Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please also take photos of the sign at the entrance as well as any signs inside the car park especially any that are different. Please take them from a distance where we can read them and if there is a payment machine, the sign on the machine or very close to it that explains their T&Cs for the machine.
    • Thanks for getting the signage posted up so quickly. The sign on entry should explain their T&Cs. As they don't it means that  what they have given you is  an offer to treat, not a contract. For there to be a contract they would have had to put their offer at the entrance.  You cannot put a notice saying that their T&Cs are inside the car park and expect motorists to be subject to those T&Cs when they are unaware what the terms are.. They have to be able to read them and understand them before they can accept them. My feeling is that the sign that includes the charge of £100 is too small to be acceptable On top of that the sign at the entrance is for Parking Control Solutions while the signs inside are from HX Management-a completely different animal. To strengthen your case for not paying them is the fact that their PCN is not compliant.  Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there are certain wordings in  the NTK  that by Law must comply with the Act. They don't  have to quote that part of the Act in their PCN but the relevant wording has to be included. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9 [2]   the notice must  [f]   warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;   Your  NTK does not include  [if all the applicable conditions  under the Schedule have been met ]thus rendering the NTK non compliant.  
    • I agree its about time but why has it taken for the National Crime Agency to flag this up for then to take action and not Ofcom.   Yet again a Government Agency that is meant to deal with this hasn't Ofcom but flagged by another Agency NCA.   If the telephone companies have this facility in place already to do this then why hasn't Ofcom been pushing them to stop all these scam calls and giving them massive fines for not doing so.    
    • Hi   Send this to them:   Dear Sir/Madam   Formal Complaint   Reference:            (insert their complaint reference number here)   Thank you for your response letter dated XX/XX/2021 which I received by email on XX/XX/2021 that contained your Original Email sent that showed due to your Maladministration that you had sent the Original Email containing my Personal Data to an incorrect email address due to spelling errors in the email address.   a)      Due to this Maladministration of this email being sent to the incorrect email address this email contained my Personal Data which is a Data Protection Breach therefore I require clarification from yourselves that this Breach has been reported to your Data Protection Officer and what action is being taken to ensure that my Personal Data contained in that Original Email has not been read by the recipient that you sent that email to with the incorrect email address.   As the email was sent by yourselves to my correct email address containing the original email showing the incorrect email address was due to spelling errors (maladministration) your IT Department will be able to obtain those emails sent.   If I do not get a satisfactory response that this has been dealt with by your Data Protection Officer, I will report this Data Breach to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/   b)      Due to this Maladministration I failed to receive your Stage 1 complaint response within the allocated time limit for a Stage 1 response therefore this complaint should be dealt with as a Stage 2 Complaint and if you refuse to treat this as a Stage 2 Complaint, I require Full Clarification for your refusal.   I was placed in this Tenancy via the Rough Sleepers Initiative and I find your response about damaged/destroyed items that you would not be able to look into this as this happened 2 years ago but all tenants regardless of private or social housing are responsible for arranging their own contents insurance totally unacceptable as again, I was never notified nor informed of this requirement on taking up this tenancy.   I require clarification from yourself that when a New Tenant takes up a Tenancy Agreement with yourselves why are the not informed of this requirement of Contents Insurance which you should be duty bound to inform all tenants on taking up a tenancy agreement if such a requirement and it should also be noted within that tenants Housing File which you have full access to as dealing with complaint so I require clarification as well if this is noted in my Housing File.   You state multiple properties throughout the area were affected by sewage flood on the same day and the issue will have stemmed from the mains which is not your responsibility.   a)      You have failed to take into that the above statement from yourself blaming the Mains is without any actual evidence from yourselves to back up this claim therefore I require clarification as to what actual evidence you have and to be provided with copies.   b)      You also failed to take into account that in my initial complaint letter that on 12th July 2021 basement flats 1 & 2 were flooded by sewage exacerbated by blockage in the property’s drainage. The blockage has been confirmed by two contractors after the flooding including CCR who were subcontracted by Pyramid Plus that it was the properties drainage that was blocked. Also, while I was decanted from this property, I was contacted by CCR who confirmed that the drain was blocked but they could not access manhole as it was inaccessible as it is located in a utility cupboard underneath carpet, floorboards so how could this be the Main and not your responsibility when it is within the properties boundaries.   Your response about how complaints have been made by residents in relation to this issue is that your system does not allow you to find that information is completely unacceptable as your Housing Association should be able to produce these as part of ongoing repairs and maintenance/procurement processes to present these to your Board for there yearly Budget meeting if not why not.   Then you state you are under no obligation to share that information; therefore, your organisation is not being Open and Accountable to your Service Users and under which Article of the General Data Protection Act (GDPR) are you using for this refusal.   You have also failed to mention that I can make that above request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and what is your process for such a request again not being Open and Accountable.   I await your response.
    • RE: EC261 Compensation   It's normal they won't have asked you to contact them . Your initial rescheduling was obviously done by a bot - and there was no human to notice the mistake, as far as the bot knew your scheduling was perfectly normal so there was no need to ask you to contact them.   As long as that was done 2 weeks in advance the carrier's liability to notify you is fulfilled.   (You could have contacted them there and pointed out that the new schedule was impossible. Unfortunately you didn't. Claiming you didn't notice is not likely to work in your favor)   The bot who sent you the 24h confirmation didn't notice the mistake either, obviously.   At some point a human or another bot finally identified the problem and that's when they called you. As far as they are concerned neither you nor them had noticed the scheduling mistake and they took it on them to notify you so you don't have a bad surprise when you try and check in.   However as far as I know, neither flight was delayed or cancelled. You could have taken both flights, if you had the power to be in two places at the same time.   So I don't think there is any scope to claim for EC261. But claim forms are free so feel free to try.     Then, you can certainly make an old fashioned claim (directly to BA)   What could perhaps play in your favor:   It's the carrier's responsibility to ensure that they don't sell you a ticket where the flyer cannot meet the minimum connection time or MCT.   This situation mostly applies to situations where the flyer doesn't know and gets caught. For example say you connect at LHR and you are given 35 minutes to connect. This may look just fine to an unsuspecting tourist, but in reality there is practically zero chance to make the connection, therefore the airline is liable here for selling you this ticket resulting in you missing your connection   In your case though it could be argued that even an unsuspecting tourist should be able to tell that it is not possible for them to depart 5 minutes prior to disembarking and therefore that you should have checked your notification more carefully.   The fact that the bot allowed such a glaring mistake to happen is certainly an argument in your favour shall you decide to make a complaint.     What doesn't play in your favor:   The airline obviously did their best to get you to your destination as soon as they noticed their mistake. They offered you more than one alternative (the first alternative would have got you in time at your destination, but you declined) and you then accepted another alternative, and fully travelled the ticket. That is a very strong position for them.     What did you lose and what do you intend to claim for?   You took the overnight connection so obviously you had to stay at an airport hotel. Is that correct? Did you keep the receipt for your hotel and meals?   You certainly should have asked them on the phone when negotiating your re-route that they provide a hotel. Within 20hrs of the flight it's something they would most probably not have denied to you (but airlines will generally avoid offering off the bat. Why lose money when a customer is just going to roll with it and pay for their own stay anyway, right?). After the fact it's going to be a lot more difficult to claim.   I do certainly think it would be reasonable to try and write them a polite but firm letter to claim for that. Not 700 euros, not damages and hardship and all that jazz, just the extra expense you incurred following a scheduling mistake that they made (that should have never happened) and that they didn't notice until way too late in the day , with your categorical inability to leave 3 hours earlier (you had very important business meetings or something critical, it certainly wasn't just convenience) and the extra costs incurred, and asking that they kindly provide compensation for the hotel and meals, which you feel it was their duty to offer you and you are politely disappointed that they didn't, and thafully you happen to have kept all the receipts. Put Alex Cruz on copy for good measure.   No guarantee but I feel it has a fair chance of success. Most probably you will be offered a heap of Avios instead of cash. It's then up for you to decide whether you want to accept that. Personally I wouldn't bother going further, but that's just me. See if anyone here disagrees, and do let us know what you decide and keep in touch with how it went.            
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3746 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

The thing that troubles me most with these exuberant charges is the way they seem to dwarf bailiff fees for any other type of debt.

 

If I'm not mistaken, if the debt was for council tax: 1 letter and 1 visit would be limited to about £70 of fees... how they can justify having the fees set at amounts which will [imo] almost always be larger than the original debt is beyond me.

 

As Baron says, if somebody can't pay the fine in the first place then there is not much chance they will be able to pay such excessive fees on top of that amount - and all at once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Bailiff fees for Magistrates court distress warrants: November 2006

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/rights/dca/inforeleased/ir061124.pdf

 

I know this from 2006 and the fees have increased but the interesting part of this document is the attendance fee is charged per defaulter not per visit

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailiff fees for Magistrates court distress warrants: November 2006

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/rights/dca/inforeleased/ir061124.pdf

 

I know this from 2006 and the fees have increased but the interesting part of this document is the attendance fee is charged per defaulter not per visit

 

 

I think that the bailiffs are attempting to charge a fee for each visit in many of these cases

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

What really infuriates me is Marstons attitude that I have to pay the whole thing right now. I would gladly pay the original fine to HMCS, but the law seems to sanction this kind of daylight robbery.

 

The more I think about this, the more incensed I get - its less about punishing people for wrongdoing, and more about making money off the backs of people who can ill afford it in the first place.

 

This kind of business should not be put with the private sector, where making a profit is the main concern. Thankfully, I'm not some old lady or other kind of easy pushover. I think I frightened the Marstons bailiff off when he showed me the charges - I managed to go from 0 - Full Rant Mode in about 0.01 seconds :-x

 

Anyhow, it would appear that there is no way round this issue .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll speak to the court again tomorrow and get them to send a more detailed breakdown setting out any limit on the fees and the amount of times an attendance fee can be applied.

 

Up to now Marstons have added two attendance fees (£200 per visit) - three letter writing fees (£75 each) (£625 fees in total) and I am expecting another visit tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have spoken to someone who worked in government from 1992 to about 2000 and not subject to OSA, but I must emphasise this is all hearsay and I dont have any links to the source.

 

The Lord Chancellors department received a complaint from HM Prison service that Magistrates were sending too many yobbos who were not paying their fines and asked for a solution to reduce taxpayer burden.

 

Warrant officers attached to magistrates courts were responsible for service process and collecting unpaid fines, but their work didn't deal with the problem of serial non-payers because procedure returns the case to court and an arrest warrant issued.

 

A few options were considered, namely to contract out enforcement to bailiffs similar to decriminalised traffic offences. Those regulations set out statutory bailiff's fees and fixed penalties are not means tested.

 

Defendants receiving criminal fines were commonly on benefits and therefore their (non motoring) fines and prosecution costs orders were generally minimal, because these are means tested.

 

Fixing a statutory scale of enforcement fees prescribing a Fees Order for unpaid means-tested fines contradicted means testing.

 

Ordering £275 in costs for recovering an unpaid £45 public order fine from a defendant who is on jobseekers allowance contradicted the statutory poverty threshold. Only the maximum £5 a weeks could be deducted from benefits.

 

The alterative is contractor asks the defendant to pay the fess (which are set in a contract between court and contractor), and if the defendant agrees to pay it then the bailiff gets his £275.

 

If the defendant declined to pay – for which he is allowed – then he is only liable for paying the fine and nothing else. The bailiff deducts his fee from the amount collected.

 

If a defendant has paid bailiffs fees on a court fine in the last six years, he can reclaim them if the bailiffs mislead the defendant he was liable to pay he fee, or indicate payment of his fee is a statutory obligation or said a court order had been made against the defendant. See section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Lucas raised a PQ in the House of Lords.

 

If you have the connections, then asking Lord Lucas to ask PQ on the legal position on defendants liabilities to pay enforcement fees on court fines without having a means tested costs order.

 

Until that is cleared up, I think its best you refrain from giving advice that could mislead defendants they are liable to pay enforcement fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bartok, in that case bailiffs are in the words of Mr Plod Being Very naughty Indeed, as fixed penalties are therefore a complete breach of the principles of fair and equal treatment, as they are not means-tested. Marstons by their attempts to load charges against debtors on low income could therefore be in breach of Human Rights legislation somewhere, along with allegations of fraudulent behaviour if the contract they have does not actually permit collecting fees from debtors, who will insist they will only pay the fine.

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

The explanation that you have provided is very interesting indeed. As I have said in post number 42, either you, Happy Contrails or Fork-It have been "claiming" for the past 2 years that there is no legal basis on which a debtor should pay the admin fee of £75 or the visit fee of £200 when being visited by a bailiff enforcing an unpaid MAGISTRATES COURT FINE. Until today, neither of you have provided the REASON WHY they are not liable for paying these fees.

 

Given the importance of this matter, it could well be that a question can be raised in the House of Lords....HOWEVER, the House is now in recess and PQ's would be most difficult until the House resumes in October.

 

However, I will certainly look into this myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally managed to get through to HMCS payments.

 

I've been informed that once it goes over to Marston's, HMCS place an 'inhibit' (their term) on the account, preventing any payment of the fine, preventing any circumventing of Marstons. If I send money or payment by post, it will be returned. This is done on all distress warrants on magistrates fines.

 

I suspect if I pay Marstons the £150 fine ammount they will use that purely as a payment towards their fees, leaving the original fine unpaid.

 

I think that the only reason they have'nt given us more grief is that we live in a farm in the middle of nowhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I will certainly look into this myself.

 

 

Thats easy enough done:

 

Just ask Lord Lucas: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peer/lord_lucas

 

 

Send a Question:

 

 

 

Dear Lord Lucas,

 

Unpaid magistrates court fines and prosecution costs that are means tested and not a statutory fixed penalty, are enforced by private certificated bailiffs, or Enforcement Officers working for a company under a contract with HMCS.

 

Bailiffs, or Enforcement Officers, increase the amount the Defendant owes by charging "fees" without having obtained for a Costs Order, and while there are no regulations setting a statutory scale of enforcement fees payable by the Defendant.

 

Can you tell me:

 

1. (a) Is the Defendant liable to pay the Officers fees? And, (b) under what legislation sets the scale of statutory fees payable to the Officer by the Defendant?

 

2. If the Defendant is not liable and the Officer misleads the Defendant either (a) he is liable, or (b) a costs order has been made against the Defendant to pay the Officers fees then:-

 

Does the Officer commit an offence under Sections 1-5 of the Fraud Act 2006 and/or Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970?

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you can pay the bailiffs fees, and if it is later discovered the fees are avoidable (no legislation/court order/contract), then claim on the solicitors Professional Indemity policy for giving wrong advice. The solicitors insurance company then recovers it from the bailiff.

 

Its up to you what you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bartok, i have written to lord lucas requesting some information regarding Data protection Act and bailiffs regarding an unfortunate interaction with jacobs, and have added your question in my own words also. We will see what develops, and will post up the meat in any reply

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

What was your question regarding data protection act?

 

If bailiffs approach a random person near premises they are visiting, approach randomer and in the process of asking if the randomer is the debtor, give debtors name address and other details to random person. Also if they do the same to someone in a parked vehicle who is on the phone, and likewise disclose debtor detals and start insisting on ID or they will clamp the vehicle, is there an offence committed by the bailiff?

 

Bailiffs seem to be a little free and easy regarding their assumptions about property and vehicles near a debtors property. My concern is they clamp an innocent bystander or someone else's car who is absolutely nothing to do with the debtor or the address, and the innocent party then has difficulty getting the clamp removed.

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

Are you sure that you have been charged £200 TWICE. I have not seen this happen before.

I'm certain.

 

I Spoke to the court today and they said that they will charge for every visit, and told me she would send me a "detailed letter" explaining.

 

I have also written to Marstons for a full breakdown of their charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...