Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

Car clamped due to invalid address at DVLA

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4639 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

A few weeks ago, I woke up to find my car clamped by court appointed Bailiff (JBW Group).

Apparently for not paying a TFL traffic infringement. After some investigation I found it related to a £60 parking fine I received 6 months earlier but didnt know about because they sent the PCN to the wrong address. This was an address I lived at two years earlier. Admittely I had forgotten to update my details at DVLA which I have now done.


The result of this is that I had to pay all the increase in costs, including court costs and Bailiff attandance levies which amounted to £570. This seems like an exhorbitantly steep punishment for not updating an address (whilst I accept its my responsiblity but its hardly a major criminal offence). I would argue its aginst the legal principle of "proportionality".

Anyway, I applied to file a stat dec/witness out of time statement which was declined by the county court (by a court officer) with no reason given. My next option is to apply for a review by a district judge.

Does anyone know if I have a case? Is TFL simply allowed to get away with this when they have no proof I received any of the notices (and I can prove I did not)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[EDIT]. The matter of a bailiff enforcing a warrant at a new address is something that I am passionate about.


The Civil Procedure Rules (75.7) are VERY important in that they provide that if a NEW address is located that the local authority MUST FIRST obtain permission from TEC to CHANGE the address on the warrant but that this may ONLY be done if the address had changed AFTER the warrant had been issued.


In your case the address changed 2 years BEFORE the warrant. Therefore, the local authority ARE NOT PERMITTED to enforce the warrant and they must instead issue a NEW PCN/NtO to the NEW address.


Many similar complaints as yours are being made to TfL and from experience, I can say that they are almost certainly one of the best local authorities and I am sure that they will get this matter sorted out without the need for you to file an N244.


Firstly, can I ask a few question:


Can you call TEC this morning and ask them to CONFIRM the address on the warrant.


Did JBW show you a copy of the warrant?


When you submitted your Out of Time Application, did you explain that documents had gone to a previous address?


You should have been provided with a Statement of Truth from TfL. What was said in this as the reason why TfL were rejecting your Out of Time Application?


Was your car clamped outside of your NEW address?


Finally, when did you receive the rejection?




Can I please ask a few question

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much Tomtubby,

To answer you questions:


1. I have just called TEC: they have confirmed the warrant was issued at the old address that I lived at two years ago. They also told me in no uncertain terms that the bailiffs are entitled to execute seizure of the vehicle anywhere as long as the car is parked on a public road, which was the case here (as I do not have a private drieway).


2. I did not see a copy of the warrant. I rang the bailiff using the number provider on the sticker affixed to my screen and paid over the phone. He attended my house later that day in my absence and put the receipt through my front door.


3. Yes, I did explain on my Out of Time application that the docs had gone to a previous address.


4. In the the TFLs Statement of Truth they may no reference to the reasons on my application. They simply stated that they sent all these notices (to the old address) citing the times they were sent and the times they were returned to them undelivered.


5. Yes it was clamped outside my new address - TEC have informed me that they have the right to do this.


6. The statement of truth from TFL was dated 25th october.

The rejection from the Northampton County Court is dated 1 Nov 2011 and received a couple of days later.


Finally I can further confirm that the Bailiff charged me a credit card fee when I paid the charges. I am told this is illegal as the Bailiff needs to have a class C credit licence to enable them to do this. Looking at the register I dont beleive they have this licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet AGAIN, your application to TEC would appear to have been merely "rubber stamped" and had not in fact been referred to a "senior court officer for an decision". Of further serious concern, is that TfL (or more likely, their "back office provider" ) had not in fact even considered what you had written on the form and had provided instead, a "standard" response.


When making an Out of Time Application to TEC all that is needed is for the person making the application to provide a good reason as to WHY you are completing a Statutory Declaration LATE!!!


A Statutory Declaration SHOULD be submitted at the Order for Recovery stage but as all statutory notices regarding your parking ticket had gone to a PREVIOUS ADDRESS you could not submit a Statutory Declaration. Instead, you have completed a Stat Dec at the bailiff stage.


The reason as to why you were unable to file the Stat Dec any sooner is SIMPLE.......you had only become aware of the PCN when visited by a bailiff and this was due to the fact that all notice had been sent to your PREVIOUS ADDRESS!!!


Transport for London are ONLY SUPPOSED to consider whether or not you have provided a GOOD ENOUGH reason for sending the form in LATE.


Instead, it would ONCE AGAIN appear that TfL have merely provided a HISTORY OF THE PARKING TICKET.




You would normally now have to pay £80 to seek a review which is awful given that a "review" should not be necessary if the "Senior Court Officer" had dealt with this application correctly and TfL had bothered to read your application.


I have sent you a PM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...