Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi T911 and welcome to CAG. As you say, an interesting screw up. So much for quality control! Anyway, our regular advice is to ignore all of their increasingly threatening missives... UNLESS you get a letter of claim, then come back here and we'll help you write a "snotty letter" to help them decide whether to take it any further with their stoopid pics. If you get mail you're unsure of, just upload it for the team to have a look.
    • Thanks @lolerzthat's an extremely helpful post. There is no mention of a permit scheme in the lease and likewise, no variation was made to bring this system in. I recall seeing something like a quiet enjoyment clause, but will need to re-read it and confirm. VERY interesting point on the 1987 Act. There hasn't been an AGM in years and I've tried to get one to start to no avail. However, I'll aim to find out more about how the PPC was brought in and revert. Can I test with you and others on the logic of not parking for a few months? I'm ready to fight OPS, so if they go nuclear on me then surely it doesn't matter? I assume that I will keep getting PCNs as long as I live here, so it doesn't make sense for me to change the way that I park?  Unless... You are suggesting that having 5 or so outstanding PCNs, will negatively affect any court case e.g. through bad optics? Or are we trying to force their hand to go to court with only 2 outstanding PCNs?
    • That is so very tempting.   They are doing my annual review as we speak and I'm waiting for their response once I have it I will consider my next steps.    The debt camel website mentioned above is amzing and helping to. Education me alot    
    • Sending you a big hug. I’m sorry your going through this. The letters they send sound aweful, and the waiting game for them to stop. But these guys seem so knowledgable and these letters should stop. Hang in there, and keep in touch. Don’t feel alone 
    • In my time I've never seen a payout/commission from a PPC to a landlord/MA. Normally the installation of all the cameras/payment of warden patrols etc is free but PPCs keep 100% of the ticket revenue. Not saying it doesn't happen mind. I've done some more digging on this: Remember, what your lease doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. If your lease doesn't mention a parking scheme/employment of a PPC/Paying PCNs etc you're under no legal obligation to play along to the PPC's or the MA's "Terms and conditions". I highly doubt your lease had a variation in place to bring in this permit system. Your lease will likely have a "quiet enjoyment" clause for your demised space and the common areas and having to fight a PPC/MA just to park would breach that. Your lease has supremacy of contract, but I do agree it's worth keeping cool and not parking there (and hence getting PCNs) for a couple months just so that the PPC doesn't get blinded by greed and go nuclear on you if you have 4 or 5 PCNs outstanding. At your next AGM, bring it up that the parking controls need to be removed and mention the legal reasons why. One reason is that under S37(5b) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987,  more than 75% of leaseholders and/or the landlord would have needed to agree, and less than 10% opposed, for the variation to take place. I highly doubt a ballot even happened before the PPC was bought in so OPS even being there is unlawful, breaching the terms of your lease. In this legal sense,  the communal vote of the "directors" of the freehold company would have counted for ONE vote of however many flats there are (leases/tenants) + 1 (landlord). It's going to be interesting to see where this goes.  
  • 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

HELP NEEDED - parking ticket fine - Baliffs reject my vunerable household plea


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4103 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

Bump. Don't know the answer, so just bumping to top of the pile.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I appreciate all your help

- I'm against the ticking clock now to sort this.

 

Bottom line is that I will only be able to resolve this if they accept my vunerable household plea

(which Garland has already implied I dont from his letter - I cant believe this - my poor 3 year old has had to witness all this

- everytime the door knocks he says 'monsters' (which we all know they are but to hear my little boy saying it is heartbreaking

 

- also when they have been walking around my house lokoing in through the windows when I havent answered the door

- its just not right

- we have all suffered

- if my car goes thats it

- I am literally in the middle of nowhere

- no buses, anything -

 

my kids go to school 14 miles away -

how would I get them to school?)

 

I am on income support and barely have the funds to put oil in the heating tank.

I'm sorry to go on but I have truely had enough.

 

The other way is to try and find flaws in their fees or conduct which I dont know is possible.

 

Thats why I appreciate all your help.

 

I said to the baliffs today I would be having the fees scrutinized by the county court

but they didnt give a damn and just said carry on

but we want the money or we are taking the car.

 

I simply cannot hide the car - I am surrounded by farmers fields and this is not an option. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally, I would not suggest this, but I feel you may have no choice but to apply to the county court for an injunction against the council and Excel

under Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

 

Under normal circumstances, you would give notice, but, where necessary, you can apply for an injunction ex parte (without notice).

 

I'm attaching the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and Court Form P39CH.

 

You will need to name the local authority as the First Defendant and Excel Civil Enforcement Ltd as the Second Defendant.

 

You will, probably, have to ask the court to restrain both local authority and Excel until such time as they have addressed your vulnerable status.

 

The local authority should not be putting you in a position where you could end up in a worse position and possibly put your health and safety at risk.

 

As you say, you live in an isolated location and I wouldn't mind betting you need your car to get to your GP.

 

It's rare to have to do this, but if the local authority and Excel won't listen to reason, sometimes, measures such as this are necessary.

pf39ch_e.doc

Protection from Harassment Act 1997.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, just one last question - do I lodge this with the court local to the Local Authority or can I lodge it at my local court. And is there a fee payable that you know of? Do I have to advise the bailiff company and the LA of my actions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the judge said you should have had your mail re-directed shows that he never took into consideration all the facts and based on that you should be able to lodge an appeal. To the best of my limited knowledge there is no law that states you should have your mail re-directed when you move house. If you notified every one of the change of address, why would you have your mail re-directed anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Pipwri,

 

We need to see just how much Excel are overcharging before going any further. Could you please list the following -

 

Original PCN Charge

Uplift and Court Fee (This is where the fine increases when not paid within 14 days)

Number of Visits Excel have made

Details of any levy/levies

 

From this information, it will be much clearer how much Excel has overcharged and what will be the most appropriate course of action to take.

 

For your information, the fee for obtaining a prohibitory injunction is £175. However, as you are on benefits, you can get this remitted. I am attaching Form EX160 which will tell you how much you would have to pay if you have to apply for an injunction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks you so much OB - I will list the fees that I have been charged:

ORIGINAL PCN FEE = £70.00 although this would be reduced to £35.00 if paid within 14 days. I am not in receipt of any paperwork directly relating to the original PCN issued by Pembrokeshire County Council, however I have made enquiries into the parking fees they charge and this sum is what they charge.)

 

The WARRANT SUM quoted on Excel's paperwork is £82.00. (From the paperwork I have received from Excel there is no mention of the original PCN charge - is this included in the Warrant sum or addition?)

 

In total there have been four visits that have been charged for BUT the first of those visits was made to my previous adress where of course no-one was living and still isn't.

 

The levy/fee details I have are as follows:

11/4/12 Letter Charge £13.44

15/5/12 Attendance to remove fee £114.00

15/5/12 Attend to Levy fee £33.60

12/6/12 Attend to levy second visit £68.33

16/7/12 Attend to levy third visit 72.08

1/8/12 Attend to remove fee £114.00

 

Please note that the first knowledge of any of this matter whatsoever (I didnt even know a PCN had been slapped on my car) was on the bailiffs vist on 12th June 2012 when I came home to the red letter so I cant see how they can charge for going to the wrong address.

 

OB, I have been to see my GP today who is going to write me a letter supporting my vunerable household plea. I am going to send it to both the bailiffs and the LA to see if that can bring any further weight to my case. In the meantime, thanks again for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following was written by Tomtubby this afternoon and possibly some of it is applicable to yourself.

 

"It is a shame that you had not pursued the appeal to the local authority but this is now in the past and hopefully, you will know better next time.

 

The fees are worrying.

 

Firstly, the statutory fees allow for a 1st visit to be calculated at 28% of the amount of the pcnlink3.gif at £202. This would be approx £56.56. To calculate the 2nd visit, you would need to add £202 and £56.56 and again apply 28%. I calculate that the 2nd visit fee should therefore be around £72.40.

 

If a bailifflink3.gif were to charge an "attending to remove" fee then firstly, the intention MUST BE REAL. In other words, by charging £175, the bailifflink3.gif SHOULD be arriving "tooled up" to remove the goods. It is very worrying if a bailifflink3.gif were to charge an ATR fee without 1st knowing whether there are any goods belonging to the debtor that can be removed!!!

 

It is for this reason that it should be expected that the bailiff had FIRST levied upon goods.

 

Lets assume that the bailiff has previously levied upon goods....payment has not been forthcoming as agreed then the bailiff can attend with the intention of removing the goods and he may then charge an "attending to remove" fee ( which the regulations clearly state must be REASONABLE.

 

In this particular case the bailiff is charging £175 for "attending to remove". I am at a loss to understand how it is possible for Task Enforcement to then attempt to charge an "aborted removal fee" of £195 !!

 

By charging £175 the bailiff must attend ready to remove items and it goes without saying that the type of vehicle that he would need to bring with him must be suitably equipped for this purpose.

 

Lastly, if a bailiff is attempting to charge a fee for an "aborted removal" then you are legally entitled to write to NSL ( who own TASK Enforcement) or the instructing local authority and to request a copy of an invoice from the relevant removal company addressed to Task Enforcement as evidence that a removal contractor had been booked......and details of when the contractor was cancelled. Naturally, Task Enforcement would need to provide supporting evidence that they had paid the contractor !!!"

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hello again,

 

just to give you an update - I visited my GP and she wrote a letter saying that my health was severly affected and asking for enforcement action to be ceased.

 

I forwarded this to Excel and the council and have heard nothing until this morning 07.45am.

 

A new company Proserve were threatening to clamp a car in my drive that doesnt belong to me.

 

The person who it belonged to went out and showed the log book but the enforcement guy wouldnt accept this.

 

I went out and said he should do a dvla check but he said he didnt need to.

He said that the V5 didnt show the legal owner just the registered keeper.

The car is genuinely not mine and my friend then proceedded to drive his car out the way but didnt realise the clamp was in place.

 

The car moved ok though but caused damage to the wheel.

In the end the police were called and didnt want o get involved but to cut a long story short

I have had to part with £50 to send Proserve on there way as an emergency measure.

 

My point is can they legally clamp somenone elses car?

 

No levy was signed or anything.

I have had enough where do I go from here.

I recorded on my camera a conversation between me and the bailiff

- he said they didnt have to make a levy and he could just take the car

- is this right.

 

And as this is a new company surely they cannot charge for the previous bailiffs fees and charges.

 

Wouldnt it go to a fresh slate with the charges?

 

I asked the bailiff to get him to email me the breakdown of costs which I have now received and they have indeed charged a levy fee,

van fee of £240 admin costs £60 amongst other costs.

 

Please guys, can anyone steer me in the right direction.

 

In the end the police had to take my children to school

- I mean, how bad is that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car owner could send a letter before action giving an estimate of the repair cost giving them 7 days to pay, before county court action is taken against te council and proserve jointly, Formal Complaint to council copied to proserve stating about the bailiff illegally levying a third party vehicle so the associated fees must be removed.

 

Don't worry others will be along soon

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

Proserve...do not appear to be anything other than debt collectors...they are not registered at Companies House as bailiffs.....I think you will find they have no rights to seize a paper cup let alone clamp a car belonging to a third party? You need to set up a paper trail and start by writing to them (copy in the LA)

and ask for a breakdown of their fees, copy of the clamping order, copy of the warrant will do for starters...the reply should be interesting???

pepsie

Link to post
Share on other sites

opps naughty

they are NOTHING like a bailiff

 

NO LEGAL POWERS AT ALL.

 

are you SURE this WAS to do with the CTAX issue

 

if you filmed and recorded it

 

you need to show it to a police inspector

if he claimed to be a bailiff

arrestable offense

 

impersonating a member of the legal services

 

dx

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

who didn't search the name properly......

 

 

seems ok sadly

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

Name & Registered Office:

PROSERVE ENFORCEMENT SOLUTIONS LIMITED

UNIT 1 CLAYDON BUSINESS PARK

GREAT BLAKENHAM

IPSWICH

UNITED KINGDOM

IP6 0NL

Company No. 08066641

 

 

spacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gif Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 11/05/2012

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC):

None Supplied

Accounting Reference Date: 31/12

Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)

Next Accounts Due: 30/09/2013

Last Return Made Up To:

Next Return Due: 08/06/2013

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify - the one piece of paper he gave me lists them at Somerset House, 30 Wynnstay Road, Colwyn Bay LL29 8NB

 

no companies house details and only the baliffs telephone number and a fax number.

 

It states the amount due of £599.68.

 

I have to nip out now but I really appreciate your help guys I am at my wits end

 

- I cant give up on this and will be back online later.

 

Thanks everyone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and just briefly,

 

when I asked for a breakdown of their costs

when he was at my house he said that would have to come from the office

and they wouldnt be able to do it until later.

 

Miraculously when I said to him, 'well you wouldnt pay for something if you didnt know what it was for'

 

he phone his company and they said they would waiver the attendance to remove charge and the bill dropped to £431.00.

 

My point is that surely they are only able to go for the warrant amount and their first visit fee and if this is £431.00

then surely the queen must be coming to pick up my vehicle!

 

Incidently he wouldnt show me ANY of the paperwork he had and implied to the police officers in attendance that he had a high court writ to collect the £599.

 

He was one of the bad guys who definately give the industry a bad name.

 

I will get my friend to file a complaint but where can I go now with this

- there are a number of wrongdoings on his part.

 

They obviously are not taking into account my letter from my GP about my vunerable household plea

and I will contact my MP to look into this if he will.

 

Should I contact the council to see what they have to say for themselves.

 

I feel they should have at least acknowledged receipt of the letter from GP that I sent them 2 months ago or informed me that they were instruction alternative enforcement agents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify - the one piece of paper he gave me lists them at Somerset House, 30 Wynnstay Road, Colwyn Bay LL29 8NB

 

I am going to Colwyn Bay tomorrow, i will look at that address to see if it is a legit office or an accommodation address.

 

I would ask the council what is going on

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 a true gem you are brassnecked - yes the address is as you stated above. I dont know if it is any coincidence but i seem to recall that excel civil enforcement are in that vicinity too - would it possible they are one and the same just t/as different names. Incidently it was excel that first took on this recovery before proserve just got involved. x

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a true gem you are brassnecked - yes the address is as you stated above. I dont know if it is any coincidence but i seem to recall that excel civil enforcement are in that vicinity too - would it possible they are one and the same just t/as different names. Incidently it was excel that first took on this recovery before proserve just got involved. x

Excel are on Conway Road, Wynnstay Road is mainly solicitors offices, in Colwyn bay, and 30 Wynnstay Road is Edward Hughes Solicitors, so they could be using the solicitors as the registered company address, or even have an accomodation office there.

 

Contact the council and tell them that their agent proserve were attempting to clamp a vehhicle belonging to a third party, and start a Formal complaint regarding their ignoring vulnerability, and the attempts to levy a car not belonging to yourself, you could mention the LGO and the Report into Blaby council regarding this very thing.

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 emailed the council asking for him to send me the official complaints procedures as well as detailing the unlawful clamping of a third party vehicle and he responded by saying that the forms are on pembrokeshire council website and that he has written to his bailiff firm and will respond to defend their actions. I also note after my research that the previous bailiff firm sent an uncertified bailiff to my house in October last year - this guy only got his certificate at the end of december

Edited by pipwri
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...