Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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 5480 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

Hello

 

I have had a bailif from equita knock at my door today, i didn't answer but he saw my kids at the window so knew we were in. He dropped a letter through our door stating he was there today "with the intention of removing our goods"

 

What a nice man!!

 

Anyways, my main question is about the amount of money he is asking for. There are 3 hand written amounts which i thought were quite a lot so i have just been on to the council to get the exact amounts

 

The council have stated the following amounts..

 

£165.33 (bailif wants £407.83, so £242.50 charges)

£734.32 (bailif wants£973.40, so £239.08 charges)

£318.54 and £24.08 (bailif wants £553.04, so £210.42 charges).

 

I think the bailif charges are a bit well, taking the p*ss to be honest... The bailif hasn't entered the house, i havent spoken to him, and i know he didn't turn up in a white van as i have photographic evidence, so how can he justify these charges??

 

Also, i have an agreement with the council to pay off x amount each week. Whenever i ring equita to make the payments they state the account is now with the bailif and cannot accept payments from me. The council have said i need to pay equita, so cannot pay the council direct..

 

Im at a loss what to do next,

 

many thanks in advance for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

His charges are illegal, bailiff charges for council tax are 24 for the 1st visit and 18 for the second. Ask the bailiff office for a breakdown of their fees and give them a chance to make an adjustment to £42 total, if they don't file a form 4 complaint against them. Tell your council that the bailiffs are breaking the law on their behalf and that you require the council to take the debt back from the bailiffs. Never let them enter your house.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From looking at the amount that you have stated it would appear that the bailiff was attempting to charge an "enforcement fee" to each account.

 

In the first place, bailiff cannot charge multiple charges were enforcing more than one liability order at the same visit.

 

 

In addition, an "enforcement fee" is really another description for an "attending to remove fee". However, for this charge to be applied, the bailiff must have previously levied upon goods, and these should be recorded on either a walking possession ( if he had managed to gain entry peaceful entry into the property) or a Notice of Seizure of Goods and Inventory in the event that he may have levied upon a possession outside the property, normally a motor vehicle.

 

It must be very clearly remembered, that the bailiff is acting as an agent of the local authority and as such the relevant local authority is wholly responsible for all of the actions of a bailiff to include any charges that he has made. For this reason, it is the responsibility of the local authority to make sure that the fees are correct. I would suggest that you immediately contact the local authority to make them aware of this and ask at this account is put on hold until such time as the matter had been fully investigated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for your responses...

 

I have called equita and spoke to someone who sounded like he was really bored and not interested in what i was saying. I have been told to put everything i asked him in writing, which i shall do today.

 

On to the council now, this could be fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the council.. they have said the charges sound reasonable (im sorry, but over £200 per account is NOT reasonable), they are holding no responsibility for equita, stating equita is a seperate company and any complaints need to go through them. The council will not take the account back or put it on hold due to "fee's".. im back to where i started!!!

 

I shall be writing a letter of complaint to the council also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the council.. they have said the charges sound reasonable (im sorry, but over £200 per account is NOT reasonable), they are holding no responsibility for equita, stating equita is a seperate company and any complaints need to go through them. The council will not take the account back or put it on hold due to "fee's".. im back to where i started!!!

 

I shall be writing a letter of complaint to the council also.

 

 

Write to the the council stating that the legal charges are £42.50 (i.e. £24.50 for the first bailiff visit and £18 for the second) and that as long as the bailiff has not been able to levy on your goods it is ILLEGAL to add on extra charges no matter how many times the bailiffs might return to your premises or otherwise demand payment. Point out that you are the victim of an ATTEMPTED FRAUD undertaken by an agent of the council, for whom they cannot disclaim legal responsiblilty.

 

Copy your letter to your local councillor and tell the Town Hall jobsworths that you are doing so.

 

INSIST, in view of the obviously illegal behaviour of the bailiffs, that the council take back the account and go on INSISTING until they do what you ask. Even if they refuse, make all payments to the council anyway as they cannot refuse to take your money.

 

IGNORE the bailiffs. They are beneath contempt and should be treated with the same consideration as any other low-down fraudster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bailiff had NEVER been in to the house. He has been twice, first time i was still in bed (7.20am) and the second time was today, and i never answered the door.

 

I have been on the phone to him, which was probably a mistake, but i did have a lot of fun. I basically said i would like the break down of the charges, he didnt have the my file to hand.. i then mentioned i think the fee's he has added are illegal and i will be obtaining a form 4.. to which he didnt take to kindly to, i know i have a short fuse but wow, this man beats my record. Up his ar*e to threatening me within a flick of a switch.

 

Anyways, i shall be sending a SAR request (is this still £1 or has it gone up??) to equita on monday, recorded delivery.. how long will i need to give them to send the breakdown to me, and if they dont send it, what do i do next???

 

Once i have the breakdown and it shows illegal charges, then i can take this further with regards of complaining to the council, MP, equita etc.. or even taking him to court with a form 4... yes, i have spend half my day swatting up on how to complain about a bailiff..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, everyone should complain about them all and all the time, clog up the courts with it, maybe they will get around to disbanding this outdated method of debt collection eventually. Fully licensed bullying and burgulary in my opinion, whatever happened to an Englishmans home is his castle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

GtoP I think you will find that the majority of cases are for council tax with people that are genuinely skint, there are other ways.

Bailiffs are outdated and unneccessary in todays society. Court wants to get money off someone? Attachment of earnings, deductions from benefits etc... Bailiffs are just legalised thieves helping themselves to unjust and often illegal fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to disillusion you Lisa,

 

I was a bailiff for a number of years and I found that the majority of the genuinely poor people were honest and would make every effort to pay what they owed. I treated everyone with respect until they proved that they did not merit it.

 

I am concerned that you are totally biased and stereotype people.

Clearly you are blonde! Now would you accept that sweeping statement. Of course you wouldn't as I would not make it!

Note to CAGbot I was offering that phrase to make a point.

 

In my case I ended up squatting due in part to the fact that I was/am owed money by a couple that live on 120 acres and the bailiffs can't collect.

 

I am still on the bones of my backside and they live in comfort so yes I am biased and if they were to permit stronger action than a bailiff in this case I would be going for it. These are won't pays not can't pays.

 

GK

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think that because you are owed money that baliffs should be able to rob people blind? Look at these forums, full of people that are getting charged fees that are unwarranted and illegal. I am sorry that you are owed money but I am talking about large corporations like Councils and banks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry Lisa and this is my final comment on this but you are tarring all bailiffs with the same brush and if you look carefully I think you will find that I am the one that has been robbed blind!!

 

Nickisme - Please accept my apologies for hijacking your thread.

 

GK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all tarring them just saying that there are other ways, ways to protect people from bullies and feeling threatening in their own homes.

 

I wish you luck, have you taken them back to court for questioning as to their means and failure to pay?

Link to post
Share on other sites

g.p i dont think all baliffs are bad but what you have to understand is that most peaple like me are on this site because of over charge of fees and all the rest of the sh-t that it is fair to say most bailiffs are involved in like legal [problem] of fees, i understand they have a job to do but should be done within the law, as i see it the ones who do make there own law are no better than non payers in fact are worse because they are commiting fraud and that my friend is a crime where as non payers in most cases is not.

we all have a job to do, but we should all work within the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...