Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Now I wonder, if the land is owned by the council and they can  use the RTA to enforce their rules why do they emply a bunch of banditd to manage the place? It woudl be easy to argue that the "fine" should be that set by local govt  and thus be about £30, not 390. this means Highview's demands are thus an unlawful penalty as they are higher than the prescribed tariff so they would lose a court claim on that basis regardless of the validity fo their contract with the LL and the motorist.   that means a complaint could be put to the local govt ombudsman and the council would have to behave and probably have to pay up compensation to the aggrieved motorist for the unlawfulness and distress so enfield would be around £130 a ticket down for every one challenged
    • If no Planning Permission, signs etc are illegal and no contract can exist, as it would be founded in a criminal action, signs without correct permissions to be erected.  PE have been caught out by this many times.  they are owned by Capita, same bunch that run TV Licensing for BBC
    • Yes, fill out the bit forwarded to yu by the car hire co adn take them on if you wish. you will need to be returning to Margate to get piccies of the place but in the meanwhile read up on private parking and also ahve a look at thaney councils planning portal and see if PE have permission to put their signs and cameras up in the first place
    • you need to edit that response as it was sent to a bunch of lawyers acting as debt collectors. so drop the bit about rentathreats. I would add the salutation Dear Ashley, it is no use trying to hide, we all know it is you writing this garbage.....     reason for thi is that a person well known in parking world isnt listed as having a controlling interest in the company contrary to Company Law
    • as they target commercial vehicles it isnt usually necessary to get the keeper details, they just demand money from the company that has their logo plastered on the side of the lorry. There is also different law surrounding their demands as the POFA doesnt apply and it isnt a consumer contract. You will unfortunately need to do a lot of reading up about these people as they ahve had mixed success in the courts so a bit of a lottery as to what bits of previous cases to use as being relevant.   However, the signage is on your side as ity mentions removal of vehicles, which means that unless the byelaws specifically allow it (and then the cost of removal doesnt necessarily ahve to be borne by the vehicle owner) then it is  unlawful and possibly illegal so that makes the whole contract void as it is a criminal compact   Proserve have a very complicated arrangement with the landowner and that means they have to pay the landowner for every trespass and then claim the money back form the vehicle driver/owner. in practicve they dont pay a peny in advance (can you imagine how long they would be inbusiness if they ahd to fork out hundreds of thousands a week with little prospect of recovering those advances?)   they also stop vehicles entering the docks if the company that owns it refuses to pay or has beaten them in court before despite not having any powers to do so. A vindictive, dishonest outfit.
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 9 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
      Thanks for reading 
      • 16 replies

PCN Baiiffs Whyte & Co - whats the next step to nail them

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3638 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



I've copied and pasted the emails (see below), did the OTT, appealed against the decicsion, made my complaint to the Bailliff company and to lambeth counci (heard not a peep from them).

Can anyone advice me what to do now - I'm not letting them get away with it? mY COMPLAINT IS AGAINST THE BAILIFF COMPANY, not the original PCN.

Thanks - sorry its a lot to read!



emails removed


Subject: RE: URGENT -

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:10:10 +0100




I do not accept this:


Firsly you may find the following comments in this link removed of interestlink3.giflink3.gif to you regarding Mr x, as I believe it is further proof of his unlawfull actions and dishonesty:


Here are some comments regarding your Bailiff, Mr X who was involved in the illegal removal of my vehicle:



Wed, 18 Mar 2009 - 20:24

Freind didnt take pic of mr x himslef due to dpa and so on. However he described him as a bloke in his middle ages with attitude who wouldnt talk to him. The pcnlink3.gif was £105 and when kenny came to collect he wanted near enough £700 which included a clamping fee as well. Also he was trying to lift a business vehicle which was clearly signed all 3 sides.



Thu, 19 Mar 2009 - 12:10

Anybody see this around ? I know they are active in medway this week as have seen several cars clamped and they are charging release fees of £600 up to £900 and also threatning people that their cars will be lifted despite them being signed etc. I think our freind mr x is really now taking the mick.


Furthermore I re-iterate the following points:


1: I did not receive any copies of a warrantf, or a notice of seizurelink3.giflink3.gif - all I recevied was a pink bill with my old address on it. I have witnesses to verify this, as they insisted they had been sent and your bailiffs told me the letter may have been held up due the postal strike. However I then pointed out to them that this could not be the case as the bill they gave me had my old address on it. The car was parked in front of address removed and not address removed.


2: Because I had already informed the council of my new address regarding the original PCN and they had written back to me at my new address PATAS ENFORCEMENT GUIDE clearly states that Lambeth Council should have used my new address for any future correspondence.


3: Again I had quite a fight with the Bailliffs when they arrived to tow away the car regarding my tools being in there, and they were made very aware of the fact that these were the tools of my trade which I use in my job as a self-employed carpenter, and they refused to let me get all my tools. Again I have witnesses to confirm this. We were not aware at the time that I could prevent you from taking the car due to the tools. However your Bailliffs should have aware of this had they been properly trained in accordance with the law.


4: The original bill was for £600 - the bailliffs company told me i must pay this straight away or the car would be towed. I was given no chance or time to find this money despite informing you i was unable to pay it. Furthermore you did not give any chance to make a payment arrangement while I submitted the OTT Aplication Form. The Bailliffs came and they then demanded £876, an extra £276 was to pay for the tow truck. I am afraid that you are obliged to give a person a chance to make a payment arrangement if you are informed before the arrangement of a tow truck that they are hard up and need more time to find the money. You are also obliged to give a person reasonalble time to obtain such money, which was not also given.


5: I was standing there at the car when they came - and I was prevented bodily from gettining into the car so that you could not take it away, as I required more time to submit the OTT Application form and try to get a loan from someone.


i intend to challange your decision in the courts.











Subject: RE: URGENT -**reference number removed**

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:40:07 +0100

enmails removed





Dear Mr xx,

I respond to your email dated 30/7/2010 as follows:




We do not accept this. Our records indicate that you were given a copy of the warrant, a Notice of seizurelink3.giflink3.gif and a notice of Removal Expenses.



We do not accept that you made any claims in relation to the vehicle being a tool of trade. The bailiff states that no claim was made at the time in relation to the vehicle being a tool of trade. As a matter of policy we always allow people to remove possessions from their vehicle. It is to our advantage that this is done before any removal takes place as, if afterwards, we have to make a special trip to the vehicle pound in order to retrieve items (for security reasons we do not reveal the location the vehicle is stored at).



I note that there were several phone callslink3.giflink3.gif made to this office subsequent to the removal of the vehicle and prior to payment being made. These calls were from yourself and someone called xxxxxx who you said was your girlfriend and who you authorised us to speak to on your behalf. All telephone conversations are recorded and during the course of these calls the validity of our actions was challenged on a number of points but at no time was anything said regarding the vehicle being a tool of trade.




3/4. The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 allow a charge to be made for sending a letter requesting payment. They do not require that a letter be sent. We always do send a letter but, since we are not obliged to, it is of little relevance that you did not receive it.




You have stated in earlier e-mails sent to the Council that you vacated your previous address some considerable time before. However, a search made by us with the DVLA on 3 September 2009 showed that the vehicle was still registered at your previous address. It would therefore appear that you failed to properly ensure that your registration details were amended and that this is reason why you may not have received our letter.




5/6. The bailiff states that he told you precisely why your car was being seized and we are not in any way obliged to allow you further time in which to pay or to investigate the matter and make applications. The warrant authorises us to collect immediate full payment or to seize goods.




All action taken was correct an in accordance with the regulations and therefore a refund is not appropriate. The position has been made clear and we consider the matter closed.








name removed




Whyte & Company


7 Whyte Oak Square








0845 458 9429








From: email removed

Sent: 02 August 2010 16:04

To: edited; Info_email

Subject: FW: URGENT -







emails removed


Subject: URGENT -

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:53:15 +0100


Hi x


As previously stated the costs below were chargrd unlawfully.


1: No distrress warrant or notice of removal was received or shown by the Baillifs.


2: The vehicle is nescessary to my work as a self-employed carpenter and contained the tools of my trade at the time of removal. I made your Bailliff aware of this fact. Under Section 54 of the Magistrate Courts Rules it expressly prohibits bailiffs from removing a vehicle used in the course of employment. This also applies if you are self employed and the car is necessary for "your use only" in the course of your employment or business. My tools for work were in my vehicle at the time of clamping and the clampers would not let me take them out of the car. I have proof of my business and the use of my car being essential to this business, and being used only by myself to carry out my work.


3: No application letter (Road Traffic) was received - it may have been issued. But if you check your records you would have posted it to **address removed**, my previous adddress. The vehicle is registered with the DVLA at address removed where I have resided since November 2008.


4: I showed your Bailliff evidence of my new address (Council Tax book, Tenancy Agreement etc) and that I could not have received any letters sent.


5: I contest all of these fees on the basis that your Bailliff did not tell me why my car was being clamped and demanded a sum of £856 on the spot. I was given no time to find this money, which i DID NOT HAVE. Nor did you give me reasonable time to investigate what the charges were for or make to make an OTT application to Northamton Court, before seizing the vehicle with my tools of trade still in it.


6: I was not given any time to negotiate any payments demanded.


I await your response ASAP and demand a full refund minus the cost of the original PCN, which was £60 and any costs relating to Lambeth recovering this amount. (Instruction Amount + Adjustments: £155.00) In addition I lost 2 days work that week as my car was in your pound and I was unable to pay for its removal due to not having the funds to do so. The fee itself was paid by a client I was working for at the time on a loan basis, whereby I carried out work for him in return for the loan/payment. I have bank statments to prove I did not have the money to pay your fines demanded on the spot my your Bailliff. The amount I wish to be refunded to me is therefore £857.56 + 2 days flat rate for lost earnings @ £300 = £1157.56








Account Number: 12345678

Summons Number:

Instruction Date: 01/09/2009

Instruction Amount + Adjustments: £155.00


Case Notes:


02/09/2009 First Application Letter (Road Traffic) issued

03/09/2009 DVLA: Positive

09/09/2009 VEHICLE CLAMPED - Wavertree Road, SW2

09/09/2009 HPI CHECK COMPLETE - Vehicle is NOT on finance

09/09/2009 09/09/2009 - x- Removal Made

09/09/2009 Sale Letter issued





14/09/2009 £1,012.56 Cash Banked


Case Fees:


09/09/2009 £120.00 auctionlink3.giflink3.gif Room - Storage

09/09/2009 £200.00 Tow Truck

09/09/2009 £15.00 HPI

09/09/2009 £50.00 Waiting Time

09/09/2009 £190.00 Vehicle Seizure

09/09/2009 £47.00 Levy

09/09/2009 £110.00 Attendance to remove

02/09/2009 £2.50 DVLA

01/09/2009 £11.20 First Application

£111.86 VAT on all above charges




Balance Outstanding: £0.00


Thanks for your reply.








Subject: Email received today

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:17:23 +0100

emails removed




Account Breakdownlink3.giflink3.gif as requested.

Kind Regards

Whyte & Company

Edited by citizenB
name.email and numbers removed

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats way out of order hopefully tomtubby will pick up on this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bailiffs are threatening to call on my daughter for rent arrears. She has told the agent that her debts are all in the hands of the citizens Advice.

Newlyns are ignoring this and have called at the house today. I have told her to deny access. I am sure I have seen a template letter somewhere on the site, but am unable to find it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
The bailiffs are threatening to call on my daughter for rent arrears. She has told the agent that her debts are all in the hands of the citizens Advice.

Newlyns are ignoring this and have called at the house today. I have told her to deny access. I am sure I have seen a template letter somewhere on the site, but am unable to find it.


Has the agent been to court and gotten a CCJ? I was under the impression that bailiff's can only be sent if there is a CCJ.


I wouldnt be suprised if they were acting as normal debt collectors, but trying to give the impression that they are attending in a bailiff capacity to scare your daughter.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask the bailiff out whether a court has issued an order to pay the rent arrears. If they give you this Pay 10 for a SAR then print a copy of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and contact Police.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a great help cheers

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...