Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can't predict what the judge will believe. PE will say that they responded in the deadline and you will say they don't. Nobody can tell what a random DJ will decide. However if you go for an OOC settlement you should still be able to get some money
    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • 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.  
  • 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 3432 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'm thinking about replying with a copy of the ombudsmans report regarding these levies. Along with the above reminders.

 

Seems like this is a big problem with Rossendales as they now have their own section.

 

Im prepared to take them to court over this, of it comes to this.

 

I guess Rossendales are going to now do a dvla check.

I'll give them 7 days and that's it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 5 weeks later...

New reply today. Having chased up last week and person from council was on leave.

I'm going to allow the 2 extra days. Then that is it.

 

 

*

I am sorry for the delay in dealing with this matter for you but as you are aware I have been away from the office and I am reliant on information being obtained from the DVLA.* I had previously been in contact with Rossendales*on 14 October prior to my absence*to see if they had heard from the DVLA but unfortunately there had been no response at that time.** I have again today been in contact with Rossendales as the matter remains unresolved and I am conscious that you have waited longer than first indicated.

*

Rossendales have been pressing the DVLA for a response and I am advised that this should be available on Thursday.* I will again contact Rossendales on Thursday.* Please accept my apologies for the delay in resolving this matter and thank you for your continued patience.

*

Link to post
Share on other sites

A registered keeper is not necessarily the owner, so DVLA will be of no help where a Hire Purchase agreement is in force, or a Motability lease, so DVLA is not prima facie absolute proof to ownership, but they conveniently forget this when it suits.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah this is a very good point. Although the debt and car are not for the same person.

 

Also, it doesn't provide an answer for levy and van on the same day, and also the waiting fees.

 

I think I might put together a reply to send over in the morning. This has been 4 weeks now... Plenty of time to get the information and report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok here's some good news people.

 

Have finally received a reply this morning. :) I am in a very good mood. :)

 

Further to my email last week I have again been in contact with Rossendales regarding this matter.* They have advised me that they have still not been able to obtain confirmation from the DVLA.* I am very disappointed that the matter has still not been resolved and in view of the*extended period off time you have been waiting they have agreed in this instance to refund the fees incurred by you on 2 June 2011.* A refund of £213.00 will be made to you shortly.

*

I trust this brings the matter to a satisfactory conclusion and again apologise for the delay in dealing with this matter for you.

*

Regards

Jx Axxxxxx

Revenues*Manager

Link to post
Share on other sites

So pleased.

 

Thank you everyone so much for your help. Wouldn't have gotten anywhere with this otherwise.

 

:) :)

 

Well done,

 

Possibly scared of the program on tonight!! I bet Rossendales Trading Standards will be inundated tomorrow!!

 

LL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great result, for you GetOffMyCase, but that programme only served to consolidate the consensus that bailiffs are unregulated bullies liars and cheats, Mr Boast deserves to go to jail, along with his CEO

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree he really does!!

I think it's disgusting what he's done, and they way he treats people.

He's not the only one either. The ones that clamped the car were no better. Threatening me and my grandad. My grandad is 75 years old! My grandad was even threatened with the bill increasing cause he was asking questions about it. :/

There's some justice in me getting a refund. But it doesnt make up for what they've done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree he really does!!

I think it's disgusting what he's done, and they way he treats people.

He's not the only one either. The ones that clamped the car were no better. Threatening me and my grandad. My grandad is 75 years old! My grandad was even threatened with the bill increasing cause he was asking questions about it. :/

There's some justice in me getting a refund. But it doesnt make up for what they've done.

 

If another unfortunate person either debtor or innocent third party, whose motor the bailiff had wrongly clamped and levied on was to die whilst arguing with the bailiff would the police treat it as manslaughter, as they should, or would they side with the bailiff and cover it up? Answers on a postcard to the MOJ....:x

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I called my council early last week,

as someone suggested they may take a attachment of earnings for my CT debt.

 

 

i spoke to someone on the phone who said...

. yes tha'ts fine, took all my work details etc etc. to do that... happy days. all sorted.

 

 

Only for a couple of days later to get a letter from Rossendales on the 31st (letter dated 27th).

Notice of Enforcement Agent Visit - Final Opportunity.

debt = £681.81

Enforcement costs incurred: 75

total = 756.81

 

I was confused about it, so I rang S.c.D.C.

who said that the attachment of earnings was added for this years debt, but not the previous years.

 

 

I told the lady that the man said all my debt was sorted,

she just shrugged off everything i said with you need to talk to the enforcement agent,

I said to her I wasnt willing to do that, as i have had problems with them before acting inappropriately.

And asked that she call the debt back to add it on to the AOE, but she just flat out declined anything.

 

I tried to ring Rossendales but my mobile wouldnt allow me to call them on their number,

so in the end i emailed, which means its all recorded.

 

 

i sent the following email....

 

I have received a letter this morning regarding an outstanding council tax debt. There seems to be some confusion.

 

I had set up an attachment of earnings with Suffolk Coastal District Council, for the debt, but it seems this has now gone to yourselves so this is not infact possible.

 

I have tried to call, but my phone will not allow me to call the premium number that is listed on your letters, i would prefer to keep contact as written any how.

 

I would also like to make an offer to pay this debt of £25 a week.

i live on my own, have 2 small children, and work on a low income.

This is the absolute maximum i can afford, after bills and other debts etc.

 

Please can you advise the best method I can pay this in installments, without calling, as it wont let me.

 

 

I didnt get a reply straight away. i assumed they were busy.

 

 

Roll on 2 days to saturday i am out but someone else is at home a bailiff turns up.

He gets explained to him i made an offer before the visit by email of £25 a week,

he said that is a decent amount but now the debt is £900 and something pounds.

But he would check in the office to find the email.

 

I have re-emailed them this morning to get a reply.

 

I am still waiting on a response to the email below.

 

please can you confirm receipt so I can send the 1st payment to start paying the current balance of £756.81.

 

The email below was sent on the 31st October 2014.

 

To get finally get a reply today of:

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Your offer of repayment is not acceptable as your case has been issued to an Enforcement Agent, Mr. Brame, whom you should contact on

Dont know what to do now to be honest. I have twice tried to make offers to pay this now and been turned down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will Rossendales never learn? Under the new Law [Control of Goods Act] when a Letter of Enforcement is sent the recipient has 7 days to contact the bailiff company

from the date the letter is received [and the 7 days should not include Sundays or Bank holidays]. failure to contact them within that time frame means that they can

then pay a visit that incurs an extra charge of £235!

In your case, even if the letter had arrived on the 27th October they would still be breaching the Act by calling round on the Saturday.

Therefore write to the CEO of the Council informing him that this is a stage one complaint. First about the bailiff arriving on the Saturday 1st November, just two days after receiving the Letter of Enforcement and thereby incurring an extra charge of £235 in total breach of the Control of Goods Act. Secondly, your phone

does not allow you to make calls to premium numbers [and bailiffs are not supposed to use premium lines according to OFT guide lines] so you had already

emailed the bailiff offering £25 per week to pay off the outstanding amount which he received prior to his visit.

In addition you are annoyed that the bailiffs were involved at all as you had already made arrangements with the Council to repay your Councl Tax by an attachment of earnings.

 

You therefore would like the CEO to look into your complaint and suggest a remedy as the more the bailiffs add to your bill, the longer it will take to pay off the Council Tax and you obviously do want to pay since it was you who agreed to the attachment of earnings. Add that you have no faith in Rossendales as they

cannot even comply with the Law and would welcome his comments on that.

 

By the way there is a small discrepancy with your dates stated. You said the letter arrived on the 31st October [Friday] and then you said the bailiff arrived two days later on the Saturday. It would be helpful if you could clarify that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was confused about it, so I rang S.c.D.C.

who said that the attachment of earnings was added for this years debt, but not the previous years.

 

 

I told the lady that the man said all my debt was sorted,

she just shrugged off everything i said with you need to talk to the enforcement agent,

I said to her I wasnt willing to do that, as i have had problems with them before acting inappropriately.

And asked that she call the debt back to add it on to the AOE, but she just flat out declined anything.

 

 

Sulffolk District Council is one of the seven Anglia councils planning to launch a revenues enforcement service, allowing them to bypass commercial bailiff firms.

 

The Cabinet report entitled "Anglia Revenues Partnership (ARP) - Internal Enforcement Agency Proposals" sent to Fenland (A similar report will have been sent to Suffolk Coastal) at the last paragraph of the "Summary" where it refers to making sure that residents are treated fairly and keeping fees as low as possible, should be quoted to them as a reminder.

 

  • It has been agreed in principle that the seven partners would like to create an enforcement Agency with the potential to make sure that residents are treated fairly where enforcement is necessary, keeping fees as low as possible, whilst retaining the income generated by Enforcement actions for the Council tax payers of the partner authorities.

 

My guess though is their principle interest lies in "retaining the income generated by Enforcement actions for the Council tax payers of the partner authorities."

Link to post
Share on other sites

offering £25 per week

 

 

There is your error, the word 'offering'. You don't offer as in 'please mr nice man', you tell them that is all you can afford and start making the payments now, don't wait for them to agree. If they can make more money from you by pretending they never received your email or by delaying some other way, they will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...