Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Should this ever happen to me, I will make an appeal at the first stage to avoid any problems that may occur at a later stage. Although, any individual in a similar position should decide for themselves what they think is an appropriate course of action. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4144 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

Hello and Thanks for Reading

 

I got into Some Trouble with CT been Self Empolyed it been a hard few years

 

I had 3 Libailty orders

 

1) for £300 odd Pounds - Cleared

2) for £1200 Currently at £800 -Been trying to clear this ( this is this years CT)

3)1700 Which is last years that i could not pay

 

The Bailiffs have a walking Order for my Property

 

They have been round a few time

 

Today they came with a letter giving 24Hrs to Remove goods

 

I advised i dont have the money and he advised he would be back tomorrow with a lock smith as i advised he could come in

 

While he was hear he phones do arrange a locksmith

 

Any advice would be helpfull

Link to post
Share on other sites

bailiffs lie they will not be back tomorrow with a locksmith

 

have the bailiffs had entry to your property

 

they are claiming a levy can you list the goods please

what paperwork have the bailiffs left

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they have been into the property ( big error on my part )

 

The good listed are

 

An Xbox

An Tv Flat screen 32

A clock

A cabinet and a sofa

 

I have treid to contest the levy with the CT office and they deemed it to fair

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems to me their is insufficiant on the levy to cover the debt and costs

i think he is using threat tactics

 

contact council again and ask do they think the value of goods listed is sufficiant to cover the debt

remind them they are equally responsible for the bailiff actions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so we have a £800 debt and a £1700 debt

 

bet they have charged you two lots of fees and on the same day

 

levy will not cover the debt the sofa does it still have the fire safety tags on it do you have other seating little or no value

 

a clock little value unless it is antique or a expensive one

Tv they around £200 new so little value

Cabinet unless it is solid wood wont be worth much

 

The council make up there own rules should be a formal complaint to council copy in local MP

This is going to take a little wile wont be sorted over night!

 

At this point the bailiffs are a long way from forcing entry

Bailiffs lie

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sofa probley dose have the tag on it somewhere never looked

 

The tv is worth about a 100 tops

 

The Cabinet and clock worthless (to them)

 

As they have been in my property before , this is the issue .

 

As they said when they have entry to remove goods they will make a new list > although as we are moving soon there isent anything else in here Just kids stuff and my Home office

Link to post
Share on other sites

AS for breaking into to your home - the bailiff has to first gain peaceful entry. Most SLA's/Contracts/Code of Practice between Councils & bailiffs usually insists that where a bailiff gains peaceful entry and seizes goods, later goes back to remove same & is denied entry makes them have to ask:

 

a - the Council for permission to force entry and if they agree

 

b - go back to the Magistrates Court to gain an Order allowing them to do this, and if they agree

 

c - has to write to you giving a date & time when they will attend

 

d - only then if they are refused could they force entry

 

Orders such as these are only granted in exceptional cases - usuallywhere there is a history of wilful refusal to pay. You will be a long way from this scenario.

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As they said when they have entry to remove goods they will make a new list > although as we are moving soon there isent anything else in here Just kids stuff and my Home office

 

They making there own rules up any levy should be enough to satisfy the debt

 

clearly what they have does ................................NOT

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what i thought and i wrote a long letter to RD

 

I am trying to find the response as they stated they work on a 2 teir basis

 

Basically the first vist vist then the removal bailiff will remove the goods and make a new list in all draws and cuboard etc

 

I will try and dig it out

 

Ive been paying the CT direct weekly as much as i can as per advice on here . ,but seems to have stepped up a level

Link to post
Share on other sites

when bailiffs re attend do not let them in do you have a car?

 

it will be vulnerable to bailiffs if you do

If you exhaust council complaint procedure you can go to the local government ombudsmen but unfortunately it can be a slow process

 

You do not need to speak to the bailiff you could always hope it is raining and wave to him out the window:wink:

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good advice guys, you could also film the bailiff when he returns through the letterbox if you don't want to open the door, to capture any threats he m,ay utter, you don't need HIS permission to film HIM on YOUR premises no matter what garbage he spouts about permission and data protection. The levy could be argued as merely to garner fees for the bailiff as it is on insufficient goods, this could form part of a Formal Complaint to head of Revenues CEO, council lerader etc.

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

 

As they said when they have entry to remove goods they will make a new list > although as we are moving soon there isent anything else in here Just kids stuff and my Home office

 

Sounds to me as if:

a - they are reading this thread

b - they realise they have not seized enough goods - well they had their chance so tough.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they have been into the property ( big error on my part )

 

The good listed are

 

An Xbox

An Tv Flat screen 32

A clock

A cabinet and a sofa

 

I have treid to contest the levy with the CT office and they deemed it to fair

 

The council would never deem any levy unfair unless you can show the grounds the levy is not valid.

 

You can argue the levy is not compliant becase the items listed are of insignificant value compared to the debt being recovered.

 

Did the bailiff use the Form 7 for listing an inventory of goods ? if so then that disqualifies the levy. It should be a form 9. A common mistake.

 

Ditto if the goods listed are not yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The council would never deem any levy unfair unless you can show the grounds the levy is not valid.

 

You can argue the levy is not compliant becase the items listed are of insignificant value compared to the debt being recovered.

 

Did the bailiff use the Form 7 for listing an inventory of goods ? if so then that disqualifies the levy. It should be a form 9. A common mistake.

 

Ditto if the goods listed are not yours.

 

the goods are mine, i will have a look at the form Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside if they took the sofa would there be sufficient seating left to seat ALL family members? Does the sofa still have it's original fire retardent compliance labels still attached? If not it would be illegal for the bailiff to sell it at auction, the bailiff commits a criminal offence if he does auction it without the original labels attached.

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

As an aside if they took the sofa would there be sufficient seating left to seat ALL family members? Does the sofa still have it's original fire retardent compliance labels still attached? If not it would be illegal for the bailiff to sell it at auction, the bailiff commits a criminal offence if he does auction it without the original labels attached.

 

 

There are 2 living rooms

 

There is a Corner sofa in one , it dosent have the label on (or not one i can see)

 

And there is a Normal table with 4 chairs in the other

 

2 Adults a 10 years old and 5 year old

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...