Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   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;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5095 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

I walked out of my door to be met by a Ross and Roberts agent.

 

He says I owe the council £145.34

l

Not I have an invoice for £124.34 arrears

levy fee £ 26

Statutary walking possession notice £12.00

1st visit £ 24.50

2nd visit £18.00

Total £204.84

 

and he has listed my next door neighbours cars as chattels that have been impounded...

 

If I go in tomorrow and pay the council what I still owe them can anyone tell me if i will owe him anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya

 

First thoughts on your postiing!

 

If the bailiff levied on your neighbour's vehicle, then the levy is invalid. You should inform the bailiff company and the council in writing. An invalid levy also invalidates the levy fee and this should be cancelled. A simple DVLA check would inform the bailiff that the vehicle does not belong to you. It is unlawful for the bailiff to seize that vehicle before completing a check although he can "assume" that the vehicle is yours - wrongly of course! Onus is on the owner of the vehicle to prove ownership. If the bailiff does seize the vehicle, the owner can claim compensation, reimbursement for any damage, hire vehicle if necessary, etc.

 

I would find out how much the liability order is for. I believe, if you pay the council immediately, that the bailiff can only then charge for 1st visit fee - £24.50.

 

Pay the council online - you'll then have a receipt. Don't bother phoning the bailiff, keep everything in writing.

 

Meanwhile, keep your windows and doors locked and if you have a vehicle, move it well away from your property. Might also be prudent to move anything of value from your garden etc and lock it away.

 

Bailiffs aren't very bright. With the support and advice of fellow CAGgers, you're in good hands.

 

Best of luck!

 

 

Impecunious! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be walking into the council with cash tomorrow morning SO that i know it has been paid in full and can check what else I need to pay. The bloke is cross because I keep paying the council not them, so they get no fees from me, hence why he is like this. I have been charged for this bill included in another total amount but have never paid them any fees.

 

If it says 3 days does that mean he won't be back before then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailiffs aren't reknown for keeping their word!!

 

I believe that even if you pay the council directly you will still be liable for the 1st visit fee. Of course, whether you wish to pay that or not is your decision.

 

I believe that the council may pay the bailiffs direct for your 1st visit fee of £24.50 -- I know your invoice was for 1st and 2nd visit fees + unlawful levy etc. In which case, your full liability won't have been satisfied and the bailiffs will still pursue you.

 

I hope someone else can clarify for you.

 

Impecunious! :)

 

P.S. If you go in person, the council will probably tell you to deal with the bailiffs - that's why paying online is preferable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mine just take the account number and payment on the account, then they inform the bayliff it has been paid.

 

So what do I do pay the council extra? as I read that once the council have been paid in full the Bayliff have to get their fees from the council not me, Is this correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should imagine that as the bailiffs have already visited you - 1st visit - they are entitled to their fees. (Obviously not the invalid levy fee or thet 2nd visit fee but you will have to notify them of your objections.)

 

I believe the council will pay the bailiffs from the money you pay in - therefore your full liability won't be satisfied.

 

It's all a nonsense really but needs must!

 

 

Impecunious! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should imagine that as the bailiffs have already visited you - 1st visit - they are entitled to their fees. (Obviously not the invalid levy fee or thet 2nd visit fee but you will have to notify them of your objections.)

 

I have a second letter in with the first saying he was charging for a default removal notice £110 this is now not included in the £204.84 notice of seizure of goods and inventory.

 

I believe the council will pay the bailiffs from the money you pay in - therefore your full liability won't be satisfied.

 

Sorry if I pay the council the £24.50 first visit free do I still owe all the others? and I never signed anything so can he charge walking leve?

It's all a nonsense really but needs must!

 

 

Impecunious! :)

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bailiff has only visited the once then all you owe is the first visit fee. It is an invalid levy so he cannot charge for this. you need to inform the council in writing that the bailiff levied on a car that is not yours. Pay the council what you owe them plus the first visit fee. I would then write to the bailiff company stating monies have been paid in full plus the fee of the first and only visit that was made. by the way they cannot charge for a levy fee and a visit fee on the first visit, they can only charge one or the other. I would email them as well as writing to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I thought, have looked around and will do as you say and get this noted by the council when I pay in the morning. If you could have seen him he was really cross and shouting I had to pay and had no choice, he never normally gets to see me, so I think the fact that I locked him out while i got some shoes and then just walked to school when he thought I was going to drive the car away, made him so cross.

 

By the way does he still get paid if all the extra fees he keeps adding on never get paid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

He seems to pop up once every few months I was paying it at £50 a month to the company but missed a payment by 2 days and he turned up. Got a letter saying he would charge so as I had sent a cheque which they returned the day after he visited they reset it up, then due to a bank holiday delaying my tax credits he turned up again, never seen him before, so went and paid the outstanding of the £345 he said I owed so he had to cancel the £110 fees he tried to charge last time. This time as I opened the door to get my daughter from school he was just about to knock, he phoned the council who Said i still owe £145 so I said I would pay it tomorrow he got cross and said I'm going to leve your car, I just walked off.

 

Then he just have put the letter through the door, so not sure if it was a first visit on a new amount they were trying to collect or monies still owed from the last one, anyway I am going to pay tomorrow. As I said the car isn;t mine it belongs to next door so will pay and also have his letter forwarded too the Chief Exect at the council as I know he was only doing it to be spiteful, because i wasn't scared of him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I walked out of my door to be met by a Ross and Roberts agent.

 

He says I owe the council £145.34

He says - never believe what he says - contact the Council and find out how much your original Liability Order was for and how much is still outstanding

 

l

Not I have an invoice for £124.34 arrears

levy fee £ 26

Statutary walking possession notice £12.00

 

Did you sign the WPA - if not he can't charge the fee?

 

1st visit £ 24.50

2nd visit £18.00

Total £204.84

 

At which stage was the levy made - 1st or 2nd visit or done at a later date to these?

 

and he has listed my next door neighbours cars as chattels that have been impounded...

 

If I go in tomorrow and pay the council what I still owe them can anyone tell me if i will owe him anything?

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

He seems to pop up once every few months I was paying it at £50 a month to the company but missed a payment by 2 days and he turned up. Got a letter saying he would charge so as I had sent a cheque which they returned the day after he visited they reset it up, then due to a bank holiday delaying my tax credits he turned up again, never seen him before, so went and paid the outstanding of the £345 he said I owed so he had to cancel the £110 fees he tried to charge last time. This time as I opened the door to get my daughter from school he was just about to knock, he phoned the council who Said i still owe £145 so I said I would pay it tomorrow he got cross and said I'm going to leve your car, I just walked off.

 

Then he just have put the letter through the door, so not sure if it was a first visit on a new amount they were trying to collect or monies still owed from the last one, anyway I am going to pay tomorrow. As I said the car isn;t mine it belongs to next door so will pay and also have his letter forwarded too the Chief Exect at the council as I know he was only doing it to be spiteful, because i wasn't scared of him.

 

 

The matter of a bailiff levying upon a car that is not owned by you is the subject of a recent article by the Senior Investigation Officer at the Local Government Ombudsman. See the link below to a sticky that I posted here on CAG a week ago.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/262730-has-bailiff-levied-upon.html

 

You should print a copy and send with your FORMAL COMPLAINT to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE of your local authority.

 

When you visit tomorrow you will need to pay either £24.50 or £42.50 for two visits for "attending to levy (where no levy was made).

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the back it says my bill was £145.00 which I thought was the £124.50 plus the 1st leve £24.5 so you say pay that. to clear the council bill.

 

If I still owe them fees of £18.50 for a second visit that is their fees on top can they charge me to collect their own fees?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the back it says my bill was £145.00 which I thought was the £124.50 plus the 1st leve £24.5 so you say pay that. to clear the council bill.

 

If I still owe them fees of £18.50 for a second visit that is their fees on top can they charge me to collect their own fees?

 

Point taken. Wait until you are at the council offices and let them tell you the amount of the Liability Order. Most local authorities also have online access to their enforcement companies computer system so that they can confirm what visits have been made and the relevant charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken. Wait until you are at the council offices and let them tell you the amount of the Liability Order. Most local authorities also have online access to their enforcement companies computer system so that they can confirm what visits have been made and the relevant charges.

 

They keep that info quiet..

Link to post
Share on other sites

can they charge me to collect their own fees?

 

As far as I can see what happens is: If for example you owe £250 to the council and you give the bailiff £250. they allocate the money to the fees IN TOTAL first then what ever remains they send to council, they take their money first (as per the contract I guess).

 

and/or

 

If you give the council the £250 I "presume" they are obliged to give the bailiff what is due then keep the rest (and then come back to you and ask for any that is outstanding or use the bailiff again, ad infinitum, more fees possibly, etc.

 

I have two computer screen print outs from Ross and Roberts showing this. I gave them £300 quid or and they only gave council £60, ridiculous! (from a council collection perspective)

 

Hope it helps,

Sew

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been in and paid £145 over the counter as cash, and now Ross and Roberts can do what ever they like as I owe them nothing. Got it confirmed by the council who told the bayliff off for what he did.

 

Thanks for your help Guys and Gals

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...