Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • please dont use hosting sites. copied and attached as per our upload guide. dx  
    • Another update - just had another round of Text messages, Emails and letters. Physical  letters still going to the old address (forwarded by royal mail). All messages were exactly the same as the previous round with threats of CCj's, Attachment of Earnings, Warrant of Execution, Bankruptcy and Charging Order. Seems to be a 2 week pattern of 1 week letter, following week email - texts seem to be a bit more randon, but always over 10 days between each one.  Not sure if IDR are working diligently behind the scenes to recover monies from me,  or are just spamming me in the hope that i stick my head above the parapet
    • Here  (edited for personal information).    Claimform.pdf filed defence.pdf
    • 1. the claim is for sum of 1650£ due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for capital one account with an account reference of xxxx 2. the dependent failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s87(1) of the consumer credit act 1973 which has not been complied with 3. the debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 18-03-21 notice of which has been given to defendant  4. the claim incudes statutory interest under s69 of the county court act 184 at a rate of 8%per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of 132£ the claimant claims the sum of 1782£ defence. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1PAPDC. 2. The Claimant claims £xxxxxx is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all. 5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice  pursuant to sec87(1) of the CCA1974; and (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for.  7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief Should the amount be the figure in the particulars or the final figure with the added fees Should the amount be the figure in the particular or the final amount with fees added
    • post it up here first for checking please dx  
  • 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

question re: car towing and excessive bailiffs charges

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6058 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hope someone can help!

basically car was towd by bailiff company acting on behalf of local council over a parking ticket i knew nothing about. never received any previous correspondence over it.

charges are as follows


£125.00 for original parking ticket.

£22.50 for 2x letters "apparantly" sent

£175.00 towing fee

£130.00 for the bailliff to visit once to tow car

£35.00 levy fee


17 days for storage in pound at £8.00 per day whilst i argued the PCN and bailliff charges. seemed council and bailliff company deliberatley stalling.


Total cost over £600 which i have paid in order to get my car back.

What can i do?

I was never aware of PCN and charges seem totally excessive!

Link to post
Share on other sites



I have sent a PM to you concerning the name of the actual bailiff. Also can you let me know which company.


The fees DO NOT appear correct.


The most glaring of errors is the fee for a letter. The fee is £11.20 and only letter fee can be charged.


Did you receive a ticket?


What date was the ticket and which local authority?


If you did not receive, then you need to complete an "out of Time" late Statutory Declaration with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. Their staff are very helpful indeed and will explian what to do and they will also send you a form by e-mail.


Their telephone number is : 08457 045 007 .


When you call you need to ask what date the warrant of execution was issued. THIS IS IMPORTANT. Please let us know and can advise further.


Firstly concerning the fees, you need to send a Subject Access Request to the bailiff company to request a complete and DETAILED breakdown of the fees charged. Only then can to see EXACTLY where any overcharging has occured.


By law the bailiff mUST leave with you a FORM 7. Notice of Seizure. Was this sent and if so what figures were on it. ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt receive a ticket on my car and didnt know anything about the ticket until my car was towed!


24th july was the date the ticket was registered witth the traffic enforcement centre as an unpaid fine.


30th August was the date for the warrant of execution.


My vehicle was towed on 05.10.07


The head of parking services at Croydon Council informed me there was no point in filling an out of time statutory decleration via northampton court as croydon made the final decision and she would not agree to the appeal.


I have just been informed this is totally incorrect!

Link to post
Share on other sites

forgot to say, the bailiffs did leave me a piece of paper stating the costs which i outlined in my original post. Although they did not include the daily fees, i had to ring and ask. I also have numerous emails regarding the matter from the manager of the Bailliffs and the head of croydon council parking services.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Croydon is WRONG. They DO NOT have the final decision. The Judge hearing the case at Northampton has the final decision.


What will happens is that you will need to complete the stat dec as instructed. The court will then send a copy to Croydon. They have 14 days to respond. In no response the stat dec is accepted at TEC. If they object....as some local authorities do then the file is sent to the Judge for him to look at both sides of the argument.


You cannot attend the court and hearinga are done without attendances.


I have sent you a pm asking for the bailiffs name and company. I am surprised it is with Croydon. Can you confirm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...