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

Helping a friend - First notice for CT arrears -Dorset


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5123 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

Hi All,

 

I've been reading the advice on here and thanks so much, I've already learnt heaps. However I would like advise on this specific problem please.

 

My flatmate has just asked for help regarding a First Notice which was hand delivered to our flat on the 19th March.

 

The notice is from Ross and Roberts and is regards to a CT debt he owed at his previous residence. The notice says that the bailiffs visited in respect of the above debt and unless he contacts the bailiff immediately he will return to with a view to levy distress.

 

The oustanding costs are then stated as: Todays visit fee £14.50. Total outstanding £464.00. The letter then goes onto speak about further statutory costs under the CTA regs 1992 and states the charges for second visit fee etc etc.

 

From this site I know not to let the bailiffs in, and to ask to see their county court enforcement. However I'm not sure whether the debt should be paid to the bailiffs or Christchurch council however? My flatmate can pay £50 per month so I thought about sending the following 2 letters to the bailiffs. The first authorises me to deal with the account on his behalf, the second gives a payment schedule to the bailiffs:

 

Am I on the right track? Anything esle I should be doing? How can we stop the second bailiff visit and further charges please (is that covered adequately in my letter?)

 

Also, does this mean my flatmate now has a CCJ against him for this debt?

 

 

Many thanks in advance to your answers and support.

Edited by feefofum
Link to post
Share on other sites

PS I forgot to add.

 

If the above two letters are good to send, I intend to get my flatmate to sign them then send by registered post this evening.

 

Is it OK to send both letters in one envelope (thus he only pays the cost of registered post once)?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to the pm suggesting my friend emails instead, however they require a signature for authorising me to deal with it, and we don't have access to a scanner. Thanks anyhow.

 

Can anyone confirm that this now means my friend has a CCJ against him?

 

Thanks

Edited by feefofum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your letters can't do any harm, and definitely show you are not evading the debt. But remember that bailiffs have a Phd in ignorance & deceit.

 

They may well ignore you, and will probably continue to seek a levy, so stick to the standard plan.

 

Do not open the door to them.

 

Do not make anything available to levy on outside (cars, bikes garden equipment, furniture....)

 

Make what payments you can (as per your plan) and always get a receipt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

did your flat mate know that they owed CT at their old address, and did they receive any letters from the council stating this, if not it may be in your best interest to contact the council stating that your friend was unaware of any outstanding debt with them until a bailiff turned up with a LO. They may well take back the debt under these circumstances and your friend may not be charged extra fees, ie bailiff fees and court costs, thus reducing the amount that your friend has to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to the pm suggesting my friend emails instead, however they require a signature for authorising me to deal with it, and we don't have access to a scanner. Thanks anyhow.

 

Can anyone confirm that this now means my friend has a CCJ against him?

 

Thanks

 

They should accept verbal authorisation over the phone if your friend feels up to calling them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all. I sent the letters today so we'll see. I fully expect them to send the cheque back to me and say they only accept cash on a day without a 'Y' in it... or something equally unhelpful.

 

Thanks for clearing up the difference between CCJ and liability order.

 

Greenpimpernal: If I send cheques through the post,.. is the cashing of the cheque sufficient as a receipt?

 

Kelcou: My friend is a guy who sticks his head in the sand. If I didn't help him with this he'd end up in more trouble as he's scared to face it.

 

Seanamarts: He knows he owes this money (from a previous address) but he thought he could hide from it (Why ppl do that is beyond me). I could try and get the council to take it back (he had no letters from them, they were probably sent to his old address and the new tenants didn't return/forward them). However I'm only willing to help him so far. From my point of view he knew he owed the money, he tried to hide from it, and now he has to pay more. .. Lesson learnt hopefully!

 

Fluffybunny: He's angry that he owes more (bailiff fee's etc - original debt was £250-ish ish) and doesn't trust himself to remain calm on the phone/or even face to face with such leeches. He's not the most eloquent with language and cracks under pressure (he's a great guy other than being financially stoopid!)

 

I've had a stern word with him and he knows its his responsibility. To get his head out of the sand he will pay me monthly and I'll pass that onto the bailiffs.. (I am MUCH scarier than a bailiff if he doesn't pay me).

 

So I'll let you guys know whether my letters were successful as soon as I hear.

 

BW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned a letter/notice that stated the person who the bailiffs were looking for did not own any property, but now I can't find the link. Can anyone point me in the right direction pls?

 

My friend owns pretty much nothing in our flat, anything valuable is mine/fother flatmates/landlords. .. Would be useful to have a copy of this notice - is it legally binding?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's called a stat dec - try searching that term

 

Oh miss bunny your so bloody helpful :rolleyes:

 

This may help you, some one can tidy it up if need be or link to what is to be needed.

 

I: [name]

 

 

Of: [address]

 

 

 

DO SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE THAT:

 

 

The items listed below are items that do not belong to me;

 

(list items)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.

 

 

DECLARED AT:

 

 

SIGNED:

 

 

DATE:

 

 

Before me:

 

 

Solicitor/Commissioner for Oath.

You can thank TT for this :) I just hope I got it correct ;)

Edited by seanamarts
thanking TT & made a boo boo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that 'stat dec' example. .. If he were to post one of those on the door it would be a long long list of things he does not own.

 

Instead of "The items listed below are items that do not belong to me;" can he state "no item on these premises belong to me"?

 

thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Stat Decs can be done for free at County Court.

 

Impecunious! :)

 

That's what I thought until I investigated further - they can be done but only for matters appertaining to the County Court. At least that is what the Notice in my local County Court says.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Getting it sworn" Does this mean paying a solicitor? He's unlikely to spend money doing that, he'd prefer to pay off his debt.

 

Is the notice not valid otherwise?

 

Cheers

paying a fiver to a solicitor will be a darn site better than losing a whole lot more to a bailiff, its his move of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah thanks, didn't realise it would cost so little for a stat dec..

 

Meanwhile Ross and Roberts have instantly returned my cheque and said "they cannot enter into any payment arrangement until an appoitnemtn has been made with the bailiff who needs to assess circumstances and financial situation and complete the appropriate paperwork, and that we must contct the bailiff within 3 days otherwise further costs will be incurred".

 

Am I right in thinking thats a load of b*ll*x?

 

If we/I do contact the bailiff then will he be charged further? Plus the cheque for £50 is from my account (the arrangement between my friend and I for him to pay me back has nothing to do with them surely) so what's the deal with them assessing HIS finances? As far as they're aware, I might be paying that debt off for him and they have no deal coming near MY finances...

 

So then,.. I'd really like advice rather than opinions, .. whats my next move?

 

I'm thinking of contacting Christchurch council to now ask them to take the debt back. Are there any templates for such letters please? In the meantime, how do I address the bailiff problem? (as in do I contact them and let them know our intentions, or just ignore them - though given they're threatening further charges if not cnotacted by end of today)

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right its a load of rollox..

Contact the council and state that R&R have rejected a payment from you and they are demanding that they come see you, this is of course to bump up their charges. There is no reason why they could not of taken the cheque and to start a payment plan, I would state to the council that you wish to now set up a payment plan with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The oustanding costs are then stated as: Todays visit fee £14.50. Total outstanding £464.00.

He's angry that he owes more (bailiff fee's etc - original debt was £250-ish ish)

he needs to get in touch with the council to find out the exact amount of the liability order then add £42.50 for bailiff fees

My friend owns pretty much nothing in our flat, anything valuable is mine/further flatmates/landlords. .. Would be useful to have a copy of this notice - is it legally binding?

does the tenancy agreement list the landlords goods that are in the property

 

if you get a stat dec done and sent to the bailiffs along with a copy of the tenancy agreement (if it has a list of goods ) your mate would then have nothing of value to levy distress against therefore the bailiff would have to send the debt back to the council Nulla Bonna or accept a payment plan as there is not much else the bailiff can do and no more fees can be added to this account

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...