Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • As per my old and new posts all correspondences have now ceased from all parties hence me raising issue again.   If defaulted in January 2018, surely I should have been notified?    
    • Hi   I received a NIP for traveling 39mph in a 30 zone (mobile speed camera) in December 2020. As it is my offence, the police sent a letter requesting to know who was driving with three possible outcomes: speed awareness course, 3 points of contest at court. I provided my details and sent the form off.    The police sent me a letter this week asking for confirmation of my insurance... I realised that in October 2020 I removed a private number plate off the vehicle and notified the DVLA and the V5 form but I didn't norify my insurers.    I called the insurance company today and updated my number plate and they said technically I was insured and the vehicle was insured and it depends on how linient the police will be.    I am just concerned as the recent letter states possible prosecution for driving with out insurance with a possible fine and 6 to 8 points.    If they add that to the original 3 I might be given that would be 11 for a first offence.    Has anyone got any experience on this or any advice as I am pretty worried!    Thanks 
    • Tend to agree Hammy, but I think if you have a number of DD's going through every month and the reference/descriptions does not clearly identify what it is for, then many people would not have queried it.   How many people still go through their Bank statements regularly to check every item. ?  I have mobile Banking now and keep an eye on the payments going through, but when I had printed statements sent, i only checked them every few months.   Normally for Insurance refunds in these situation, the Insurers should consider refunds of up to 6 years, if it can be evidenced that the Insurance was of no value.  e.g. the Insurance was for a specific risk which is no longer owned.   The DD was set up over the phone as a variable DD amount and the Insurers should have issued communications about increases to the email or postal address provided for this purpose.  When the DD was set up originally D&G would have had to send confirmation of the DD terms and rights of cancellation etc.  You can try to ask Natwest for a refund under DD scheme, but you may struggle with this.    Ask D&G to look at your refund request again as a complaint and advise that if not settled, you will ask the FOS to review.  D&G would be charged a fee by the FOS if you went that far, so they may try to offer you a refund amount, to avoid this.
    • The state-backed savings giant has been accused of abandoning older customers in its drive to axe prize warrants to save money and paper by only consulting customers with an email about the change. View the full article
    • Savers who put £10,000 in the average tax-free cash Isa ten years ago would now have £9,772, new research shows. This is because inflation has outstripped the interest earned on savings. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2277 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

Please read this very carefully.


As you may be aware jbw enforcement limited has recently changed name and has also been reincorporated. As follows :







GU21 6LQ

Company No. 04118149spacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifStatus: Active

Date of Incorporation: 01/12/2000


Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

7487 - Other business activities

Accounting Reference Date: 31/03

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2007 (FULL)

Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2009

Last Return Made Up To: 01/12/2007

Next Return Due: 29/12/2008

Last Members List: 01/12/2007

Previous Names:Date of changePrevious Name25/09/2008J.B.W. ENFORCEMENT LIMITEDSo jbw 1 is now jbw group limited as of 25/09/08

look below and you have the new jbw enforcement limited which was incorporated on 25/09/08




Name & Registered Office:






Company No. 06708297


spacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifStatus: Active

Date of Incorporation: 25/09/2008


Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

None Supplied

Accounting Reference Date: 30/09

Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)

Next Accounts Due: 25/06/2010

Last Return Made Up To:

Next Return Due: 23/10/2009

The catch. If you were levied on by jbw enforcement ltd on or before the 25/09/08 then you need to address all complaints/claims etc to jbw group limited. If you are levied on after the 25/09/08 then it is jbw enforcement limited which you need to complain or claim against. It would not come as a surprise to anybody if jbw again change their name.


How ever recently jbw enforcement 1 bought out the debt collector tj meagher. According to companies house this company is in liquidation. However this does not stop anybody from buying the debt ledger at silly money and then collecting of people ?

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

British Parking Awards: Medway wins On-street Award



15 Mar 2010 | Issue 217 | Features > British Parking Awards





At the same time as implementing new powers within The Traffic Management Act 2004 on 31 March 2008, Medway Council in?Kent also adopted approved CCTV surveillance equipment for parking enforcement activities in problematic areas. It was the first authority outside of London to introduce the use of such approved devices and set an example for other authorities to follow.

The adoption of mobile CCTV equipment was prompted by the ongoing issues and safety concerns associated with the parking of vehicles when parents were dropping off or collecting their children outside schools. Despite concerted efforts to encourage more responsible parking, increasing the frequency of attendant patrols whenever possible and extensive dialogue with head teachers at all 143 schools within the borough, conventional enforcement measures were failing to have any sustained impact.

A major increase in the number of enforcement patrols right across the borough at the same times during each weekday was neither practical nor financially viable. Likewise, the cost of installing fixed CCTV equipment outside every school was out of the question. With few, if any, alternatives, the council decided to take full advantage of the new powers embodied within TMA 2004 and assessed the potential for using mobile CCTV technology to address the problems. This detailed assessment demonstrated that the new mobile CCTV capabilities could provide an effective deterrent and also deliver the flexibility to provide a more comprehensive enforcement solution.

Medway Council was entering uncharted waters at a time when all other authorities were adopting a ‘wait and see’ stance. It wasn’t only looking at a new area of technology and a new area of legislation, with no precedent outside of the unique circumstances within the capital. It also needed to ensure that any new enforcement activity complied with existing back-office processing of penalty charge notices (PCNs) to avoid disruption to proven existing procedures, while also needing to undergo extensive consultations with the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA). This was a new experience for all parties, including the VCA.


Co-operation and partnership

Assessment of potential suppliers of suitable mobile CCTV recording equipment ultimately led to Technical Enforcement Systems (TES) being appointed to supply the new technology. A working party, under the leadership of the council’s parking manager, Rubena Hafizi, was then formed with representatives from the Council, TES and Imperial Civil Enforcement Solutions (ICES) working together to meet both legislative and operational objectives.

There followed extensive consultations and technical deliberations with the Department for Transport (DfT) and senior executives at the VCA. “Both organisations were really helpful and we couldn’t have achieved our target for introducing the new arrangements on day one of TMA, without the help and support provided by Dennis Batten at the VCA and Alan Carpenter and his colleagues at the DfT,” comments Hafizi. “Not only did we have to prepare everything in readiness for the new legislation, but we were now also committed to the introduction of new enforcement technology. It was a true test of the resolve and commitment of every member of the team and our key partners like ICES. But we did it!”


New technology and processes

Medway Council embraces the Kent towns of Gillingham, Chatham, Rochester, Strood and Rainham and the Parking Services team comprises 23 Civil Enforcement Officers supported by 10 back-office processing staff.

The authority issues around 50,000 PCNs per annum and is a long-term user of ICES’ Parking Gateway to support all back-office PCN processing and management.

The new mobile CCTV equipment is fitted to a leased Smart Car, which is manned, by a driver and one of the council’s civil enforcement officers (CEOs). The camera itself is fitted to a swivelling, telescopic mount that extends up to 12 feet in height to ensure an unobstructed 360° view of the area being observed. Initially, six members of staff were trained and qualified to BTEC National Level 2 in operation of CCTV equipment, and operation of the mobile enforcement vehicle was undertaken on a strict rota basis.

The equipment allows the CEO to observe and then record parking infringements during the vehicle’s visits to target schools. At the end of each day, the recordings are then downloaded onto a DVD or separate USB storage device and transferred onto a dedicated computer terminal. A qualified member of staff reviews the footage to verify the contraventions and then enters all relevant details onto the back-office processing system to enable PCN processing to proceed accordingly, including the automatic link to the DVLA.


Complex reconfiguration

Significantly, the solution required complex re-configuration of ICES’ Parking Gateway to accommodate the specific PCN progression paths for offences recorded on the new equipment, due to the legislative requirements, payment trigger points and different progression paths that apply to CCTV-based PCNs issued to vehicle owners by post.

The solution ensures that all PCNs (on-street issue and remote CCTV capture) are processed and managed consistently so that PCN progression is tracked at all times up to the point that payment is received or to the point of appeal. It also provides accurate and reliable storage of all data and correspondence to ensure finger-tip access to information on all PCNs.

The new configuration of the system enables the Council to capture still images from the CCTV recordings so that PCNs can be issued with photographic evidence. The PCN also includes an invitation to visit the Council’s offices by appointment to view the CCTV footage, which further minimises the scope for unwarranted appeals. Following the success of the programme, ICES is now working with the council to enable all evidence to be viewed at a secure on-line page on the authority’s website.



During the first few months of operation, the authority targeted known hotspots at certain schools within the borough where the danger posed to children through irresponsible parking by parents was considered a very high risk. Particular attention was paid to schools based on main roads and key access routes.

Where the vehicle is present, it has proved to be a highly effective deterrent although, naturally, there were limitations given that one vehicle could only cover a small number of schools at any one time. The success has led to the introduction of another vehicle equipped with the same technology and additional drivers have been recruited. This has improved the flexibility of the new enforcement measures and provided a more effective solution for parking enforcement at schools right across the borough.


Consultation and contribution

The head teachers of all 143 schools within the borough have been consulted throughout and great care has been taken by Hafizi and her colleagues to ensure the new mobile enforcement arrangements are entirely supportive of the borough’s broader policy for establishing effective and appropriate Travel Plans for schools.

As well as the authority’s own transport policies, a positive contribution has been made towards a number of national strategies as a result of the adoption of the Smart Car enforcement programme around school gates.

Ongoing dialogue with head teachers has led to a number of further initiatives to hammer home the importance of parking responsibly when taking or collecting children at school. This has helped to emphasise the safety considerations that prompted the introduction of the mobile CCTV enforcement programme.

While the CEO is observing parking around the gates of a particular school, for example, mock PCN sleeves are handed out to parents with the simple message — “Let’s keep our children safe: park responsibly”.

Elsewhere, the Smart car fitted with the CCTV equipment has attended road safety lessons at schools like Riverside Primary School in Rainham, so that pupils can see how the equipment is operated, with Council members also on hand to answer any questions raised by the children.


Capitalising on success

Since 1 May 2008, the new mobile CCTV enforcement has visited schools 512 times and resulted in the issue of 2,147 penalty charge notices.

While children are at school the two Smart Car CCTV enforcement vehicles are normally assigned to undertake other parking enforcement activities to maximise their mobility and presence as a deterrent to irresponsible motorists.

Only parking contraventions are targeted by the vehicle, but the vehicle has been able to play a significant role in minimising the problems of parked vehicles obstructing bus stops and other key areas on main routes within the main towns and key roads around the borough — with an overall total of just under 14,000 PCNs issued as a result of the new mobile CCTV technology.

This has helped to reduce the incidence of road congestion caused by motorists who have deliberately flouted parking restrictions and related regulations.

As a result of the continued success of mobile CCTV enforcement technology, Hafizi is now working with other colleagues in the council to explore the potential for tapping in to nearly 400 static CCTV units that are used around the borough to maximise safety within the community.

It is now hoped that parking contraventions captured by this existing CCTV surveillance network could then be monitored, verified and progressed in accordance with the procedures adopted for the new mobile CCTV equipment.

Medway Council is now also about to embark on the enforcement of moving traffic through the bus lanes within the authority which is also as a result of this success story.

Hafizi says: “We now know for sure that CCTV has a very important role to play in parking enforcement. It’s not only a very visible deterrent for irresponsible drivers, it also complements and is fully compatible with our other enforcement practices.

“At last, school staff, local residents and responsible parents can see that we are absolutely determined to clamp down on behaviour that puts young children at risk and disrupts the lives of others. It has greatly increased our enforcement capabilities around school gates at particular times of the day while also giving us the flexibility to address other areas of enforcement that can minimise avoidable disruption and congestion in the town centres.

“It was well worth all of the hard work and I’m delighted the council’s effective partnership with ICES and TES has delivered such an effective solution to an area of activity that was proving to be a real problem for us. The results have been dramatic and it’s very reassuring to know that our efforts have been so well received by so many people within our local communities.”

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers. About average then.


Interesting that the following councils always gave up before Adjudication in 07/08:


• Mid Bedfordshire

• Gloucestershire

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a read of this :

CCTV smart car sparks big brother row


commentLi.gif [url=http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2010/april/16/cctv_smart_car_sparks_big_brot.aspx#comments][/url]


by Alan Watkins


Police and council officials have been accused of playing Big Brother after a photographer took pictures of the council’s controversial Smart car CCTV parking patrol.

The next day, police were knocking on the front door of freelance photographer Mike Gunnill to warn him about his “dangerous” driving.

Mr Gunnill was on an assignment for a Sunday newspaper, which wanted to follow up the Medway Messenger’s story last week revealing the council’s parking team had won a national award for customer service.

The council collects £1 million in parking penalties in a year, much of it from the two

CCTV Smart cars.

Mr Gunnill spent last Thursday tracking the cars from their Strood base and taking photographs until they were recalled by the council.

The following evening he was visited at his Upchurch home by two police officers.


For full story see today's (Friday) Medway Messenger.




Original here : http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2010/april/16/cctv_smart_car_sparks_big_brot.aspx

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites



Why is reporting someone for dangerous driving acting like big brother?


If I was at work regardless of my ocupation and some idiot I didn't know spent the day following me in a car I'd probably report him to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will probably end up having another argument over this.


If you have seen how the smart car drives through ambers and reds then you would know why medway has sent the police around.


Then again if you dont live in the area you have no idea so not worth arguing or explaining to anybody.

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog don't eat dog!

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

they cannot write red light jumping into the TROs. Its TROs not the laws. and it can't be 'everything' e,g, Drunk driving, not having a licence etc

Link to post
Share on other sites
they cannot write red light jumping into the TROs. Its TROs not the laws. and it can't be 'everything' e,g, Drunk driving, not having a licence etc


That is exactly what i mean but looking at the various press releases the council use the tro as a excuse to park anywhere with their cctv car.

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ask for a copy of all the traffic orders that regulate on street parking to see if any exemption does exist for the CCTV car. Sometimes such things are overlooked when drafting traffic orders. The Council will be a bit red faced if the traffic orders don't actually provide any exemption.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its decriminalised they only need a TRO to enforce not to exempt vehicles, its down to Council policy who they issue PCNs to its not compulsory.


Many Councils don't issue to certain vehicles such as cash in transit or cars attending a funeral it doesn't have to be in the TRO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its decriminalised they only need a TRO to enforce not to exempt vehicles, its down to Council policy who they issue PCNs to its not compulsory. Many Councils don't issue to certain vehicles such as cash in transit or cars attending a funeral it doesn't have to be in the TRO.


A TRO is required to state which vehicles or class of vehicles are exempt (aka an exception) from having to comply with any given restriction. For example, a TRO is likely to contain a "No Waiting At Any Time" restriction but the TRO exempts vehicles that have been parked there on the instruction of a police constable or those vehicles being used in connection with road maintenance. The exemption within the TRO means the parking will be lawful.


If a traffic order does not state that a Council vehicle is exempt from particular restrictions then the Council vehicle will be parked unlawfully since it has contravened the traffic order.


I agree it is down to Council policy whether they choose to enforce any paticular restriction but this discretion does not vindicate unlawful parking. Just because no PCN has been issued does not mean no contravention occurred whether it be a private vehicle or a Council one.


If the traffic order does not contain any exemption for Council vehicles and yet the Council never receive a PCN, even though they've parked in contravention, well, that would stink of hypocracy and double standards and a PR nightmare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...