Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by spj

  1. The sign does specify "Permit holders only" - but the landlord is taking my money with a verbal contract and no permits... so the parking co might have a complaint, but the landowner shouldn't. Where do I go then if it is legally decided that I'm tresspassing, but the landlord is taking my money with the promise that I'm not? Is that not an offence in itself? Thanks silverfox, I'll have to attack it that way, I'll build up every bit of evidence I can, even if just a letter from my boss, it's something. At the end of the day, surely the landowner is the one I should be in a contract with by parking there, not PCS just because they're the hired doormen. On that premise, the fact a verbal and financial contract is in place with 18 witnesses is surely something of a defence. Or is my contract really with MPS by parking without the permit the landowner doesn't issue, in which case I shouldn't pay because I'd been conned.
  2. I work in a place with very restrictive car parking, my boss refuses to pay for the car park so staff have to instead. I pay a monthly fee through my manager to the owner of the property for the last two years to park there. Originally I would get a receipt, but these phased out. Our verbally agreed parking spaces moved between two car parks (owned by the same company) and we were told if our own space was taken to just park somewhere else.. . Parking became a pain in the backside because it was unenforced and we bagged the landlord to enforce it as part of our fee, else it made no sense and wasn't fair on legitimate parkers who paid and couldn't park. He did... Millennium parking services. And now I've got a parking charge notice which I don't seem to be able to contest. Knowing one of the two car parks is locked overnight, I parked in the other one as I was staying late, and came back to a ticket. Following advice on various forums I ignored the ticket but waited for the notice to keeper. This arrived in 5ish weeks, on the same day I went straight to their website and launched an appeal. Another month later, I get a Notice of Liability from PCS for £150, I launched an appeal on the day of arrival through PCS a nd every time I email them (they are good responders) I get the repeated reply that I'm out of the 21 days to appeal and have to face up or go to court. The last message back read: "The time to challenge the charge has now expired and therefore access to the Independent Appeals Service (if applicable) is no longer available. I have made notes on your file, but it does not alter our position and this parking charge will stand." Now the easy solution is go to the property owner for some kind of evidence, but in the past he has flat out refused receipts (with a short 6 month stint of receiving them in the middle) which we only assume is some sort of tax thing. He's also generally useless taking over a year to give us CCTV footage when someone drove into the car park and scratched a member of staff's car before leaving, so I don't hold much hope there. So where do I stand? The signs in both car parks explain that we need to display permits which we have never been issued. We do know the owner and people we pay are all legit, we know the parking company are legit. I'd welcome a court appearance, but with no evidence my side, and I assume a photograph theirs, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. The auto high lighting on this site has recommended writing to the property owner copying the parking co in. That's probably my next course of action so if all else fails, I have evidence that I'm doing everything to resolve it. .. that wouldn't stand up in court though surely..?
  3. The specifics we've already mentioned on another post. They levied one item, charged multiple times for each liability order and on both charged both a visit fee AND a levy fee. On complaint, they made an excuse about an admin error and the council took my case back on board. On their second visit months later they did near enough exactly the same again listing one car (which at that point was no longer mine, however they asked a neighbour who thought it was as I was doing work on it for the new owner) on each walking possession order charging the same fees over and over... another admin error? Or is this deliberate? But this isn't the point, I know they've done wrong, it has been discussed in these boards time and time again, precedents have been set in court and the rules are very simple. If it's just me, it's not worth my time doing anything as I have nothing to gain (I am not paying the fees and have evidence if they try to claim them), I want to find out if this is routine malpractice from the firm. If so, I want to group a number of complainants together to stand up and stop them doing this to other vulnerable people in future. One complaint is easily excused, but if I can prove they do it repeatedly, we have a case. Sadly so far no one else has come forward, but I'll leave this here and hope for the best.
  4. I have been visited twice by Andrew James Enforcement Ltd in Swansea due to an outstanding council tax bill. I do not deny my owing and on the visit we met, I was courteous and polite (as was he). However on both counts, it is my belief that they were applying more charges than lawful, on three walking possession orders, the same items were listed but charging multiple times; this has been challenged and won many times it seems. One levy was frivolous but despite my providing evidence and precedent in a complaint to the council, they simply withdrew Andrew James Enforcement Ltd's involvement in my case and did nothing to suggest they've done anything in response. On their second visit I wasn't in, but they did exactly the same thing again. Again on complaint, Swansea council brought my debt back to them without admitting nor denying any wrongdoing on the part of Andrew James Enforcement. I am adamant that they have broken a few rules both times and would like to see if it's isolated and if not prove that it is wrong higher up. After some investigation, it seems as if my 2 cases aren't the only ones and I would like anybody else with Andrew James Enforcement Ltd to come forward where they feel the rules have been broken. DO NOT SEND ME PERSONAL DETAILS! All I'm interested in is a list of people to potentially discuss this organisation with because if I discover a great number of cases, I would like to consider taking this further. I am not a lawyer, nor a solicitor, I'm simply a businessman who fell on hard times. If this did go further, appropriate legal advice and representation will naturally be sought. So if Andrew James Enforcement Ltd have charged excessive fees, made frivolous levies, charged multiple times for one visit on separate walking possession orders, please let me know either below or via pm. If you believe they have done something criminal, please drop me a message. The only prerequisite is that you have some evidence of their visit like receipts, walking possession orders etc (DO NOT SEND ME THESE AT THIS TIME! I DON'T HAVE NOR WANT SECURE DATA STORAGE) Continue to pay any agreed payments and charges and continue taking responsibility for your debts in whatever way is appropriate. This is simply a hunch that I would like to investigate to see if my case is isolated or if Andrew James Enforcement Ltd is actually committing offences on a regular basis. If they are, we'll discuss as a group what the options are in the presence of experts because I don't like the idea of them screwing over people when they are at their most vulnerable just for extra profits. If indeed that is the case, we've yet to find out obviously.
  5. That's what I thought regarding the listing, but a second similar one is still attached to Cooperative bank, and I know that debt belongs to Lowell now. And yes, legal I know, but for the debtor it's frustrating, stressful and just stinks a bit. I'll sell my contract to a dying relative so when they contact me I can say "sorry I don't owe you any more, they do."
  6. I'm about to apply for a DRO but realised that all debts listed have to be 100% accurate. But when my debts are being sold over and over again to different companies, I've lost track of one in particular. If I list the wrong company, the real company can still legally chase me! I'm using credit expert, and this debt (an HSBC Overdraft) is listed as default with HSBC but I know it's been sold on and I can't find out to whom. They haven't written to me for some time so I don't have the details :-/ Is there any way to find out who I owe money to now? On that subject, is it really fair for a company to sell a debt on? My contract was with HSBC, how is it right that I start getting letters from other companies saying I now owe it to them... and then them... and then someone else?
  7. Because it's the magistrates court who issue the liability order, grant the warrant of execution and licence the bailiffs to do their job. Using only reliable sources, some say I should complain to the magistrates court, others say I should complain to the LGO, so I'm doing both.
  8. Ok this is my 'first reaction' response. I've still not heard from the Magistrates court so will just continue and start forwarding everything to the LGO. On a successful ruling, I will then go through my MP to see how we can go to getting some tighter restrictions on bailiffs. My reply
  9. MPs? I trust them even less than bailiffs. The overriding decision needs to be made by the court or by the LGO. Anyone else isn't legally binding. Just need to know if I should be waiting to hear from the magistrates court or crack right on with my reply. Another slip up in their letter: "if the value of the goods cover the cost of execution, then the removal is lawful." admitting they only want to cover their costs already, but then they follow up with "If they cannot remove good of sufficient value to clear the debt then... [bit about committal to prison]". They openly admit they only need to cover the costs of execution and yet if they can't cover my debt, (they have just said they won't because they don't have to) I could be sent to prison. This is a very direct threat from a group of people bending the law in a very serious way. The general bullish tactics are to be expected, it's called 'distress' for a reason. But a threat like this is one step too far. Desperately hoping TT is still interested and chips in her reply soon.
  10. 1Loretta - Well it all depends on who's right and who's wrong. The trouble is the fact this debt has gone to bailiffs sets me off in the wrong. I should have sorted this long ago but I kept putting it off out of fear and lack of control. I run a small business and taking this to national papers, even local papers could be business suicide. If my clients knew I was in financial trouble, their trust would drop. However depending on how these next steps go, I would like to see how far I can take this, and I will need other victims behind me. I will need Mr H referred to above and anyone here who has received the same treatment, or better the same judgement. They were legally entitled to levy my car, however they're also legally entitled to levy my doormat (as has happened in another case) and even legally entitled to levy my dogs! (In the eyes of the law, these are property, not living things unless made to suffer in some way)... the latter would be thrown out by any reasonable judge but the line MUST lie somewhere, and this needs to be put into bailiff regulations in black and white for all to see. This is what I want to fight for.
  11. To be honest, a "whiter than white" bailiff company would probably fail within weeks. I saw a comment in relation to various LGO rulings which say more or less "Well how else are we supposed to recover this debt?" - Ok so a bailiff has bent the rules, possibly broken them to pressure me into paying. Let's be honest with each other, it's worked. It was a debt I wasn't doing much about until his arrival, now I'm spending almost every waking moment (a) trying to clear it and (b) fighting for my rights to be treated fairly. Michaels are being taken, and as I said in my letter TO the magistrates court, there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence saying that this is not an isolated case. I would like to take this as far as possible, my dream perhaps is to force an overhaul of the entire bailiff system, I doubt I'll get much further than quashing fees against me personally, and even that looks like it will be a struggle. If I can get a judge and the LGO to agree that these charges should not be doubled, I would like to take this to the police as a fraud case. I would like to find other 'victims' of this particular firm to also take them to court based on the same judgement. If this works and AJ are forced out of business (or to rename as is more likely), then this will go to the national press urging people country wide to take action against their own. This isn't my first dealings with bailiffs, my first was when my girlfriend and I moved into a flat. It was our first and I went straight to the council for a bill. They told me one would be in the post but despite reminders, it never arrived. 6 months later, my gf cheated on me and moved out forcing me out also. I had to move into the YMCA out of desperation and no sooner had I left there and moved into an HMO, a bailiff arrived. (apparently the 4th visit or so, each one had been charged for though despite me being jobless and constantly at home, I never heard a knock or even received a council tax bill). I took a small loan and paid up. I had to pay £250 of bailiff fees on top of the actual council tax bill. Nothing was levied (I had nothing at the time as the evil one took everything) and paid up within 1 month of the first actual visit. This was Rossendales acting on behalf of Watford Borough Council. My second dealings with bailiffs and they're trying all the same tactics. The industry need to be hit hard. I don't know if I'm the one to do it but I'll do whatever I can without losing my relationship and my car.
  12. Just had a read through the LGO report TT. The council's response is correct and would continue to be correct in terms of the fact that these judgements are not part of a legal precedence, but as we have evidence of two judges and one LGO report saying that double charging does not fall into the 'reasonable costs' bracket, there is a certain amount of clout for this particular case when it too goes in front of a judge and the LGO. The letter also provides evidence that the removal and sale of my car was only intended to cover their fees and not my debt, this is a plain admission. However, they're also right in that there is no law or regulation stating they have to cover any of my debt at all. I think as a 'debt recovery' method, nobody thought it necessary to add this clause. As for these charges if I take my complaint through the courts and lose, what fees am I likely to e charged? If I win, can I also claim compensation for the time spent by myself and others on this?
  13. Thanks TT, Don't get too wound up, if we're right and they're wrong, this is obviously an attempt to dissuade me from pursuing this further. On the plus side, my money cleared sooner than I thought so I can actually make my first payment at 9am on Monday. I will do it by phone and speak directly to someone who can call off the wolves in return. I'm also seeing some advice sending me to complain to the Magistrates court, and others to the Local Government Ombudsman... should I be complaining through both or have procedures changed?
  14. They also assume I'm taking the advice here and not checking things out. I've heard nothing from the court, have thy just forwarded my complaint on without a glance or is the ball rolling and I should wait to hear from them? As the council and I do not agree, I can only assume the next step is to meet their rep in front of a judge, are they right about the additional charges? I know the prison threat is relatively groundless as they have to prove that I am unwilling to pay whereas I can prove it's actually inability not lack of will. *Edit to avoid creating a new post* I've made a payment proposal to the council from which I have not heard. I can definitely make my first payment this Thursday and continue thereafter and have included attachment of earnings and necessary expenditure to show that my offer is actually in excess of affordability so I am trying. The trouble is that the 21 days the council bought for me from the bailiffs is up tomorrow. In my email to the council (to an address I've always had a good response from) I have explained this and asked for this 21 days to be extended until Friday. My default action failing any advice here is to phone the bailiffs office first thing Monday with the same offer. I don't want to pay the selectively innumerate, profit-making company, but this is probably the only way to protect my car at this stage...?
  15. Ok I have a response, it came direct from the council and I'm not sure if the magistrates are in or out of the loop. Response letter They seem to have tracked me back here! Either way Throssell v Leeds text I actually did qualify as it is available on Rossendales website (not the bailiff in this case, but another popular bailiff firm with council contracts). What do you think about the rest?
  16. Thanks SS, like I said critique away. I did struggle with that part. I need to show the court that there is no way any rational person would believe my car was worth £7000k+ Sitting it next to the RR was an attempt at showing how ridiculous their claim that they believed it to be valuable enough is. I'll rework it later tonight. I'm assuming you mean the bit between 'according to ebay' and 'pushed to the sides'... I'll have a look.
  17. Ok First draft of a formal complaint is ready. Uploaded here All feedback and criticism welcome as I aim to deliver this first thing tomorrow morning and need a strong case behind me.
  18. This is just a hypothetical question. Shylock was a fictional character who leant money to Antonio with security as a pound of flesh. When Antonio defaulted, Shylock went to collect but was warned that while he may collect the flesh, he may not collect (or actually spill in this case) a single drop of blood. So when a bailiff levies a car, when no mention of it's contents and then removes the car and the computer equipment sat in the boot, have they made an error or is there a legal allowance for this?
  19. Ok I think it's time to take proper legal advice to see how to proceed. I was just going to go to the magistrates court and do it myself however I've seen mention of the word 'fraud' in relation to cases like this and fraud is much bigger than bailiff law. The bailiff trying to charge me more than he should is more than just 'common practice' and 'human error' - it potentially amounts to fraud. I would also like to make the biggest impact I can because we all know bailiffs add these charges because 9 times in 10 they probably get away with it. As self-employed bailiffs earning commission, it doubles his take home pay. I would like to take this further ideally to the point that the bailiff's company is ordered to stop chasing all debts pending an investigation into their practices, they have themselves admitted to me in writing that charging per liability order is common-place in the industry and I think that warrants a criminal investigation rather than just a civil one. But everything needs to be done properly and in the right order so I will speak to the legal team at the CAB and see what they advise.
  20. Ah the classic Ford Dipstick, I remember it well. Do you have access to detailed case notes from Throssell v Leeds? I've Googled 'as for your car how old is it' in this regards and only this forum comes up (with you pasting the info) and moneysavingexpert with another user. We'll forget complaint 2, but I can release my car still if the above is the case. It would essentially set the bailiff up to take the car, pay off his charges, come back, levy another £150 worth of stuff, charge £150 and continue with no respect to the actual debt. Nearly as bad as the bailiff who levied the doormat and charged £200 odd... but his was much more obvious. More of the detailed assessment below from the other site for others' benefit: "Turning to the taxation it seems to me that notwithstanding the fact that there were three liability orders but one visit was made by one bailiff and the maximum that the Council’s reasonable charges can be is the result of applying the formula contained in Schedule 5 paragraph 2 (1) (b) of the Regulations" they cannot charge so many fees if only one visit is made as for your car how old is it? I.E. would the sale of it actually cover a large percentage of the bill anyway? a vehicle should only be removed if the proceeds of sale provide that there would be a surplus available to the liability order after deductions for the bailiff fees, , removal storages and auctioneers fees. "
  21. Thanks ShinySheen, certainly looks right, it doesn't. I've given them the chance to fix their mistakes and they haven't so I'm going for a full complaint. I've also contacted the council and said I would be paying them directly and will provide a full statement of accounts and the best I can offer. This is the only big debt I have so they can't refuse the best I can do. So far in my complaint. 1) Charges: I will mention the charges they've since removed but the fact they still believe they can charge double and that in their explanation to me, "this is common practice in the industry". This complaint appears valid with cases mentioned and their rulings. 2) Seizure of a car I need for my business. Grey area but I think I have to concede here. I need the car for a part of my business but it's more a personal vehicle. If they do remove it, I will lose a few clients, but the majority of my business can be operated by bus and train. 3) Whether they levied enough to cover a proportion of my debt, and whether this matters. I found a case where the bailiff levied a doormat and applied £200 worth of charges which was thrown out because it was obvious a ridiculous money making [problem]. But as their charges are down to £168 and the car is probably worth £700, it's hard to find anything to prove that it would sell for PT's estimated £80-150. If PT is right, I can't find any legislation to prove that this is a problem :-/ I'd like to hit with this if it's true especially given that argument 2 appears to be fading fast.
  22. Thanks again. The car is insured as SDP :-/ I run a web design and IT business. Most often it's travel to clients which technically could be done by bus (but down here a 20 minute car journey could take 90 minutes by bus. More for some remote locations. I do also attend some clients as IT support and have to transport PC equipment and monitors around which definitely could NOT be done by bus. I would have to dismiss a few client as I would no longer be able to service them. The only cars of my type I can see being sold at about £1000 on ebay and the likes, but these always have much lower mileage, and usually some service history. Mine has no service history as I'm a DIY amateur hobbyist mechanic... and like to save a few bob. My wife is insured to drive it on a provisional licence but only because it brings the premiums down. Throssell Vs Leeds is a Poll tax with multiple liability orders. Mishcon v Marston Group was parking fines but the same rules apply; although I can't find enough information to verify this case.
  • Create New...