Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That is a big improvement Dave and I do agree that it s best to leave it till the last moment to prevent VCS from countering your WS. [usually using doubtful logic that can't be easily argued against in a Court atmosphere] However my first post [no. 32] about the contract is the one that really exposes Jake's flummery and calls into  question jost how close he comes to committing perjury. And that is what hopefully VCS will not want questioned by a Judge. 
    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5828 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

Hi

 

Has anyone else had the situation where Rossendales have said that they have sent letter after letter and you have not received them.

 

I am in a situation where Rossendales have two liability orders. They have said that they have now written to me on at least four occasions and have provided the dates - I have not received any of these letters.

 

Yesterday I came home to another bailiff letter chasing for a liability order obtained in Jan 08 with a notice of seizure. I have received absolutely no correspondence prior to this that Rossendales are dealing with this debt and no letter providing me with 14 days notice of a bailiffs attendance to seize.

 

I am beginning to suspect that Rossendales are making these letters up and not actually posting them!! I advised the bailiff over the phone of this and I have to say for once this particular bailiff was very nice and helpful and I have to say he was dismayed at Rossendales and was not doing the job by choice. He in fact commented that he would not ever give Rossendales a reference which says it all.

 

I have advised Rossendales if necessary I will swear an affidavit to the effect that I have not received any correspondence.

 

Has this happened to anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they have given you a notice to seize goods when you have not signed a walking possession order? Is this for council tax?

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

It is, although I do not think the bailiff intend to pursue it after I informed him that I had absolutely no correspondence from Rossendales giving me 14 days notice of a bailiff's visit, he understood that he was at risk of losing some of his bond for not checking this information if I made a complaint. He also acknowledged that in this case it was probably an unlawful levy.

 

I really want to find out if others have been told by Rossendales that letters have been sent out that they haven't received. It seems strange that I haven't received any of the approximately 7/8 letters Rossendales say they sent!!!! I smell a rat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do too - I would report Rossendale's to the council - they are responsible for the actions of the bailiffs, after all.

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

It seems a common theme amongst certain bailiff companys (Rossendales being one of them) to claim to have sent countless numbers of letters out, but the people who were supposed to have received them never have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is completely frustrating as it is one rule for us and one for them.

 

If we want to prove we sent a letter we have to send it recorded delivery. but if they send a letter we just have to take their word for it. Anybody got any suggestions how to deal with this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contact the council, as suggested.

 

They also cannot charge you for letters sent - only bailiffs first and second visits and then, if there is a WPO, attendance to remove goods and van hire.

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

Hi Tiglet, talking of Rossendales, I had the same sort of situation, they said that they sent letter after letter in respect council tax debt - I didn't pay this straightaway and they added charge after charge on top for letters, they added for visits and also for van removal costs, even though no van was ever seen. I did eventually pay all of this :-( are they allowed to add for van removal costs if no walking possession agreement has been signed, and if so could I go back to them to try and get this charge back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they cannot charge if no WPA was agreed.

 

I would suggest you write to them and ask for a full breakdown of costs and then post back so we can advise further.

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've bee corresponding with Bristol City Council as I thought we had an agreement in place to repay outstanding Council Tax. However their letter to me date a few days ago said that they had put the account in the hands of their Baliffs - Rossendales.

 

I just put their name into Google and came up with an old thread that suggested that their tactics were a little extreme (bullying and threatening behavour). Does anyone know if they still do this?

 

I'm still trying to go directly with the Council and sort this out, and i've asked them to suspend any further action until they have. Should i copy this to Rossendales, or do you think this would alert them early?

 

Any helpful advice would be appreciated. By the way their is an iron garden gate that they can't get through unless I let them in, should I not let them anywhere near our front door, if they do turn up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi, back again after a couple of months of still getting nowhere with the council and Rossendales they are still sending letter after letter. Can any one clarify with absolute legal certainty (not just opinions or probablies) the following points:

 

1. Can the bailiffs charge for a van attendance and associated fees if no levy has previously been made?

 

2. Can the council tax insist on higher repayments as council tax is a priority debt if you are paying payments to credit cards etc. I want to avoid paying less to my cards etc as this will obviously damage my credit rating as I will be in breach of the credit agreements if they take lower payments.

 

3. Can the bailiffs re-attend a property a 1 year later of the first attendance with no corresponence in between - is there any time frame they are regulated by?

 

4. Is the magistrates court liability order regarded as the same required notice of bailiffs attendance with van giving 14 days notice under Schedule 5?

 

5. If so, does the liability notice have to provide a break down of fees under Schedule 5 (and as stated in Section 5) to be legal? (the liability order itself does not include this information).

 

I could really do with clarification on these points as I am preparing a case for unlawful charges and unprofessional behaviour to go to the mags court under the complaints procedure for the bailiffs bond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition the particular charming bailiff I have had dealings with was named in last weeks Eastbourne Herald (just google rossendales and eastbourne herald for article). If anyone else has had problems and fancies make a joint complaint to the mags court to have his certificate removed then send me a private message.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, back again after a couple of months of still getting nowhere with the council and Rossendales they are still sending letter after letter. Can any one clarify with absolute legal certainty (not just opinions or probablies) the following points:

 

Then you should speak to a solicitor...

 

1. Can the bailiffs charge for a van attendance and associated fees if no levy has previously been made?

 

No. The law doesn't prescribe any such fee as a 'van fee'.

 

2. Can the council tax insist on higher repayments as council tax is a priority debt if you are paying payments to credit cards etc.

 

Yes. Section 21© Consumer Credit Act 1974. The council is an authority so it doesn't need to be licensed to charge a fee for processing a credit transaction between a lender (card issuer) and a borrower (card holder) .

 

I want to avoid paying less to my cards etc as this will obviously damage my credit rating as I will be in breach of the credit agreements if they take lower payments.

 

Offer the council a lower amount each month.

 

3. Can the bailiffs re-attend a property a 1 year later of the first attendance with no corresponence in between - is there any time frame they are regulated by?

 

I THINK it's 90 days because a Liability Order must be executed by that time limit.

 

4. Is the magistrates court liability order regarded as the same required notice of bailiffs attendance with van giving 14 days notice under Schedule 5?

 

 

5. If so, does the liability notice have to provide a break down of fees under Schedule 5 (and as stated in Section 5) to be legal? (the liability order itself does not include this information).

 

No.

 

I could really do with clarification on these points as I am preparing a case for unlawful charges and unprofessional behaviour to go to the mags court under the complaints procedure for the bailiffs bond.

 

To make an official complaint against a bailiff you complete a Form 4: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/form4_0606.pdf

First to fly the Airbus A380

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Thanks for the response.

 

The ironic thing is that both myself and my husband work for a law firm but don't want to get them involved until we have to just for personal reasons - but will if we have too!

 

When I referred to van fees what I meant is that the bailiffs turned up a year later than their first visit with a van - no previous levy had been made and have charged £150.00 for this visit. Cany they do this without a levy and a year on.

 

Also you replied no to my question 5 but do you know the answer to my question 4.

 

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in respect of my offer of payments I have offered £50.00 per month but am paying approximately £250.00 per month to unsecured lenders and the council tax office say I must renegotiate with the unsecured lenders and pay less to them and more to the council office and this is what I mean by having a negative effect on my credit rating for breach of their contracts. Is this correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Su0906 - I keep saying this on posts, but whatever is written on your liability order is ALL what you owe. No more. There is no provision for bailiffs fees of any description. Pay off the the amount on the liability order (If you don't have it the amount will be written in a letter from the council, advising you of their intention to apply for a liability order) and that is it. Job done, Rossendales are history. Don't bother with them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that - I am surprised the liability order makes no reference to costs as is usual in the county court for enforcement of the debt but it seems you are correct. The council did tell me though that costs were included in the order is there any way of getting absolute clarification as if this is correct I certainly won't waste any more time on it and will be very relieved as it is only the costs I am disputing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Fair-Parking

 

I have done some digging now and really unfortunately I think you are wrong that there is no provision in the liability order to pay bailiff's costs.

 

Have a look at Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 which govern liability orders. In particular I refer you to Section 45 (1) and (2) which specifically refers to costs incurred with distress under Schedule 5 (to the layman bailiff's costs).

 

Let me know what you think as obviously you don't want to be giving out incorrect information to people as you have said you have advised many that bailiff costs are not recoverable - are you sure??? I really hope I'm wrong and your right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paras 33, 34 35 and 36 are more relevant with 33 (1) being specific on the fact that the authority must account for 'every amount in respect of which the authority is to make the application'.

 

Para 45 refers to charges and levy fees being made after goods have been sold with no reference to visits that never led to a levy.

 

More importantly none of the paragraphs make any provision to private bailiffs (Rossendales) or appointed agents. Indeed para 45 2-3 refers to the authority taking walking possession.

 

The reality of this being that once the amount on the liability order is paid, there's nowhere for bailiffs to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a point I would love to get legal interpretation of. I would think though even if bailiff costs can not be reclaimed without a sucessful levy and sale of items the term "authority" would be interpreted by a Judge as meaning their agents as well.

 

Do you know of any instances where the council have been sucessful in enforcing bailiff fees once their liability has been settled. Is there any legal precedent for this.:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I haven't but I do know of many instances where bailiffs ceased to pursue the amount, including two of the more well known firms that are consistently mentioned on this forum.

 

I'm sure that if they thought that there was any chance of being paid they would continue to harass and bully.

 

May I suggest you pay the council and then see what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a problem with Rossendales too - they have collected £1000 from me and I refused to pay any more until they clarified the charges (over 250). They have now passed it back to the council and they have only been passed £700 ish of the money I paid to rossendales. Can they charge that much for collection of council tax?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...