Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • more detest the insurrectional ex variety dx
    • Laura, I was surprised that the Director said that you hadn't appealed twice. I thought that the letter you posted on 24th June was the second appeal and that was to the IAS. And they did say that there was no further appeal possible. Could you please explain how many times you appealed. I am going to read your WS now. PS  Yes I meant to say that the keeper did not have a licence therefore it was wrong of them to assume he was the driver and the keeper. Thanks for picking that up.
    • In answer to your questions yes even though it wasn't called that, it was the NTK. Had it been a windscreen ticket you would not have received the NTK until 28 days had elapsed. In earlier times if the warden was present then a windscreen ticket would have been issued. It nows seems that the DVLA and the Courts don't see a problem  with not issuing a ticket when a warden is on site. A period of parking must mean that ther e has to be a start time and a finish time in order for it to be considered a period. A single time does not constitute a period. I am not sure what you mean by saying it could be taken either way.  All they have mentioned is  the incident time which is insufficient. There are times on the photos about one minute apart which do not qualify as the parking period because they are not on the PCN itself. The reason I asked if the were any more photos is that you should be allowed 5 minutes Consideration period for you to read the signs and decide whether you want to accept them and you do that by staying longer than 5 minutes. if  more  do not have photos of your staying there for more than 5 minutes they are stuffed. You cannot say that you left within the 5 minute period if you didn't , but you can ask them, should it get to Court , to provide strict proof that you stayed longer than the statutory time. If they can't do that, case over.
    • I recently bought some trainers from Sports Direct and was unhappy with them and their extortionate delivery and return postage charges. I tweeted about being unhappy, and received a reply from someone claiming to be from Sports Direct asking me to send my order number and email address by pm, so a claim could be raised. Which I (stupidly) did. The account used Sports Direct's name and branding, and a blue tick.  The following day I received a call from "Sports Direct Customer Service", and with a Kenyan number. They asked for details of the issue, and then sent me an email with a request to install an app called Remitly. They provided me with a password to access the app then I saw that it had been setup for me to transfer £100, and I was asked to enter my credit card number so they could "refund" me. I told them I was uncomfortable with this (to say the least), and was just told to ring them back when I did feel comfortable doing it. Ain't never gonna happen.  I just checked my X account, and the account that sent the message asking for my details is gone. I feel like a complete idiot falling for what was a clear scam. But at least I realised before any real damage was done. if you make a complaint about a company on social media, and you get a reply from someone claiming to be from that company and asking for personal details, tread very carefully.   
    • The good news is that their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  Schedule 4.. First under Section 9 (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; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; The PCN does not specify the parking period. AS you rightly say the ANPR times do not include driving to the parking space and then from there back to the exit. And once you include getting children in and out of cars especially if seat belts are involved the time spent parked can be a fair bit less than the ANPR times but still probably nowhere near the time you spent. But that doesn't matter -it's the fact that they failed to comply. Also they failed to ask the keeper to pay the charge.  Their failure means that they cannot now transfer the charge from the diver to the keeper . Only the driver is now liable. As long as UKPA do not know who was driving it will be difficult for them to win in Court as the Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. Particularly as anyone can drive any car if they have the correct insurance. It might be able to get more reasons to contest the PCN if you could get some photos of the signs. both at the entrance and inside the car park. the photos need to be legible and if there are signs that say different things from others that would also be a help.
  • 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

Council Tax, Bailiffs Help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5507 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

This morning I received a Notice of Liability Order - Council Tax for £462.90 which is claimed to be outstanding from a liability order for £1,312.74 made against me on 25th September 2006.

For one reason or other the first I heard of the original order was when the Bailiffs (Chandlers Ltd, Certificated Bailiffs of Bromley) called round on 10th November 2006. I made an agreement with the Bailiffs and continued to make regular monthly payments until 10th August 2007 when my payment was refused as there was a £0.00 balance on the account. I was concerned that they were wrong and asked them to double check which they did. I asked them to check for a third time which they also did. They emailed me on 10th August 2007 to confirm that "Your account has now been resolved. I can confirm that your account is clear, and no further action will be taken against you."

I noticed that on my 2008/9 Council tax bill that the amount of £462.90 and I queried this in a letter posted to Swindon Borough Council on 13th March 2009. I didn't receive a response so I sent another letter on 30th March 2009 which was send "signed for" so I knew that Swindon Borough Council received the letter on 31st April 2009. I have not received any response to date, other than receiving the Notice of Liability Order - Council Tax for £462.90 which was dated 10th May 2009 and received this morning 13th May 2009. I phoned Swindon Borough Council and was told (1) I was liable, and (2) a letter would be sent out "later this week" (which after a while turned into "by the end of next week") regarding my query over the £462.90. I pointed out that left me little time to respond to the 14 days from 10th May 2009 threatened in the Notice of Liability Order, to which I was told "it still stands".

I know that (1) I completed what was asked of me by the Bailiffs and (2) any error has ocurred between Chandlers Ltd, Certificated Bailiffs of Bromley and Swindon Borough Council (I recontacted Chandlers who said that they did have a gltch in their system and I have requested confirmation of this to be sent to me).

My initial reactions/thougts/questions are:

1. Why should I pay for a screw-up between Chandlers and Swindon Borough Council?

2. Can I be taken to court twice for the same debt?

3. What my next action should be

Any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

first thing i would do is write to the council disputing the account and asking to recall the debt from the bailiffs (you don't want more bailiffs charges added to debt )

then i would write to chandlers asking for a screenshot of your account

i would also get in touch with my M.P.

you could also send the council a subject access request this will cost you £10

hopefully tomtubby bailiff expert will see your post and give you more/better advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK

 

Just to clarify.

 

I have queried the £462.90 with Swindon Borough Council and am still awaiting a response after 6 weeks!

 

The £462.90 is not being collected by a Bailiff but is being threatened (14 days to pay this amount or else).

 

I have a screenshot of my account from Chandlers dated 10th August 2007. This shows nothing to pay.

 

I have involved my local Councillor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the bailiff has threatened to come obviously the council have not recalled the dept from the bailiffs get back in touch with council and councillor and get this done as a matter of priority

not much else i can say you doing all the right things

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you have not as yet received a summons for the £462?

 

If this is correct and you have a printed copy of your account showing zero amount owed, you have no problem. You can copy that and send it to the council and ask them to show how you owe it.

 

If and when a summons arrives, you go to court and dispute that you owe it. You can show the judge your copy and won't have to mention anything about any glitches etc; that's nothing to do with you, you have everything you need in your printout.

It will be up to the council to show that you do owe this money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...