Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • honeybee13
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      With Farage back in the news, here's a reminder of his interview with Claire Byrne on Irish TV a few years ago.  
    • BazzaS
      Summons to court for a S87 (1) offence

      By BazzaS · Posted

      So, why do DVLA (via that leaflet) say 1) that S.88 MAY allow a driver to be treated as if they have a valid licence (after an application that discloses a medical condition) AND   2) before DVLA have reached their licensing decision ? (Since S.88 ceases to apply once they have reached a decision to grant or refuse a licence)
    • ffc1991_
      Driving disqualification through x2 MS90 was unaware of - failure to identify but not the org speeding? sent Statutory Declaration to the court? - help

      By ffc1991_ · Posted

      Thank you dx
    • Man in the middle
      Summons to court for a S87 (1) offence

      By Man in the middle · Posted

      Thanks for that, Bazza. It sheds some more light on things but I’m still by no means sure of the OP’s father’s likelihood of successfully defending the charge. This in particular from the guidance stands out me: He does not meet all the s88 criteria. S88 is clear and unambiguous: It makes no provision for either the driver or a medical professional to make a judgement on his fitness to drive under s88. S92(4) and the June 2013 guidance you mention defines in what circumstances the SoS must issue a licence. It does no modify s88 in any way. However, delving further I have noticed that the DVLA provides a service where the driver can enter a relevant medical condition to obtain the correct documentation to apply for a licence: https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving/find-condition-online I haven’t followed this through because I don’ have the answers that the OP’s father would give to the questions they will ask and in any case it requires the input of personal information and I don’t want to cause complications with my driving licence. It is possible, however, that the end result (apart from providing the necessary forms) is a “Yes/No” answer to whether the driver can continue to drive (courtesy of s88). With that in mind, I should think at  the very least the OP’s father should have completed that process but there is no mention that he has. The Sleep Apnoea Trust gives some useful guidance on driving and SA: https://sleep-apnoea-trust.org/driving-and-sleep-apnoea/detailed-guidance-to-uk-drivers-with-sleep-apnoea/ I know nothing about SA at all and found It interesting to learn that there are various “grades” of the condition. But the significant thing which struck me is that it is only the least trivial version that does not require a driver to report his condition to the DVLA. But more significant than that is that the SA Trust makes no mention of continuing to drive once the condition has been reported. The danger here is that the court will simply deconstruct s88 and reach the same conclusion that I have. I accept, having looked at the DVLA guidance, that there may be (as far as they are concerned) scope for s88 to apply contrary to the conditions stated in the legislation. Firstly, we don’ know whether there is and secondly we don’t know whether the OP’s father would qualify to take advantage of it. Of course he could argue that he need no have reported his condition. The SA trust certainly emphasises that the condition should not be reported until a formal detailed diagnosis is obtained. But the fact is he did report it. As soon as he does that, as far as I can see,  s88 is no longer available to him. Certainly as it stands I maintain my opinion that he was not allowed to continue driving under s88. The only way I would change this is to see the end result of the DVLA exercise I mentioned above. If that said he could continue driving he would have a defence to the charge. Without it I am not confident.  
    • NewsBot
      Royal Mint aims to sell £100m of UK coins to AMERICA - despite shutting its overseas coinmaking operation

      By NewsBot · Posted

      Americans are already keen on UK-made coins, and the Mint said it has seen a 118 per cent increase in sales to the US since 2022.View the full article

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Council Tax Bailiffs levied on friends car in my drive while away. **RESOLVED COUNCIL REMOVED FEES AND ACCEPTED £25PCM**

Isiris
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5384 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

Isiris

Isiris

Posted
Posted (edited)

While I have been away, a bailiff has been to our home re council tax. The council tax bill is in my name.

 

I owe 347.65 and he has added 35 Levy Fee and 110 Attendance van fee.

 

He has left a Notice of Distress and address to me and All Others who it may concern.

 

He has left an Inventory which states my friends car (he left it here as we got a taxi from my house to the air port) and my wifes car. None of these are in my name.

 

It is Rossendales. The Inventory is obviously not signed by me but only the bailiff.

 

Where do I stand please ....

Edited by Isiris

Whatever I post is my opinion and should be taken as such, an opinion. While it is what I believe and is offered in good faith, it should not be taken as a statement of truth

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlurredFX

BlurredFX

Posted
Posted

You stand in good stead, I believe.

 

They can charge £26 for a first visit, and £18 for a second if they have not obtained a levy, if I understand it correctly.

 

If they are adding extras for stuff that doesn't belong to you etc etc, they can get lost. If they have levy'd incorrectly, and from what you say they have, the expenses are down to them and no one else.

 

There are loads of tricks they might try from here, so I would suggest getting in touch with your Local Authority.

 

THEY (the LA) ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BAILLIFS ACTIONS. They employ them, so they are responsible. If they employed me to do some plumbing in your house, they would be responsible if I messed it up (I am a salesman, so I would cock it up lol).

 

Speak to the Council, point out the errors in their levy's, the inappropriate charges, and see what they say.

 

Nothing you have said surprises me, but what they will try next is anyones guess - but it can be dealt with. Keep on at this place, and you should find the answers.

 

Essentiallly, I think you should make it your first priority to let the Council know they have levy'd on goods that don't belong to you and ask them how to proceed and/or instruct their sub-contractors to act in the correct, legal manner. You will get a load of rubbish back, but come and tell us the rubbish and deal with it from there.

 

You must offer them the opportunity to correct their mistakes. If they don't then it sounds to me like it is getting towards Form 4 time, which potentially invloves the Baillif losing his job (hold back the tears). But I think that is a long way off, and should be sorted long before then.

 

You need to force them (the Council, not their sub-contractors) to give you a legitimate balance, and then pay it or agree to pay it over a period of time that reflects your circumstances.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isiris

Isiris

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Will be on the phone tomorrow

 

Just a sub note though, is my wife responsible for the debt or just me, as that is all the council tax has ever been in, my name

 

Thanks for the response as well

Whatever I post is my opinion and should be taken as such, an opinion. While it is what I believe and is offered in good faith, it should not be taken as a statement of truth

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlurredFX

BlurredFX

Posted
Posted

I think not. If it is in your name, it is down to you I think - I am fairly sure of that but please clarify with others.

 

Do not expect lots of help from the Council, they will give bland answers and dodge the question, but you must speak to them first.

 

Sleep well and come back tomorrow. This can be dealt with, just not in a few minutes, that's all. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sugarplum*

Sugarplum*

Posted
Posted

They can only do an inventory if they have been given peaceful access, they cannot levy on your friends car, and you can prove that it is not yours.

 

The Council will advise you to contact the bailiffs as they have referred it on to them to deal with, but you can request a breakdown of the charges etc and what they are for, and also dispute in writing.

 

And if the council tax is in your name - you are the liable party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tomtubby

tomtubby

Posted
Posted

The bailiff can only apply a levy to goods owned by the person named on the Laibility Order. However there is case law that provides that a bailiff can ASSUME that goods belong to you and the ONUS OF PROOF is on YOU and NOT the bailiff to prove otherwise.

 

You need to WRITE to Rossendales to advise them that the car is not yours and that a simple DVLA search will reveal this.

 

In addition the purpose of the visit was to levy upon goods....NOT to remove and therefore the bailiff should NOT be applying an "attending to remove" fee !!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isiris

Isiris

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for your reply. Am I write in thinking though that he cant levy on anything if I am not there to sign the walking possesion?

 

I have done as you advised by PM too.

Whatever I post is my opinion and should be taken as such, an opinion. While it is what I believe and is offered in good faith, it should not be taken as a statement of truth

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlurredFX

BlurredFX

Posted
Posted
I have done as you advised by PM too.
:eek:

In addition the purpose of the visit was to levy upon goods....NOT to remove and therefore the bailiff should NOT be applying an "attending to remove" fee !!

:) I like that!

 

Yep they are being unreasonable, you need to get your Council to see this and this should at least put them on the back foot while you address your situation.

 

I should be a bit more pro-active about mine to be honest! But I have been in Hospital, so will be getting a bit more active hence...

 

Keep us posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isiris

Isiris

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Delayed update

 

Pointed out to the council that:-

1. the bailiff wasnt on the bailiffs register

2. that the goods were not mine

3. that the attendance van was not needed as their was no WP in place.

 

Amzingly, they have called off the bailiff, cancelled any fees and accepted 25 a month

Whatever I post is my opinion and should be taken as such, an opinion. While it is what I believe and is offered in good faith, it should not be taken as a statement of truth

Link to post
Share on other sites
wonkeydonkey

wonkeydonkey

Posted
Posted
Delayed update

 

Pointed out to the council that:-

1. the bailiff wasnt on the bailiffs register

2. that the goods were not mine

3. that the attendance van was not needed as their was no WP in place.

 

Amzingly, they have called off the bailiff, cancelled any fees and accepted 25 a month

 

well done to you:Dfighting back gives satisfaction dont you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to Council Tax Bailiffs levied on friends car in my drive while away. **RESOLVED COUNCIL REMOVED FEES AND ACCEPTED £25PCM**
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...