Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • where does anything say its a penalty charge please? sit on your hands , stop begging to everyone await if/when you ever get a letter of claim. thread title updated     
    • Hi all, new member, being advised by someone on another forum but looking for the opinion of others to help me decide what to do.  Bit of a long one but I am looking for some quite specific advice or signposting to somewhere that may hold the correct information. Long story short, I bought an Audi on finance years ago and traded my old car in under the diesel scrappage scheme, brilliant. This allowed me to reduce the value of my brand new car by £7,000 Fast forward a few years later and I fell into hardship. Unfortunately I could no longer afford the car and despite my best efforts at trying to negotiate some kind of support from VWFS (Audi financial Services), the car was subsequently marked stolen and I was pulled over at the side of the road using Tactical Pursuit and Contain. My car was then recovered back to the finance company. I struggled for a while, bought an older car to get myself by and eventually got my finances back on track. Then in September of last year I became aware of a CCJ against me filed by VWFS, for the shortfall of the agreement minus the value of the car which was sold at auction. This caused me to do some research into my agreement, legislation and also consult some legal advice. Using another forum and speaking to retired vehicle finance lawyers, it turned out I may have some grounds to apply to set aside the CCJ at a Court hearing, so I drafted some documents and a witness statement and I was successful in setting aside the CCJ, on the grounds that VWFS had no evidence that I had traded in my old car as a part exchange. Now this is where things get complicated. My whole defence on winning the case against VWFS and disregarding liability for the shortfall rested on the fact that, with my old car as a part exchange, I had paid in more than a third of the agreement and VWFS could not repossess my car without a court order or they would be in breach of Section 90 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and I would be entitled to all sums paid under the agreement. I took this all the way, noting that the CCA 1974 and the Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 2010 state that a deposit is defined as any exchange of goods or by any other means a reduction in value of a purchase by means of a transfer. I recently had my day in Court but as a litigant in person, was cross examined by an all singing all dancing Barrister and of course he persuaded the Judge that I had no case, and that my car traded in under the scrappage incentive was not to be classed as a deposit, despite it literally being written in legislation, amongst other reasons why I found the HP agreement to not be properly executed. I am now appealing this decision as I strongly believe the Judge has misinterpreted the law, What I really need for this to be successful is someone who is knowledgeable in the field of Vehicle Finance to help me understand if I have a possibility of overturning this case, as I have no doubt at all that my car should be classed as a part exchange and a deposit and it is blatantly written in the legislation that the finance companies are bound by. I would massively appreciate if someone can help me decipher this legislation and its application in the sense of my HP agreement, I simply do not understand how I can trade in my car and it not be classed as a part exchange, or a deposit. Similarly, if someone is able to find the exact wording of the terms and conditions of how the Diesel Scrappage Scheme was managed in 2018 that would be an absolute life saver! Thanks so much in advance, this is not a straight forward nor a well documented case but I believe I am onto something and I believe there will be other people in my position who have lost their cars without knowing this clause and could well be entitled to reclaim all sums under the agreement
    • we know them well. you TOTALLY ignore them. NO DCA is a BAILIFF  
  • 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

Lewisham PCN - contravention 82-parked after the expiry of paid for time. increased from £40 to £120+


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4596 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 received a parking ticket from Lewisham council for £40, I appealed as i explained i had a dizzy spell due to exhaustion/dehydration and whilst i felt uneasy to drive and waited 10 mins for the symptoms to subside a traffic warden decided to still give me a ticket, even though i explained i was not well enough to even move it and give me 10 mins to compose myself with water!

 

I appealed and lost as they said i should have got a doctor certificate to verify this!! understandably for a dizzy spell and its not due to on-going medical issue the doctor was unable to verify anything, rightly so.....

 

As i lost the appeal i was informed my fine had increased to £80, i then told the council that i was unable to pay this and would pay in instalments (as on JSA!), i was told i would have to wait for bailiffs to write to arrange this as the council do not take instalments and only FULL PAYMENT!!

 

Today, I received a letter "charge certificate" stating my fine is now £120 (£80 plus £40 charge certificate!) and if i do not settle in full then bailiffs will be obtaining a warrant and will be their charges plus £7............

 

I am annoyed that i let my original appeal go but i was informed that was the adjudicator final decision......what can i do regarding this whole mess, how can i avoid all this increase in fee's, so unfair.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the ticket doubles if not paid, then they add another 50% so 40 turns to 80 then 120, then you will get charged for warrant , then 28% for every visit 3 visits max

My respect to people who post regularly and help people out on here. Without your help alot of wrongs would have been committed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a parking ticket from Lewisham council for £80, I appealed as i explained i had a dizzy spell due to exhaustion/dehydration and whilst i felt uneasy to drive and waited 10 mins for the symptoms to subside a traffic warden decided to still give me a ticket, even though i explained i was not well enough to even move it and give me 10 mins to compose myself with water!
 
I appealed and lost as the adjudicator said in the photographic evidence he could not see me behind the wheel!! ( I replied back to state that at the time the traffic warden was taking the photo, i had got out the car to ask him to be abit more sympathetic to me and this explains while at that very moment i was not inside the vehicle!! (no response!!)
 
As i lost the appeal
 
i was informed my fine would still remain at £80, i then told the council that i was unable to pay this and would pay in instalments (as on JSA!), i was told i would have to wait for bailiffs to write to arrange this as the council do not take instalments and only FULL PAYMENT!!
 
In their letter they never mentioned anything about making instalments via a bailiff (AFTER the bailiff have added their fee's!) all they mentioned was a additional £7 fee for the court!.......
 
Today, I receive a letter "charge certificate" stating my fine is now £120 (£80 plus £40 charge certificate!) and if i do not settle in full then bailiffs will be obtaining a warrant and will be their charges plus £7 in court fee's????............
 
I am annoyed that i let my original appeal go but i was informed that was the adjudicator final decision......what can i do regarding this whole mess, how can i avoid all this increase in fee's from bailiffs and just pay in instalments via the bailiff for the £80?
 
I am not refusing to pay, but i just do not see why, i will penalised with bailiff fee's because i cannot pay all at once.....do they have every right to add whatever fee's they wish?
 
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

..

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very confusing.

 

This case is nothing to do with bailiffs, so don't confuse the issue. At the moment it is with the council and it's between you and them.

 

When you asked for a payment plan, did you put it in writing, and did the council reply to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt say it was with bailiffs, i was asking how to avoid bailiff cost and pay in instalements,which is next stage!

 

i explained this early on in this thread, i did write to council and they wrote back saying they do not except instalement directly and await bailiffs contact to arrange this....i realise i wil have to pay £127 via the bailiff but how do i avoid paying bailiff costs too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not very good advice from the council, if it does go as far as the bailiffs there will be a large increase when they add their fees - which will make it much more than £127, and not all bailiffs will accept a payment plan either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how can they give such untrue advice! i just called them and they said as long as i respond to the 1st bailiff letter, i can arrange payment plan of the £127 and the bailiff wil NOT add their charges unless i miss a payment, is this not the case? im confused!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt say it was with bailiffs, i was asking how to avoid bailiff cost and pay in instalements,which is next stage!

 

You are focussing on the bailiff issue but you don't need to - they aren't involved and you can probably still sort this out directly with the council - or at least try, without bailiffs ever getting involved.

 

i did write to council and they wrote back saying they do not except instalement directly and await bailiffs contact to arrange this

 

I can't believe you have a letter from the council advising you to await bailiff action in order to set up a payment plan. It's absurd.

 

What I think you should do is ask for a meeting with someone at the council to discuss the situation. Take with you evidence of your income and rent etc so they can see that you aren't in a position to pay in one go. Ask them to agree regular payments with you. There is no reason why they will not, as long as they see that you are genuine.

 

This is a far better way to approach matters than letting the debt get registered at court then have a bailiff warrant against you - and as Raykay says, not only will the debt get higher, but the bailiff might not allow a payment plan either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get that in writing from the council!! Remember the saying 'If it's not in writing, it never happened'.

 

I agree with Jamberson, try to resolve the problem without involving bailiffs because once they do get involved, it can be very expensive.

Edited by Raykay
Link to post
Share on other sites

i have just spoken to lewisham parking services again, they clearly state they will not accept instalements, only FULL! and they say they have not instructed the bailiff yet til they register the debt and said there bailiffs have been told to accept instalement as long as i respond to first letter no bailiff costs wil be added! they declined to put it in writing! they said if bailiff tries to add fee's then call them back! i offered the first payment now with my debit card, they declined and said i cant speak with no-one, its their procedure!

 

i do have letter stating instalement via bailiff, not them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not being straight up with you - the council has no ability to decide whether bailiffs will arrange payment plans, or on what terms. Also they won't stop the bailiff charging you for anything they do.

 

If I were you I wouldn't take "no" for an answer right now. I would get onto someone senior and see them in person, and put formal requests to them in writing. That's what I'd do ... up to you how you want to play it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not being straight up with you - the council has no ability to decide whether bailiffs will arrange payment plans, or on what terms. Also they won't stop the bailiff charging you for anything they do.

 

The baliffs are agents of the Council they can instruct them to do anything they like as long as its legal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bailiffs are private firms and they aren't under orders from the council. They often cooperate with the council's wishes because it suits their mutual relationship, but I have never heard of a council instructing a bailiff as to what terms of payment they have to accept. And anyway, why would the council want to pass it on at all, if payment is being offered? It's a bizarre idea.

 

Also, if the council genuinely are advising the OP to wait for the bailiffs to come in, just in order to set up a payment plan, they are in my view abusing the system. TEC don't grant warrants in order to facilitate payment plans. I suspect the council is blagging it to get the case out of their hands. The OP will suffer the brunt of bailiff fees, and still no guarantee of a plan, for no good reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

green and mean, if that is indeed true and they told me they are telling the bailiff to take instalements and no bailiff fee's will be addf if i agree payment plan on reciept of 1st bailiff letter and only if i default i wil incur such costs, why wont they verify this in writing? she assured me on 3 calls today!

Link to post
Share on other sites

jamberson, do you think i should just start making instalements via there payment line? i have a gut feeling your prediction may be right! if they are sure then why not put it in writing! lewisham say its their 'policy' not to accept instalement directly! unbelievable!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bailiffs are private firms and they aren't under orders from the council. They often cooperate with the council's wishes because it suits their mutual relationship, but I have never heard of a council instructing a bailiff as to what terms of payment they have to accept. And anyway, why would the council want to pass it on at all, if payment is being offered? It's a bizarre idea.

 

Also, if the council genuinely are advising the OP to wait for the bailiffs to come in, just in order to set up a payment plan, they are in my view abusing the system. TEC don't grant warrants in order to facilitate payment plans. I suspect the council is blagging it to get the case out of their hands. The OP will suffer the brunt of bailiff fees, and still no guarantee of a plan, for no good reason.

 

Complete tosh baliffs are contracted by the Council to enforce the debts, that is why different Councils have different baliffs they don't just roam the streets looking for debtors!! What you are saying is like suggesting the Council bin men can just collect when they feel like it because they work for a private refuse collection company, or NSL can just ignore Council enforcement instructions and ticket who they like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...