Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Excellent news! Thread title updated. Please do consider a donation in light of the help received here. The help we give is free, but try telling that to our server hosts!
    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
  • 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

PLEASE HELP!Parking fine and bailiffs


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5937 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Right here goes...

 

I have just recieved a phone call from my mother saying there is a letter through the door from a bailiff. I have been around and it seems a bailiff attended today to get money for Leeds City Council which i presume is for an unpaid parking ticket from about a year ago. Firstly this address is the one my van is registered to but I dont actually live there. Secondly I have had no previous correspondence, no letters or phone calls or anything. Now on the letter the amount owed is £306.50. I am not sure where this amount comes from but I am guessing its mostly bailiff charges as the parking fine will of been £90. I dont mind paying the original fine but what I dont want to be doing is paying the bailiffs loads of money when they should of sent a letter at least telling me I owe them money! Should they of sent it recorded delivery or anything? Is there anything I can do except bite the bullett and pay them? Please any help would be much appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure, but someone with a little more knowledge will come along presently, i'm sure.

 

May i ask why the van is not registered to your correct address?

All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The van is registered to that address as I am self employed and work away a fair bit so use that address for all my business correspondence. I have had no letters from Drakes regarding this previously just this visit today out of the blue!

 

I have been reading the other threads in the forum and am now resigned to the fact I am going to have to pay this and the costs etc but can someone enlighten me on how much the bailiffs can charge? Is there a limit or can they just make it up? I am not sure where the £306.50 comes from since the original PCN was for £60!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the basis you've acknowledged the original ticket and possibly the charge certificate increasing the debt to £90, you may have difficulty making a Statutory Declaration but I'm sure someone will tell you how regardless.

 

The charges are as follows:

 

£95.00 PCN (inc. £5 debt registration) (VAT Exempt)

£11.20 1st letter fee (ex.VAT)

£29.74 1st Visit Fee (ex.VAT)

£90.00 Attendance to Remove Fee (ex.VAT)

£59.08 2nd Visit Fee (ex.VAT)

=======

£285.02

=======

£33.25 VAT (on fees only)

==============

£319.27 TOTAL

==============

 

** However, Leeds City Council only allow Drakes to charge £180 Ex VAT in fees so the warrant is capped at £306.50

 

 

The original letter Drakes send giving 7 days to make payment at £108.16 is sent by Royal Mail and comes in a standard envelope with no distinguishing features unlike the hand delivered letter your mother has opened. Does your mother open all your mail?

Certificated Bailiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply John. I actually spoke to bailiff this morning and she told me the cost were: £95 for fine, £50 admin and hen £150 for her visit.

 

My mum doesn't open any of my mail, I do. The letter from yesterday wasn't in a sealed envelope it was just pushed throught the letter box along with a leaflet. I have had no previous correspondence from Drakes whatsoever no letters or anything. This is the first I have heard from them. This was also the first time they have visited.

 

Anyway, I have been on to TEC and they have informed me they never recieved my appeal form ( I thought I had just been rejected) so I have filed a stat decision form and hopefully this will be the end of the matter.

 

Beleive me if they had sent me a letter saying your appeal was rejected you owe us £95 I would of paid it straight away rather than let it get to bailiffs coming around!!

 

EDIT: So Drakes cannot charge me anymore even if they visit again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its because the visit is called an Attendance To Remove goods visit or something along those lines... The bailiffs bypassed the letter and first visit with me and came straight to the ATR by the looks of it....:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My mum doesn't open any of my mail, I do. The letter from yesterday wasn't in a sealed envelope it was just pushed throught the letter box along with a leaflet.

 

This is illegal. They should ALWAYS put the letter in a sealed envelope.

Challenge them about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is illegal. They should ALWAYS put the letter in a sealed envelope.

Challenge them about this.

 

Hi and thanks for your reply! Is there some sort of specefic legislation I can quote when challenging them on this?

 

Also, is there somewhere to find out if the bailiff is certified?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and thanks for your reply! Is there some sort of specefic legislation I can quote when challenging them on this?

 

Also, is there somewhere to find out if the bailiff is certified?

 

Yep - I'll see if I can find it for you.

 

You contact HMCS to enquire whether the bailiff is certificated - but tomtubby (on here) has a database, but it may not be up to date.

 

The number is 0207 210 0516

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much-I have PMd tomtubby hopefully he will be able to help.

 

I have filed the stat dec with the TEC so hopefully they will of notified the LA and the bailiffs will be called off for now. Do you know what happens now?

 

Sorry for all the questions it all is very overwhelming when you have bailiffs demanding hundreds of pounds from you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply John. I actually spoke to bailiff this morning and she told me the cost were: £95 for fine, £50 admin and hen £150 for her visit.

 

The fees the lady bailiff quoted you are incorrect. She must be confused as those fees are the old HMCS fees for Court fines before 1st January.8)

 

 

So Drakes cannot charge me anymore even if they visit again?

Correct but if the appeal is unsuccessful, it won't stop them revisiting and either clamping your car or seizing your goods inside the house if they gain access.

Certificated Bailiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if the appeal is unsuccesfull and I do owe the money legally all fair and square then I dont mind paying it.

 

What do you think about the letter just been pushed through the door not in a sealed envelope? Is that illegal as has been suggested?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The unsealed envelope doesn't have any bearing on the debt itself.

 

If you feel that strongly about it, I suggest you make a formal complaint to Drakes. If it gets to the right person, a reminder about the use of sealed envelopes might be included in the next monthly memo to bailiffs. Catch my drift?

Certificated Bailiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people from DCA's and bailiffs do post on these forums in a genuine spirit of helpfullness - I haven't read many of John mckenna's posts and so could not possibly comment, but it is always wise on this (and, indeed, any other forum) to get lots of opinions and then make your mind up.

 

Those with more posts and with higher reputation points generally give better advice (and I do say generally).

All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its because the visit is called an Attendance To Remove goods visit or something along those lines... The bailiffs bypassed the letter and first visit with me and came straight to the ATR by the looks of it....:mad:

 

That doesn't seem right at all if you look at the charges quoted.

 

£95.00 PCN (inc. £5 debt registration) (VAT Exempt)

£11.20 1st letter fee (ex.VAT)

£29.74 1st Visit Fee (ex.VAT)

£90.00 Attendance to Remove Fee (ex.VAT)

£59.08 2nd Visit Fee (ex.VAT

 

Forget the ATR, there is a 1st visit @ £29.74

Then a second vist @ £59.08

 

So what extra costs do the bailiffs incur by having to go back again ?

Do they pay double time to the employee ?

Do they go a different route and put it down to travelling costs ?

 

If I am out when my window cleaner comes for his money, he calls the next day. But it doesn't cost me double for cleaning my windows.

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Andy I will check our database shortly and reply to your message, but like John I am confused why this bailiff was attempting to charge the fees for unpaid Magistrates Court Fines.

 

Clearly from your first post you did NOT receive ALL of the statutory notices for this PCN Remember, you need to receive ALL, not just the PCN.

 

Therefore I would have suggested an immediate OUT OF TIME late STATUTORY DECLARATION. Is this what you have sent? You must send BOTH the PE2 and PE3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you ensure that your FAXED the Out of Time? We always advise clients to do this AND send a hard copy in the post.

 

The Out of Time will hold things at bay for a long time.

 

The TEC will have sent an e-mail to the local authority within a few hours of receiving you fax and they in turn will send confirmation to the bailiff company.

 

The Civil Procedure Rules are very clear and state that ALL enforcement action must CEASE until such time as the matter has been DETERMINDED by the courts.

 

The local authority have 19 working days to reply and a further period of up to 14 days needs to pass for TEC to deal with the cases. Nothing further can happen until at least the middle of March.

 

This will give you plenty of time to write a letter to the bailiff co to request a complete breakdown of their fees and charges. One question, the enforcing a Warrant of Execution from the Traffic Enforcmenet Centre, the bailiff BY LAW must provide you with a copy of the warrant. Did he? If not request a copy and ask why one was not left.

 

I would also advise telephoneing TEC on Monday and ask them the date that the warrant was authorised. This is VERY important. Can you PM me details when you know and let me know also the date that the bailiff claims that he visited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...