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.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 5301 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

Back in 2005 I had Equita chasing me for two PCN's that had gone up to £125 each. This soon reached over £400 for each one. I have just found one of their letters informing me of their charges for one of the PCN's. It reads:

 

DEBT: £125.00

COURT COSTS: £0.00

BAILIFF COSTS £161.20

VAT: £28.22

PAID: £0.00

 

TOTAL OUTSTANDING: £314.42

 

I use the above as an example as I know I paid approximately £400 for each one. That's £800 in total for two PCN's.

 

I never signed anything and was probably a little slow to pay up initially.

 

Can I look in to claiming some of this money back as I don't think that £161.20 is a fair amount to ask for Bailiff costs. I will start off by requesting a SAR from Equita. Any advice would be welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends if you paid it in the first place!

 

More details please

Of course I paid it lol:) I wouldn't be asking other wise.

 

The details are in my first post. They asked for it, I paid it but not as fast as they would have liked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have receipts?

 

I have to say I have not known anyone to claim charges back so long after it was all dealt with - but I am hardly well versed in the subject.

 

I think if you have receipts and you can show an element of VAT that is a good start, as Bailiffs are not allowed to charge VAT as I understand it.

 

You say that you didn't pay it promptly - I wouldn't give that too much weight - it is down to them to justify their charges.

 

Cheers,

 

 

Blurred

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have receipts?

 

I have to say I have not known anyone to claim charges back so long after it was all dealt with - but I am hardly well versed in the subject.

 

I think if you have receipts and you can show an element of VAT that is a good start, as Bailiffs are not allowed to charge VAT as I understand it.

 

You say that you didn't pay it promptly - I wouldn't give that too much weight - it is down to them to justify their charges.

 

Cheers,

 

 

Blurred

Thanks BlurredFX

 

From what I can make out I may have some come back as I am well with in the six year statute of limitations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PSB,

 

It seems to me that you are following the correct course of action. Hopefully the SAR will give you a breakdown of everything that they charged you.

 

We can then look at that and see what illegal fees they have charged etc etc. But the VAT makes me interested, as I am sure that they are not allowed to charge VAT, but I need confirmation of this.

 

Keep in touch,

 

 

Blurred:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

PSB,

 

It seems to me that you are following the correct course of action. Hopefully the SAR will give you a breakdown of everything that they charged you.

 

We can then look at that and see what illegal fees they have charged etc etc. But the VAT makes me interested, as I am sure that they are not allowed to charge VAT, but I need confirmation of this.

 

Keep in touch,

 

 

Blurred:)

Thank you Blurred :)

 

After a bit of research, I found that for PCN's they can charge VAT but not for Council Tax. There are certain debts that they can charge VAT on and others they can't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

You dont need to send £10. A "screenshot" is not personal data as it is defined under the Data protection Act 1998.

 

This £10 thing bailiffs ask for is a money-[problem]. They are pretending a Screenshot is accessing personal data. The law decides what the bailiffs fees are so it cant tell you anything you dont already know.

The next generation Nintendo Wii - the Nintendo Puu

Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont need to send £10. A "screenshot" is not personal data as it is defined under the Data protection Act 1998.

 

This £10 thing bailiffs ask for is a money-[problem]. They are pretending a Screenshot is accessing personal data. The law decides what the bailiffs fees are so it cant tell you anything you dont already know.

I think they're playing silly beggers and playing for time. I will now write to them and cc the council.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After yet another letter to Equita telling them I want the screen shots and not a SAR, they have written back to me asking for £10 and telling me it must be a SAR I am looking for. They won't supply me with the screen shots I have asked for. It's like banging my head off a brick wall. Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A breakdown of fees is not personal data in the meaning of the data protection act. Asking for £10 is a bailiffs money [problem]. You can interpret this as the bailiff is unable or unwilling to provide a breakdown of fees and you no longer have an obligation to pay them. Judge Avent in Cullighan vs. Marston.

The law says what the fees are. PCN's its 28% of the ticket, so file an N1 and recover everything you paid over that amount. You dont need to tell them. You can also make a complaint to police under the 2006 fraud act.

If the bailiff sent a letter or make further visits, the burden of proof now passes to the bailiffs - they will now have to prove they sent letters and made multiple visits.

The next generation Nintendo Wii - the Nintendo Puu

Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil procedure rules is the way to go - Take out whats not relevant

 

On a Form N1

 

THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF [NAME OF COUNCIL] 1st DEFENDANT

 

AND

 

[NAME OF BAILIFF COMPANY] a firm, 2nd DEFENDANT

 

Brief Details of the Claim - enter - Reclaiming unlawful bailiff's fees.

 

Particulars of claim:

 

I received a bailiff acting for the defendant collecting an unpaid parking ticket. The bailiff dishonestly charged me [£AMOUNT] bailiffs fees contrary to the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs)(Amended 2003) Regulations 1993 which prescribes £28 and reasonable costs for transporting a debtors goods in a van. The bailiff did not move any goods in a van and I did not sign any documents for the bailiff. I asked the bailiff for a breakdown of his fees but they azre unable or unwilling to provide one. I have been defrauded by the bailiff who is cheating with his fees and I asked for a refund but it was the bailiff’s choice to keep the money. On 20 April 2007, Lord Lucas in the House of Lords asked HM Government (inter-alia) "whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter"? Baroness Scotland of Asthal, The Minister of State, Home Office replied: (inter-alia) "A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006". Reasonable costs have been defined by District Judge Advent on the 9th & 24th September 2008 presiding over Case No 8CL51015 Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). The court ruled that “because the Bailiff produces no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived then he unable to show that it is reasonable". I claim i) the sum of [£AMOUNT], ii) Interest under Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from the date the money became due at the daily rate of 0.00022%, iii) reasonable costs the court thinks fit for being defrauded by the defendant iv) Reasonable costs the court thinks fit for Discovery of Information and compiling this case for court, v) costs allowed by the court at the prescribed rate.

 

If you are on a low income then complete an EX160 fee remission form.

The next generation Nintendo Wii - the Nintendo Puu

Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil procedure rules is the way to go - Take out whats not relevant

 

On a Form N1

 

THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF [NAME OF COUNCIL] 1st DEFENDANT

 

AND

 

[NAME OF BAILIFF COMPANY] a firm, 2nd DEFENDANT

 

Brief Details of the Claim - enter - Reclaiming unlawful bailiff's fees.

 

Particulars of claim:

 

 

 

If you are on a low income then complete an EX160 fee remission form.

Should I just bite the bullet and ask for a SAR and pay the £10 before I go down this road :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? there is nothing that is listed as personal data, and you dont need to SAR a local authority, they are exempt and dont need to appoint a data controller, that only applies to private companies registered under the Act.

 

The law decides what bailiffs can and cannot charge, only pay what the law says and nothning else. If you have been overcharged then just reclaim it.. That way you have the bailiff dancing to your tune.

The next generation Nintendo Wii - the Nintendo Puu

Link to post
Share on other sites

So don't bother contacting Equita again just go down the Form N1 route? Also, I need to find out exactly how much I have been overcharged as I only know that it was approximately £400 for each PCN. How do I establish exactly how much I have been overcharged if Equita won't supply me with the information I need unless I pay them £10?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...