Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I suggest you start reading around this forum about the steps involved in taking a small claim in the County Court. It's very straightforward but you should understand the steps before embarking on it so that you are confident. We will help you all the way. Once you have done this basic reading then come back here and we can begin the process if you are happy to go ahead. On the basis of what you say, I expect that your chances are better than 90%. I also expect that West Cheshire Facilities Management will want to put their hands up before it goes to court and get a judgement against them. We would want to see your letter of claim before it sent off but I suggest that it is made clear that Social Security's have already been informed and that when you get a judgement against West Cheshire Facilities Management, you will make sure that social services and the health service generally are all circulated with copies of the judgement. If West Cheshire Facilities Management really want to take that risk with all of the reputational and business risk that accompanies it, then they are being extremely shortsighted.
    • So who cleaned it and are they prepared to give a report of the state of the place as they found it?
    • Yes, it has been cleaned now - it had to be, he came out of hospital at the end of December, and Friend has secured the services of a local cleaning company to come in once a week.  
    • Following the issue of a Liability Order the Council must obtain a warrant of control to try to collect the debt. If they fail their only option is to return the matter to court and you will be asked to attend.   At that hearing the court must be satisfied that:   • A liability order was imposed in relation to the debt. • You have failed to pay; and • The council tried to collect the sum using a warrant of control, and failed.   They must then go on to conduct a "means enquiry" into your financial circumstances. The principle aim of that is firstly to establish whether you had demonstrated either a wilful refusal to pay (i.e. you had sufficient funds but simply refused to pay) or "culpable neglect" (i.e. you had the funds but chose to spend them on something else). Only if they find one of those two can commitment to prison (either immediate or postponed) be considered. Also, only if they find one of those two can they order payments to meet the debt. The usual combination is an order to make payments coupled with a postponed commitment. But, the payment rate must be realistic in terms of your financial circumstances and it should normally mean that the debt is paid within three years. If a realistic payment rate will not see the debt paid in that period then the court should consider remitting (i.e. writing off) some or all of the debt. Similarly, if they find neither wilful refusal to pay nor culpable neglect (and by default find that you simply did not have the ability to pay) they should also consider remitting some or all of the debt.   You should note that at these commitment proceedings, as the matters you face could result in custody, you are entitled to have the services of the duty solicitor. In your circumstances I would say the chances of you being committed to prison are slightly less than zero. From your very brief description of your finances you simply have no spare money (though a means enquiry will delve more deeply into your affairs, especially the debts for which the DWP are making deductions from your benefits). There is no point in delaying any of this. The sooner it gets sorted the better as your circumstances seem unlikely to change any time soon. One thing you must bear in mind is that these proceedings will only deal with the debt covered by the Liability Order. If you have any Council Tax arrears that have accrued since then they will have to be dealt with separately. I'm also assuming you live in England. Since April 2019 commitment to prison has not been an option in Wales.    
    • good issued the default after you turned 50 when any payment is not longer required on the loans and they should be written off.   it's fast becoming clear that they solely refused your SLC forms as a mode of deferring to create this whole falsehood.   the case your refer to about the new forms is detailed in this form in many SLC erudio threads.   if you could go get a USB converter lead to make your old HDD drives readable from amazon or somewhere , cheap as chips and <£5.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4055 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Help! Someone i know received a PCN by Dartford Borough Council. It was given in a pay and display car park. He received a visit from a bailiff and had to fill out a Stat Dec/Out of Time as he could not remember getting it.

A copy of the PCN to be sent to him by the council, and when he received it, he remembered that he had bought a ticket, and it had blown down when he closed the door. He intended to appeal, but had lost the ticket and had simpy forgotten all about it.

Is there any way i can avoid paying this fine? Are there any irregularities in the PCN? He did have a valid ticket on the day, but cannot prove it.

Pictures of the PCN attached. Also pic of car with PCN attached.

 

2i9l0fk.jpg

 

 

117761x.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Council will almost certainly have pictures of the car at the time, which will show what was displayed on the windscreen.

 

See if you can get copies, by email or post. They will probably be happy to send them out. Depending on what they show, you can decide whether to appeal or pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the PCN was issued in a car park as stated its invalid as its an 'on street' contravention.

It is indeed a car park, though its administered by Dartford City Council.

Is this enough grounds for appeal? What would the wording of the appeal letter be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good spot, G&M.

 

Off-street means car parks not forming part of the public highway. So, if that was the case when this PCN was incurred, it should be possible to successfully challenge it on the basis that the contravention [ie the one stated on the PCN] did not occur.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a February 2009 contravention. If an NTO has not been received yet the LA are well out of time!

 

I would see the owner as being off the hook on this one whatever the contravention code.

 

EDIT - Sorry missed the point about visit from bailiff as posts stretch left to right!

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I now have some more info relating to this.

The driver HAD actually signed a witness statement on 25th of June that the driver had made representation but received no reply (he had sent off info stating he wasnt the driver). As he didnt hear anything back, he forgot about it.

When the bailiff arrived in Dec, thinking it was for a different PCN, he sent a OoT Declaration stating he had never received the PCN in order to stop proceedings thinking it was for a different PCN (unaware it was for the same PCN earlier in June- he had no way of knowing or connecting them together).

This OoT Declaration was then refused. When he challenged the LA, they informed him the OOT Dec was inconsistent with the Witness Statement he had signed in June, so it was refused on that basis. He asked for copies to be sent with actual PCN.

Facts are:

- Contravention occured in 11 Feb 09

- Witness Statement sent 25 June 09

- Nothing heard back until bailiff attends in Dec 09

What shd he do?. Shd he fill out N244? Will court believe why he signed witness statement stating something different from later OoT Dec?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bit confusing. Can you clarify a couple of things:

 

The driver HAD actually signed a witness statement on 25th of June that the driver had made representation but received no reply (he had sent off info stating he wasnt the driver). As he didnt hear anything back, he forgot about it.

 

What does that mean? It says the driver stated he wasn't the driver! Can you be precise about who did what - it's important to the case.

 

And, who did he send the witness statement to?

 

This OoT Declaration was then refused. When he challenged the LA, they informed him the OOT Dec was inconsistent with the Witness Statement he had signed in June, so it was refused on that basis.

 

Shd he fill out N244? Will court believe why he signed witness statement stating something different from later OoT Dec?

 

N244 is a realistic option. His grounds for filing out of time were stated as something like "no knowledge of the PCN" but this has been refuted - however as a result of the info which he received after the event, he now realises it is in fact Out of Time because he made an in time stat dec and did not receive a response. It's certainly arguable on that basis, but not cut and dried, because of the details on the stat dec. He made the error when he filled it out. It's a gamble, but probably worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What does that mean? It says the driver stated he wasn't the driver! Can you be precise about who did what - it's important to the case.

Apologies for the confusion. I meant to say "registered keeper". He is the registered keeper of the vehicle and the "usual" driver. On this occasion though, he DID not drive the vehicle. He sent a letter to Parking Services at Dartford Council stating he was not the driver, and furnished them with the name /address of the driver, but never received a reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apologies for the confusion. I meant to say "registered keeper". He is the registered keeper of the vehicle and the "usual" driver. On this occasion though, he DID not drive the vehicle. He sent a letter to Parking Services at Dartford Council stating he was not the driver, and furnished them with the name /address of the driver, but never received a reply.

 

Who was driving is not relevant for PCNs however they should still have accepted it as an appeal and given you a rejection notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that he filled out the OoT in good faith, as he had no way of knowing the bailiff visit was related to the PCN he received in Feb.Also, he had received no reply to his letter in Feb, and after he fillled the Witness Statement in June informing the Council of this, he received no reply either.

The bailiff document did have the PCN number on it, but unless it had been memorised in Feb, there would be no way of knowing its the same.

 

Is the wrong contravention code still a valid defence in this case, or as things have progressed to this stage, is N244 is the best option?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stat decs are official documents and should not be taken lightly its like swearing on oath in Court, if you were not sure you should have checked the information before 'swearing' something was the truth. If you swore you never reveiced a PCN and then swore you had appealed against it and not got a reply its not surprising it was rejected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But if he was sure then it was not perjurous, just a mistake. Perjury has to be done knowingly as I am sure you know. He is now correcting that mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that he filled out the OoT in good faith, as he had no way of knowing the bailiff visit was related to the PCN he received in Feb.

 

Is answered by...

 

The bailiff document did have the PCN number on it, but unless it had been memorised in Feb, there would be no way of knowing its the same.

 

As a resonsible adult, a car owner should take responsibility for keeping records and checking such things. To say there's no way of knowing will not stand up as an argument.

 

Is the wrong contravention code still a valid defence in this case, or as things have progressed to this stage, is N244 is the best option?

 

It's irrelevant at this stage. N244 is the only way forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apologies for the confusion. I meant to say "registered keeper". He is the registered keeper of the vehicle and the "usual" driver. On this occasion though, he DID not drive the vehicle. He sent a letter to Parking Services at Dartford Council stating he was not the driver, and furnished them with the name /address of the driver, but never received a reply.

 

Understood. So he was being held liable and his argument was that he was not driving. As already said above, this is of no relevance and would not have led to cancellation.

 

So the RK submitted the witness statement. This is good - no confusion as to who's doing what.

 

I think N244 is the best bet from here. If it succeeds, than the validity of the PCN can be addressed - but first things first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But if he was sure then it was not perjurous, just a mistake. Perjury has to be done knowingly as I am sure you know. He is now correcting that mistake.

 

This is correct. With all due respect G&M, we need advice, not moral flagellation. The Stat Dec states that "Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against you,if you make, or cause to be made a false statement in an application verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Well, the post clearly show that the OoT Stat Dec was made in an honest belief that the PCN had never been received before. How is one supposed to remember a PCN number received in Feb, than resurfacing on a bailiffs notice almost 12mths later, hand written written inconspicuously in small font in a corner?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is correct. With all due respect G&M, we need advice, not moral flagellation. The Stat Dec states that "Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against you,if you make, or cause to be made a false statement in an application verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Well, the post clearly show that the OoT Stat Dec was made in an honest belief that the PCN had never been received before. How is one supposed to remember a PCN number received in Feb, than resurfacing on a bailiffs notice almost 12mths later, hand written written inconspicuously in small font in a corner?

 

Unless you are in the habit of getting multiple tickets its not rocket science to assume there may have been a connection. Your friend did not swear the stac dec on the spur of the moment on their front door step when confronted but went away and did it after consideration. If your friend had not appealed or paid the PCN as stated in this thread..Help! Need to challenge PCN - FightBack Forums then I would have thought a visit from the baliff would have been sufficient to jog his memory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you are in the habit of getting multiple tickets its not rocket science to assume there may have been a connection. Your friend did not swear the stac dec on the spur of the moment on their front door step when confronted but went away and did it after consideration. If your friend had not appealed or paid the PCN as stated in this thread..Help! Need to challenge PCN - FightBack Forums then I would have thought a visit from the baliff would have been sufficient to jog his memory.

 

Given the nature of LA's to use PCN's as a license to print money, i don't think anyone would agree with you that getting 1 PCN in Feb, and a Bailiff Notice regarding a PCN in Dec constitutes a "habit"; And why would there be an automatic connection btw 2 events that happen almost a yr apart?

 

With regards to the posts on PePiPoo, i dont understand your comment. They regard the same issue, and both posted this week.Posting on different sites garners more info.

Anyway, I'm not getting into any verbal jousting with you. We need help, and its either you can offer it, or you cant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the nature of LA's to use PCN's as a license to print money, i don't think anyone would agree with you that getting 1 PCN in Feb, and a Bailiff Notice regarding a PCN in Dec constitutes a "habit"; And why would there be an automatic connection btw 2 events that happen almost a yr apart?

 

With regards to the posts on PePiPoo, i dont understand your comment. They regard the same issue, and both posted this week.Posting on different sites garners more info.

Anyway, I'm not getting into any verbal jousting with you. We need help, and its either you can offer it, or you cant.

 

I got 'caught' for not correctly validating my oyster card on the tram about 4 years ago and had to pay a penalty fare. If a baliff came knocking on my door regarding a penalty fare on the tram my first thought would be that I hadn't paid the one 4 years ago. I would not remember the day or month but I'd certainly not be that forgetfull that I would swear a statement I had never in my life received a penalty fare on the tram.

My point about peepipoo was on that thread your friend states he forgot to appeal (very forgetful your friend) yet on this thread you state he did appeal on the grounds he was not the driver, it seems he still suffers from memory loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...