Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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 5549 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

I wouldn't send a cheque, I would pay them directly online using either a debit or credit card.

 

That way the council will not refuse the payment, and no fees will be taken out of your payment.

 

If you send a cheque, there is the possibility that the council will return it to you and insist that you pay the bailiffs instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok just got a reply from equita .

 

They are adamant that we agreed to pay the debt. and that the bailiff would not have suspended recovery unless told not to do so .

 

They believe that it was dealt with in a profesional matter and that they believe they did not break the law. they will be putting the funds back in my wifes account but now refuse any form of payment plan.

 

At the botom of the letter it says

Coulcil tax debt - 793.59

Recovery costs - 244.50

 

 

Surely those costs are a bit high can anyone advise please !!!

 

 

 

 

You need to WRITE to Equita immediately by e-mail to: [email protected] and say to them that you are very disturbed at the response from their company and that you are considering making a formal complainy to the Local Government Ombudsman and that accordingly you require a copy of the SCREEN SHOT of your account.

 

In addition you need to state that you are aware that the charges that a bailiff may make is £24.50 for "attending to levy where no levy was made" and that a further charge of £18.00 may be applied if a second such visit has been made and that accordingly you require a detailed breakdown of the fees and charges applied to your account and confirmation also of the amount of the Liability Order passed to them by the local authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just recieved a letter from equita sayin they ghave repaid me. Im worried as it mentions the costs as below

 

Stat visit fees 42.50

Levy Fees 40.00

enforcement fee 160

 

then it says that the levy and enforcement fee were incurred at time off ******* attending the property. reference has been made to vehicle (my car)

 

 

does this mean they can now just take it?

should i have been told about he levy at the time of it being done?

all we had on the alledged day was a had posted pre prinyed letter with an amount hand written on it no mention of levy.

 

Please advise very woried.

 

car is not on hp

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proper stressed out now thought this was done but needclarification.

 

by my reckoning we had in equita's word 687.09 to pay

Wife paid 200 by card leaving 487.09. equita banged on 244.50 so I only owe 242.59 on my council tax.

 

Im not sure were I stand on what charges should apply. Note at no time have we had a knock on the door. I know this as I stay home with our 7 month old boy. At no point on the letters that equita send do they tell you how much you owe abd when my wife did call the baliff he "never had our file with him"

 

Can some one help please!

Link to post
Share on other sites

see tomtubby's link number 27

 

 

I understand this but according to the letter says the levy and enforcement fee were incurred at time of Mr ****** attending property on 17th feb. reference has been made to vehicle **** ***

 

I cant afford to loose my car and not sure were I stand. Can they just make a levy against my car like that. ?

 

They say I have until friday 3rd April to arrange clearance !

Edited by ooberj
Forgot info
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not unless they actually came to your house and levied/seized your car.

You would have known about it because they would have put paperwork through your letterbox.

The fact that you don't appear to have had that paperwork suggests that they didn't actually levy on it at the time at all.

Does that help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just read one of your earlier posts, which says that on the date of the alleged levy all he received through the door was a handwritten note with an amount written on it. If it had a date on it as well, that would really help.

 

You need to respond in writing, with a photocopy of the paperwork that you received, because it's starting to sound as if they are trying to play dirty.

They may be getting desperate.

 

This is a public site, so the quick and dirty solution to your problem cannot be posted here. Nudge nudge wink wink... :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thnaksfor your reply again. I cant find the letter that was hand posted but sure it was 17th feb. Were im confused is that they are charging me £40 levy fees and £160 enforcement from that visit on the 17th feb.

 

Taken from letter dated 19th March

 

The levy and enforcement fee were incurred at the time of Mr ******** attending the property on 17th February. Reference has been made to a vehicle being identified dispayong reg **** ***

This is the first I had heard of any charges etc. so Is there a levy on my car ? again I have had no face to face or signed anything

Link to post
Share on other sites

*** UPDATE ****

 

New letter from Equita stating that It is not there intention to get into a protracted correspondence in the matter and that baliff action is immenent after the refund of monies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...