Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi All, before I start I know there are similar threads of the topic I am raising, and each, of course, has its own unique scenario, which may benefit others. My case is as follows: 1. I saw a gumtree ad on the 16th of Oct 2020 for a Mercedes E220 CDI, priced at 7,500 2. I called the seller and said I will come over on the 17th of Oct 2020 to view. 3. On the 17th of Oct 2020 I went to his place where he is working and viewed the car. He is working for a major car rental company. I checked the car and of course asked the normal things to ask e.g. any insurance write-offs, loans, accidents, etc. The seller said the car is clean etc.no loan, he had a loan but all is paid off etc. and he has the papers. 4. I negotiated the car price to 6,800 because the rims were showing some signs of damage, the rear light had a small burst, cosmetics, etc. I checked all but did not see any sign of damage to the car (it's a black car, the car was a bit dirty, and the sun was already setting in) 5. We agreed on 6,800 and decided to purchase the car. We went into his office, where I paid cash, and also got a Car Sales Invoice with all details of the seller, and a V5C green slip 6. I purchased car insurance and drove off. I asked him about Road Tax and he said Road tax is paid so I have not to worry, just need car insurance. 7. On 18th of Oct 2020 I cleaned the car interior because it was really dirty inside - it took me a few hours so decided to clean the exterior the next day 8. On the 19th of Oct 2020 I went to clean the exterior and after the car was clean I noticed some parts were resprayed. I became a bit suspicious; so on the 19th of Oct 2020 in the eve, I went on the internet and run an HPI check. The outcome from the HPI did not show any accidents, insurance write-off but an outstanding Loan with Moneybarn. At this point, I thought maybe the database is not updated, etc. 9. On the 20th of Oct 2020, morning, things were going through my mind; the seller said the car is clean, no issues, no loan since he settled all etc. but the HPI reports say there is still some outstanding loan. So what I did, I called Moneybarn, and explained the situation, and gave them the contract number as well (since it was displayed on the HPI report). They said they will send me a form by email, but they cannot share any information due to Data Protection (GDPR). fair enough I thought, but what made me boil, they said they OWN the car! So, I took the car and drove to the seller where he is working. I confronted him. He said don't worry, I will handle it, he has no time, he is very busy and bla bla bla. I said what reasons do I have to trust you, you lied, and now you say you still have a debt, etc. So I said I will not leave until he has settled the debt, or repay me my money. I also asked what is outstanding, he said around 7,000. Well, since I confronted him at his workplace he may have felt the heat, he assured he will settle all soon, I said sorry, I need a date, so I said you will settle the debt with Moneybarn by 23 Oct 2020, if not, you will refund me my money. He said Ok he will do it, so I said, since I don't trust you, you will sign a piece of paper, and sign it. On the paper, he wrote "I will clear the debt for the Mercedes by Friday" and signed it. I said I am not happy and added the debt details with contract number, and also a clause that if he fails to settle the debt with Moneybarn by Friday the 23rd of Oct 2020, he will refund me my money, 6,800, and sales of the car Mercedes, license plate, will be void. Also, I said to put an initial on each amendment I made with signature. He did, and I left. 10. On 22 Oct I sent him a message, to remind him to settle the debt by Friday 23 Oct 2020 noontime and also I outlined some legal jargon I had to sent that I received from citizensadvice. 11. On 23 Oct, morning time, I received a message from the seller, he said he will not/cannot refund me the money, not to visit him at his office or place, and that he feels threatened by me. 12. Now, the dilemma/headache; a). I received the form from Moneybarn on the 20th of Oct 2020 and I have to send it back within 7 days b). the seller send me a message he will not refund the money c). is the seller holding the title with Moneybarn or did he also buy and not knowing there is an outstanding loan on it d). did he sent the V5C to DVLA since I have the green slip? e). Shall I fill in the form and sent it to Moneybarn? f). If Moneybarn has all my details they may send someone to repossess the car? 13. I decided, I will not undertake anything yet, because my mind said, go there, confront him, park the car in front of the company since I purchased it there and signed all paperwork in their office, they will call the police, the police will come and surely will not do anything but will force me to remove the car and park somewhere else, record all on camera, take all evidence, sent to Moneybarn and at the same time to the seller's employer (when I asked him to sign a letter he will settle the debt by Friday 23rd of Oct 2020, he used a paper of the car rental company, and on the back, the logo of the rental company is displayed clearly and he may have acted on behalf of the company to sell me the car, after all, I don't know if he holds the title with Moneybarn - well, this is an excuse for me to even sue the car rental company, or blacklist him with the company he is working for since it seems he is some type of manager there and he may have acted in the capacity as a sales person to sell the car to me on behalf the company....). 14. So on the 23rd of Oct 2020, I didn't do anything like described under 13....it's not my style as such I called AWH solicitors, explained all, and they said one person is specialized in dealing with such cases and will call me back after studying my case and inform me if it is something they can fight or not. So they will call me Monday the 26th of Oct 2020. I also said I want to go now and confront the seller, but she said better wait till Monday, and if they can fight the case, they will tell me the next course of action - but my funds are limited and cannot afford a lengthy battle, because if no case against Moneybarn means I will have to sue the seller to the court which will cost me. The car has comprehensive insurance and with all this saga I added on the 20th of Oct 2020 also legal insurance on top. Lengthy story, but I am trying to be as detailed as I can, and yes I should have done an HPI before buying the car, but I am from Holland and car sales work there a bit different, and this is my first time I buy from a private seller. Well, once I have sent the form to Moneybarn, I will park the car in a garage, and at this stage, I am renting a room in a house (there is one more tenant). Since I am from Holland, I am planning a trip within 2 weeks to visit my family and I will drive down with the car and in the meanwhile wait if the solicitor can be of any help. I need some advice though, I am still planning to drive down to the seller on Tuesday after I talked with the solicitor, park the car in front of the company, and confront the seller, and try to record all. I will also try to make him sign a letter that I purchased the car in good faith from him (regardless if he holds the title with Moneybarn or not but at least I purchased in good faith from him). Evidence that I have: 1. Car sales invoice 2. Paper that I made him sign 3. Gumtree ad; I could retract this from google history, but the original add removed from gumtree. At least I can show it was advertised 4. I tried to create a history of past owners, total owners including me are 5. It seems the car was also posted on gumtree before by a company in Essex (I saw on google). The reason for doing this, it is very likely that the seller purchased the car from someone else with an outstanding loan. Since then I read a lot on the internet, so please any advice is welcome to pursue my case, I paid a lot and at least I want my money back. Also what I read so far, Moneybarn is not easy to deal with...thanks in advance for any advice I can use for my case.
    • Hi   I think you need to check not just the serial number but what Meter Point Reference Number (MPRN) as the MPRN is what is registered and energy supplier go off as well as the serial number.   So you need to see what the MPRN is as well as the energy supplier it is registered with.   If you look at this Ofgem link: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/consumers/household-gas-and-electricity-guide/connections-and-moving-home/who-my-gas-or-electricity-supplier   In the above link to do this check it gives a link to:   Find My Supplier: https://www.findmysupplier.energy/webapp/index.html (note you may have to complete a captcha, then input your postcode only and click find my address, when the list comes up click on your exact address, you will then see you actual MPRN and the energy supplier linked to your address)   With the above make sure and take the details of the MPRN and the Energy Supplier, better still take a screenshot/pdf the webpage.   Please let use know if on doing the above it matches your current supplier?  
    • I had exactly the same issues.   Grossly over estimated bills from January onwards.  Despite what they claim, they are effectively taking an interest free loan from their customer base to keep the company in business.   They can dress it up how they like.  It’s irrelevant if they reconcile the bills the following month because they just over bill again thus keeping a rolling interest free loan.   it took two months of constant badgering to be finally moved to a fixed DD.   Once that was done I didn’t care how much they over-estimated by.   I had raised a query with the ombudsman over the billing fiasco and they readied a complaint should I wish to proceed.   I thought everything was sorted until May/June whereby I was allegedly more in debt then I was expecting to the tune of an extra months DD.   On querying it, it transpired that even though I was on a fixed monthly DD, because the bill was generated less than 5 days before the DD was due to be taken they didn’t take the DD.   They offered £5 compensation by way of apology but wanted to take two months DD in June.  I told them where to get off.   With appalling customer service,  bills that you need a Maths degree to follow, and I do have one and still struggled, inability to follow through on any agreements, constant gross over-estimation, the missed DD was the final straw and I proceeded with complaint to ombudsman.   Prior to getting to that stage I had to quote Symbio’s own complaints procedure to them to get any sort of response.   Their final offer to me was £25 goodwill and to waive an exit fee. The offer was derisory given the time it had taken to get things sorted and the continuing ineptitude.  Also, the whole thing has dragged on so long (5 months) I was already in the final 49 days of my contract and therefore there were no exit fees to pay and therefore nothing to waive.   Anyway, upshot is, ombudsman found in my favour.  Ordered an apology and a goodwill payment. Symbio appealed but were told the decision stood.   This week I received the goodwill payment.   I promptly left an honest and truthful review on trustpilot.   The next morning I received an email from Symbio with an apology.   This was followed an hour later with an email from trustpilot saying Symbio had replied to the review.  On reading the response they have accused me of not following procedure and of cyber bullying.   The company is a complete joke.
    • why not simply tell you supplier they have the wrong meter number you been paying for usage , and ofcourse you can view this online too so its not as if you'll owe anything you might get a nice surprise and find you are owed a refund.
    • The world of ballroom dancing went online to cope with the pandemic restrictions, but what does the future hold? View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Congestion Charge PCN - A fraudulent document


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4241 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

We have received a PCN sent by TfL in relation to it's congestion charge. A few sentances raise eyebrows. First on page one 'Failure to then pay the increased penalty charge may result in the outstanding balance being registered as a debt in the County Court'.

 

This does not happen as the County Court is bypassed and TfL must know that. This PCN document is therefore fraudulent in that it offends under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (Fraud by Misrepresentation) which a) prevents a person or body dishonestly making false reprsentation in order to make gain for himself and to cause loss to another. b) which is untrue or misleading or that the person making it knows that it is or might be untrue or misleading.

 

No defence there then.

 

Thus there is the dawning of a possibility that every single congestion charge made is in fact rendered illegal by the methods of enforcement.

 

This is not just pie in the sky or the mumblings of the discontented. A few months back Maidstone Borough Council issued a standard PCN which stated 'If a debt is subsequently registered at the County Court against your name....this could affect your ability to obtain credit.

 

We wrote to Maidstone Borough Council and piointed out that such sentiments rendered their PCN's fraudulent. To their credit MBC accepted this scrapped these PCN's and issued new ones with the wording 'Action may be taken by Maidstone Borough Council to register the charge as a debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre situated within Northampton County Court'. Naturally the original PCN addressed to one of our clients was withdrawn. Fair play to Maidstone.

 

TfL now has to change whether it likes it or not and we will be writing to them with the evidence that they are acting fraudulently.

 

I haven't even started on the pompous and fraudulent actions TfL's PCN lists under what it describes as the Data Protection Act 1998....one of which 'is to assist in tracing those committing fraud'.

 

As Groucho said ' You can start right over on him...'

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nice to see one in eye for Taliban for London.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo Fair-Parking you have my support on your action.

 

It is blaintantly obviouse that this is simply a money making excercise and nothing to do with congestion!

 

Typical Government mentallity these days unfortunatly!

 

It's about time we had a Government voted for by the people and for the people and not some 'self appointed' idiot!

 

(I'll get off my soapbox now - lol)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't end there. The PCN contained the following under the heading 'Data Protection Statement'.

 

'Your information may be disclosed to, or requested from......local authorities, law enforcement agencies and other organisations'

 

Clearly the TfL doesn't understand that the Data Protection Act 1998 is there precisely for the protection of ordinary folk against this kind of bureaucratic abuse. Nor does it YET understand that the Data Protection Act was introduced and still exists to restrain and control organisations which openly exploit private information, not just contained on their own files but also that garnered from the DVLA.

 

All the above are third parties and as such the passing on of any information to or between themselves is specifically excluded from the Data Protection Act 1998 and thus the practice of all the above is illegal. And just who are these shadowy 'law enforcement agencies and other bodies'? Not the police obviously to whom any bona fide allegations of fraud should be passed. Only section 28 (National Security) and section 29 (Taxation) of the Data Protection Act 1998 allows any dispensation for the passing on of private information. Alleged parking and congestion charge contraventions could never be confused with sections 28 and 29.

 

And there's more under this 'Data Protection Statement'.... 'TfL randomly selects and monitors vehicles....' Does it indeed? Permission for that is NOT contained within the Data Protection Act and thus such action is again illegal.

 

It gets better..... '.... to identify possible fraudulent use'. Really? Perhaps the TfL believes that it is entitled to assume powers that nobody else is entitled to under the Data Protection Act and that it can investigate or maybe pass on information to third parties for them to investigate what they consider to be 'fraud'. The definition of which appears to have been divulged in the next sentence....

 

'If you persistently fail to pay congestion charges....' So the definition of 'fraud' may well be simply not paying a charge foisted upon you which you may disagree with and to which you never contracted into. Remember this is all under TfL's 'Data Protection Statement'. Protecting who exactly?

 

'....or attempt to defraud the scheme'. So simply not paying is definitely a 'fraud' to these self appointed guardians of morals, of which they seem to be lacking in great quantities.

 

Further given that that everything TfL claims to be its 'rights', and 'rights' which we have copied from it's own PCN in both this and the last post, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the enforcement of the Congestion Charge itself is underpinned by TfL's own lies, deceit, bullying and fraudulent methods.

 

And it concludes..... 'TfL may record your vehicle's movements and may disclose relevant details to local authorities and/or law enforcement agencies, to assist in tracing persistent evaders and those committing fraud'. So if you had any doubts about TfL contravening the Data Protection Act 1998, it has kindly repeated its intended unlawful actions.

 

Persistent evaders? Persistent evaders of what? This is a decriminalised scheme and as such no law can be broken, thus there cannot be any 'persistent evaders' in law. As for those 'committing fraud'. Refusal to pay something you never entered into a contract for is NOT fraud, but given that is blatant fraudsters alleging this via a TfL PCN, then their threats carry neither any law nor any morals with them.

 

It is difficult to believe that an organisation which has acted in this way for several years and which has issued thousands of PCNs doesn't already know that it is acting illegally and that is devoid of any intelligence to the fact that quite clearly the enforcement of the Congestion Charge in it's present form is simply illegal bullying.

 

A letter was sent to B. Johnson yesterday. Whatever the outcome of this and any press release we may release, it is going to be a very interesting ride.

Edited by Fair-Parking
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many council PCNs contain similar wording about "data sharing" as I am sure you know. My bet is that you will have to take this to the ICO after you get Boris's reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a general press release to TV, radio and national newspapers plus the Morny Stannit will hit the named and shamed button a lot quicker and with more significant action.

 

Unlike dear old Maidstone BC, the Congestion Charge is a political hot potato

Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea. We have no reason to deal with PATAS.

 

However it would indeed be unusual if PATAS had not come across this document before. One must therefore wonder what PATAS has done to rid the world of this fraudulent document?

 

The PCN is clear enough in it's intentions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The TEC is a County Court so its a bit of a daft argument really. The Maidstone PCN was incorrect because parking ticket debts do not affect you credit but the TEC is for legal purposes a County Court just the same as the online money claims service is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you convince a PATAS adjudicator to cancel a CC PCN on that basis FairParking?

 

I very much doubt it....

 

Next steps

You need to pay the penalty charge. If you do not, Transport for London may apply to register the penalty charge as a debt at the County Court, in which case further charges will apply (see below for details)

Registration of Debt and Order for Recovery

 

This is a formal notice. If after 14 days of a charge certificate being issued, the penalty charge is still not paid, you may receive this. The penalty charge can be registered as a debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

When the debt is registered, you will be sent two documents by Transport for London; a ‘Notice of Debt Registration’ and a Statutory Declaration form.

 

from the PATAS website

Link to post
Share on other sites

The TEC IS the county court?

 

Oh my word, you don't actually believe that do you?

 

From the words quoted by G & M and attributed to PATAS, it would appear that PATAS doesn't know the difference either.

 

Perhaps you might explain why Maidstone BC's legal advisors changed the wording on their PCN's after having the difference between the TEC and the county court pointed out to them.

 

As for PATAS, It wasn't their document that we received. The words were quoted from a TfL congestion charge PCN. PATAS does not come into this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

G&M

---- 'The TEC is a County Court so its a bit of a daft argument really.' ----

 

TRY and get it right at least ONCE please!

 

Fallacy of begging the question (petitio principii) ASSUMING TEC is a court, when it is certainly NOT.

 

THEN arguing on a FALSE CAUSE assumptive from there onwards...

PART 75 - TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT

 

Emphasis is mine in upper-case

The centre75.2(1)

Proceedings to which this Part applies must be started in the Centre.

 

(2) For ANY PURPOSE connected with the exercise of the Centre's functions

–(a) the Centre is DEEMED to be part of the office of the court whose name appears on the documents to which the functions relate or in whose name the documents are issued; and

(b) any officer of the Centre, in exercising its functions, is DEEMED to act as an officer of that court.

 

JUST LIKE 98 is DEEMED to be 100 in their and your world.

Next steps ---- 'You need to pay the penalty charge.' ----

 

Next steps, You need pills to read and see straight.

Oh dear, just forget it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The TEC IS the county court?

 

Oh my word, you don't actually believe that do you?

 

From the words quoted by G & M and attributed to PATAS, it would appear that PATAS doesn't know the difference either.

 

Perhaps you might explain why Maidstone BC's legal advisors changed the wording on their PCN's after having the difference between the TEC and the county court pointed out to them.

 

As for PATAS, It wasn't their document that we received. The words were quoted from a TfL congestion charge PCN. PATAS does not come into this.

 

IF you actually read my post you will see that I DID explain why maidstones PCNs were wrong its is because they incorrectly stated a Parking debt affects your credit which it does not. As Medusa kindly quoted above the TEC is a part of the County Court system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the above are third parties and as such the passing on of any information to or between themselves is specifically excluded from the Data Protection Act 1998 and thus the practice of all the above is illegal.

 

Sorry, no.

 

Data may be passed in accordance with the organisation's data protection registration details.

 

IOW, the registration may say that they will pass data to 'Fred Bloggs ltd', in which case it is legal under the DPA for them to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 (1) (d) & (e)

 

16 Preliminary

 

(1) In this Part “the registrable particulars”, in relation to a data controller, means—

(a) his name and address,

(b) if he has nominated a representative for the purposes of this Act, the name and address of the representative,

© a description of the personal data being or to be processed by or on behalf of the data controller and of the category or categories of data subject to which they relate,

(d) a description of the purpose or purposes for which the data are being or are to be processed,

(e) a description of any recipient or recipients to whom the data controller intends or may wish to disclose the data,

(f) the names, or a description of, any countries or territories outside the European Economic Area to which the data controller directly or indirectly transfers, or intends or may wish directly or indirectly to transfer, the data, and

(g) in any case where—

(i) personal data are being, or are intended to be, processed in circumstances in which the prohibition in subsection (1) of section 17 is excluded by subsection (2) or (3) of that section, and

(ii) the notification does not extend to those data,

a statement of that fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

G&M first statement.

----The TEC ---- is ---- a County Court so its a bit of a daft argument really. ----

G&M second statement.

----As Medusa kindly quoted above the TEC ---- is a part of ---- the County Court system.----

Dear oh Dear!

 

You take my quote, as if it is the same as yours.

You DO think that Red IS Pink don't you?

That [ IS ] is the same as [ is a part of ].

 

Fallacy of division, the whole is equal to the part,

Tomatoes are red. So the pips inside are also red.

 

or fallacy of composition, the part is the same as the whole.

These two tools are blunt. The whole box of tools must be blunt.

 

Full alphabetic list of Fallacies

 

Suggestion, if you ask your boss, the minister of semantic aviation,

to build the next air plane on technology that DEEMS to be 10,000th inch tolerance

BUT IS 1000th inch tolerance, THEN YOU test pilot it, and come back after

to tell us the story, either wearing white wings, or those they have in the place below.

Last person that tried that said he was paraphrasing just like you.

The three laws of thought obviously aren't in your thoughts.

 

He went on to say, I didn't mean that.

And forgot Omar Khayyam. The moving finger writes... etc...

 

---- GM ---- IF you actually read my post ----

There was no need, the above was MORE than enough.

BUT never mind, the point clearly went 'overhead'.

Edited by Medusa
Link to post
Share on other sites

G & M. I have Maidstone's Charge Certificate on my desk. I know precisely what it says which is why we challenged it and won. To my knowledge you haven't read the document. We also had the wording changed. Maidstone too thought that they could register a debt with a vague organisation called 'the County Court' as opposed to a specific county court such as Northampton County Court, or even Maidstone County Court.

 

I didn't delve too hard into your reply hoping that you might see the obvious flaw in it. You quote 'but for legal purposes the TEC is the same as a county court....'

 

It is very difficult to escape from the conclusion contained within your quote that you believe that the TEC must therefore logically issue CCJs as all county courts do. As it doesn't, it would be different on that one point alone. The TEC would also need to issue summonses and deal with disputes to be compared with a real county court. It doesn't.

 

The County Court is also administered by judges, There are no judges in the TEC. CCJs affect your credit rating. Nothing the TEC does affects your credit rating. Now if what you said didn't suggest most or all of that, then please explain just what you did mean.

 

Both Maidstone BC and TfL have tried to suggest otherwise in order to put pressure on people to pay them money for what is no more than an allegation lacking any court judgment. To suggest to people that a county court may be involved in the collection of money via registration with the TEC is fraudulent as defined under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Maidstone BC's legal advisors agreed with that. G & M, known for many vexatious postings on this forum once again seems to hint he knows better despite history being against him in the form of new Charge Certificates issued by Maidstone BC

 

If the Northampton County Court and the TEC did the same jobs, why would the government create a new department called the TEC rather than just let the Northampton County Court administer civil motoring contraventions under the CPRs? And why would Maidstone BC apply to Northampton when it has a High Court, a Magistrates Court, a Criminal Court and a County Court all contained within one building right in the heart of Maidstone if the TEC and the County Court were one and the same?

 

The TEC is but a registration office for civil motoring contraventions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat at best that is all open to debate. Has it been tested in law?

 

If the Data Protection Act 1998 was written to allow councils to pass on your private details to unknown and unspecified 'law enforcement agencies' for the purposes of investigating frauds that cannot exist but supposedly carried out by ordinary members of public who have not broken any laws, then the Act isn't worth the paper its written on. The spirit of this law was to restrain and control over zealous bureaucrats who have no respect for privacy.

 

If TfL wants a 'fraud' investigated as opposed to chasing an unpaid but unproven demand, it has no right under the Data Protection Act to set the dogs on to the innocent. It should report it to the Metropolitan Police.

Link to post
Share on other sites
G & M. I have Maidstone's Charge Certificate on my desk. I know precisely what it says which is why we challenged it and won. To my knowledge you haven't read the document. We also had the wording changed. Maidstone too thought that they could register a debt with a vague organisation called 'the County Court' as opposed to a specific county court such as Northampton County Court, or even Maidstone County Court.

 

I didn't delve too hard into your reply hoping that you might see the obvious flaw in it. You quote 'but for legal purposes the TEC is the same as a county court....'

 

It is very difficult to escape from the conclusion contained within your quote that you believe that the TEC must therefore logically issue CCJs as all county courts do. As it doesn't, it would be different on that one point alone. The TEC would also need to issue summonses and deal with disputes to be compared with a real county court. It doesn't.

 

The County Court is also administered by judges, There are no judges in the TEC. CCJs affect your credit rating. Nothing the TEC does affects your credit rating. Now if what you said didn't suggest most or all of that, then please explain just what you did mean.

 

Both Maidstone BC and TfL have tried to suggest otherwise in order to put pressure on people to pay them money for what is no more than an allegation lacking any court judgment. To suggest to people that a county court may be involved in the collection of money via registration with the TEC is fraudulent as defined under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Maidstone BC's legal advisors agreed with that. G & M, known for many vexatious postings on this forum once again seems to hint he knows better despite history being against him in the form of new Charge Certificates issued by Maidstone BC

 

If the Northampton County Court and the TEC did the same jobs, why would the government create a new department called the TEC rather than just let the Northampton County Court administer civil motoring contraventions under the CPRs? And why would Maidstone BC apply to Northampton when it has a High Court, a Magistrates Court, a Criminal Court and a County Court all contained within one building right in the heart of Maidstone if the TEC and the County Court were one and the same?

 

The TEC is but a registration office for civil motoring contraventions.

 

 

Correct TEC is an administrative body only as you will see from Hansard when the Parking Enforcement Centre (Predecessor to TEC) was setup in Cardiff, spot the obvious mistakes regards to liability:

 

We shall seek to make as plain as we can that Cardiff bears no responsibility other than for the implementation of the order and that all the authority has come from elsewhere. In that way, we shall do our best to deflect from Cardiff County Court any suggestion that the unpopularity attracted by parking tickets should go to that court. It will be seen as merely carrying out the necessary administration so that parking charges, once properly incurred, are processed fairly. It is an extra operation for Cardiff which will help by employing additional staff there. No consequent obloquy of any sort will fall on Cardiff County Court.

 

High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1993 (Hansard, 17 May 1993)

Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, a driver who receives a parking ticket will first have the opportunity to object to the local authority which imposed the charge. This will be done by making representations to the local authority and, if necessary, by way of proceedings before a new body to be known as the parking adjudicator. If the driver still fails to pay, the local authority will be able to obtain an order that the charge may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order. Exclusive jurisdiction to make such an order is conferred on Cardiff County Court by Article 6 of the proposed amendment to the jurisdiction order. The procedure for making the order will be relatively straightforward and will be carried out at Cardiff on receipt of the requisite information from the local authorities. Even after the order has been made, a driver will have a further chance to object on grounds specified in the Road Traffic Act. If he does so, the case will automatically be referred back to the local authority. § The other aspect of Cardiff County Court's involvement will be to authorise the issue of a warrant of execution at the request of the local authorities. Distress will then be levied by bailiffs certificated for this purpose and will, of course, take place where the debtor's goods are situated. Where distress proves to be unsuccessful, and the local authority wishes to attempt enforcement by other methods, such as by garnishee or charging order, the order will be transferred to the driver's local county court.

§ It is expected that over a million of these cases will be enforced through the county courts each year. The administrative nature and the large volume of the work lends itself to a high degree of streamlining and computerisation, and it was therefore decided that only one centre would be used. Cardiff was chosen primarily on logistical grounds. It was clear that the 1570 county courts in the Greater London area would not individually have had the capacity for this work, and to site the parking enforcement centre, as it will be known, in London would have been an expensive alternative.

§ As your Lordships will appreciate, the jurisdiction conferred on Cardiff is very much of an administrative, rather than judicial, character. If, at any stage of the proceedings, it is necessary to consider a driver's individual circumstances, this will be done either in London or in the driver's home court, and the driver will be given an opportunity to make representations.

 

§ I hope that the proposed new rule will enable parking charges in London to be enforced by county courts with the maximum efficiency. In no circumstances will the driver be expected or required to attend the parking enforcement centre in person, and the fact that Cardiff is given jurisdiction to deal with these proceedings should not inconvenience drivers in any way.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

More correspondence from Gary Moore at TEC:

 

"

The Traffic Enforcement Centre is purely an administrative office that applies the civil procedure rules. Please note TEC is governed by Part 75 of the Civil Procedural Rules, Section 82 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Road Traffic Act 1991. If you dispute the validity of these statutes please seek legal advice or refer your queries to your local Member of Parliament. These queries cannot be dealt with by the administrative office that is TEC."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 75 CPR takes some reading. As many of use know TEC warrants are rather suspect i.e. have been quoting repealed legislation for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can keep arguing as long as you like but TEC is a department within Northampton County Court whether you like it or not. All the legislation regarding charge certificates uses the wording 'County Court' not the 'TEC'. Getting sidetracked saying County Courts require a Judge etc is pointless the legislation does not require a Judge to register a parking debt and at no point does the Tfl paperwork say anything about Judges. If the Ministry of Justice, Tfl, local authorities, PATAS, TPT and Northampton County Court all consider that the TEC is a County Court then I wonder who outside this forum you will manage to convince otherwise?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...