Car had to be serviced each year, have a vehicle check by Vauxhall and after 3 years be mot'd. But this all had to be done in a 2 or 3 week window. Late August, we had the car serviced and mot'd by the garage we used each year (which Vauxhall weren't happy about as they wanted us to take the car to them to be serviced and mot'd but we've been using the local garage for years and the customer service at Vauxhall has always been poor). In early September the car was inspected by Vauxhall and the log book provided to prove we still owned the car and evidence of service and mot. This was all done within the 2 / 3 week time slot. Then in November we received a letter from Vauxhall Lifetime Warranty advising that the warranty hadn't been reactivated but if we thought this was incorrect, to get in touch, which we did. Vauxhall asked for the above documents and obtained a copy of the inspection report from Vauxhall. I pointed out that Vauxhall had already been provided with the documents but the lady who dealt with this was off sick was told it would be quicker if I provided, which I did. Process was slow, I gave them 2 weeks to confirm that warranty had been reactivated (5pm on 19 December) otherwise I would sue for the cost of a warranty. I was then "invited" to have my spark plugs changed and some other work & was given until 22 December to do this to have the warranty reactivated due to the "late reactivation". None of the work that I was "invited" to do had been requested during the service or vehicle inspection. I emailed back pointing out that this was not a "late reactivation" but an admin error & asked for confirmation that the warranty had been reactivated. I have heard nothing further. I therefore intend to sue for the cost of a warranty as I believe that Vauxhall have breached the contract by not reactivating the warranty. I'm happy to hear anyone's thought but wondered who I should sue, Vauxhall Lifetime Warranty or my local Vauxhall garage or jointly? Vauxhall no longer offer lifetime warranties and I feel that they're just trying to cancel any they can. Thanks in advance