Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
  • 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 
        • Like
      • 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

car towed away in Apr, letter from Bailiffs in Dec


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4129 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

HELP, my car been towed away ( and I assumed scrapped ) back in April this year - since I lost my job I couldn't afford to pay the fine and assumed at a time that it was the end of it. I have moved houses and was surprised to receive a letter yesterday from Rundles Bailiffs to claim 140 pounds in parking charges .

As per above- I was under the assumption that since the car has been towed away and I couldnt pay for its recovery that would be the end of the matter? What parking charges can be claimed at this stage and why ? I am also perplexed how did bailiffs managed to locate me at the new address since I didnt disclose it to anyone ( thought that is less of an issue at this point).

Your help and assistance would be much appreciated.

 

Jo- anne

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I've moved your post to the Bailiff Forum as it is probably more relevant. Did you ever pay the original ticket as this is what I suspect they are chasing? Having had the vehicle towed & subsequently relinquished ownership does not mean the ticket was ever scrapped.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

 

thanks for ur reply- no,not even sure there was an original ticket since i ve been out of london and when got back car was towed away . So , can i only assume that there must have been a ticket - is there anything I can do to contest the charges?

Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you start at the beginning as to how/why the car was removed would be better. I assume Rundles have a Warrant of Execution for this, you should ask them to see the Warrant & carefully check the address on it. If as I suspect it is your old address then apply to Traffic Enforcement Centre to have it revoked & re-issued.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi again and thanks for your reply ,

 

Just to clarify - my car been parked in the resident's parking space ( i had a permit at a time ) however it expired while I was out of London . Upon my return I have found out that my car been towed away - I didn't have the funds to pay the fine and assumed that it has been scrapped . I have heard absolutely nothing about the matter however moved ( locally ) couple of months ago and in the beginning of this week received letter which said the following :

 

" The Enforcement of road traffic debts ( certificated bailiffs ) ( amendment )regulations 2003

"By the virtue of a warrant issued by the traffic enforcement centre at Northampton County court and with the authority of xxxxx Council we have been instructed to seize goods and chattels on the premises for an unpaid parking charge ".

 

It goes on a little bit longer along the same lines . What I don't quite understand is why I have not been contacted at my old address when the incident took place but instead got the letter in Dec claiming the unpaid amount ( which I was never made aware of in the first place ) ? As per your prev post - can I actually contest it and what would be the chance of having it revoked ( if any ) ?

 

Thanks a lot,

Jo - Anne.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly. you need to check with DVLA to establish who subsequently took possession of your car. A local authority cannot destroy a motor vehicle unless they can prove it is abandoned or they have lawful authority accorded to them by a court of law. You also need to find out who towed your car away. Until that information is in your possession, Rundles could be treading on unsafe ground legally, especially if the alleged warrant has been obtained in error or by perjury.

 

Surfer01, you are correct in what you say. If there are insufficient goods to cover the costs of a warrant, the bailiff should return the warrant to the LA marked Nula Bono (insufficient goods). If the bailiff doesn't, it can be alleged that the bailiff is attempting to obtain a financial advantage for himself and employers, i.e. garnering of fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if that quote is correct then the bailiff is substantially wrong. The reality is that ""By the virtue of a warrant issued by xxxxx Council" See CPR part 75.7. Bearing that in mind then the wording shown seems to me to clearly being in breach of S.135 (b) of the County Courts act 1984. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/28/section/135

Link to post
Share on other sites

And offences under Section 135, County Courts Act 1984 are indictable offences, which means police officers and the man and woman in the street have powers under Sections 124 and 124A, Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984, respectively, to arrest lying ****** certificated bailiffs in breach of said provision.

 

In fact, if you read what Rundles have said, it is 24-carat BS. Northampton issues a charge certificate and it is the local authority who issue the warrant.

 

Good bit of research, there, Lamma.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bumbles & co may well be on a sticky wicket, on a couple of counts then. Op check with the council as to what addresses the correspondence went to, if not to your current address maybe out of time to TEC, subject to whether any time limits have passed, which if allowed puts the bailiff, and the Council which is wholly liable in a bit of a dilemma imho

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

It is likely that damages are obtainable in my opinion.

 

Quite possibly if all correspondence went to another address, and bailiff flogged the car on

Damages for value of vehicle, and consequential loss?

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

It is possible that both the LA and Rundles and their towing contractor are all in the proverbial over this. Somebody needs to do some explaining, and fast, otherwise this could become Theft and Fraud by False Misrepresentation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning ,

 

And thanks for your replies everyone. I would be grateful if anyone could actually advise on the best course of action at this point - i.e . to pay the charge and than contest ( i really don't want anyone knocking on my doors to recover the charge ) or would I be better off contacting DVLA to establish what actually happened to a vehicle and than take things from there ?

Apologies for millions of questions but I have never been in that position before and really not sure what would be the best way of handling it .

 

Thanks a lot,

Jo- Anne

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW if a bailiff takes your vehicle and then flogs it, whose responsibility is it to notify the DVLA?

 

Bailiff and new keeper? It could go through several auction houses before DVLA would hear anything, like a case with a third party VW camper in for repair at a debtors address taken and flogged on unlawfully by Jacobs, the owner eventually got it back, but only with dire threats against Jacobs, who were very reluctant to do anything, they initially stonewalled and told lawful owner tough suck it down and stand the loss.

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

Sorry if I am being a bit "thick" here but I am curious as to why you had not made any enquiries since April as to who had taken your car or why?

 

Also, how old was the car?

 

Did you report the car as stolen?

 

Did you call TRACE?

 

I am assuming that all statutory notices had been sent to a previous address. I would suggest as a matter of urgency that you call the Traffic Enforcement Centre on 08457 045 007 and ask them to confirm the address on the warrant. Also ask them if any application has been made to amend the address. You can file an Out of Time witness statement and TEC will email the form to you.

 

Finally, have you called the company to establish whether your car has been sold or whether it is still in the car pound?

Please post back when you have contacted them. You will need the PCN number. Hopefully this will be on the letter from the bailiff and will consist of two digits followed by 8 numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, it needs to be established as to whoever towed your car away had lawful authority to do so. If this cannot be established, then whoever towed your car away is risking a potential court appearance for Theft and, possibly, Fraud by False Misrepresentation. How did you become aware of who towed your car away? You need to establish this first before do anything else. If someone has acted without lawful authority, the local authority is going to have to do some judicious backside-kissing if they are going to avoid legal consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I am being a bit "thick" here but I am curious as to why you had not made any enquiries since April as to who had taken your car or why?

 

Also, how old was the car?

 

Did you report the car as stolen?

 

Did you call TRACE?

 

I am assuming that all statutory notices had been sent to a previous address. I would suggest as a matter of urgency that you call the Traffic Enforcement Centre on 08457 045 007 and ask them to confirm the address on the warrant. Also ask them if any application has been made to amend the address. You can file an Out of Time witness statement and TEC will email the form to you.

 

Finally, have you called the company to establish whether your car has been sold or whether it is still in the car pound?

Please post back when you have contacted them. You will need the PCN number. Hopefully this will be on the letter from the bailiff and will consist of two digits followed by 8 numbers.

 

It seems that the OP had the car removed due to non payment of fine and thought that was the end of the matter. It now seems that when the car was sold off, there weren't enough funds to cover the debt and the bailiff has come back for more money. IMHO they should not have taken the car if it was not going to cover the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the OP had the car removed due to non payment of fine and thought that was the end of the matter. It now seems that when the car was sold off, there weren't enough funds to cover the debt and the bailiff has come back for more money. IMHO they should not have taken the car if it was not going to cover the debt.

 

The vehicle was towed for being in a residents area without a permit - it had expired. I assume the LA had it towed by one of their contractors and Rundles are now chasing the subsequent unpaid PCN.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The vehicle wa

s towed for being in a residents area without a permit - it had expired. I assume the LA had it towed by one of their contractors and Rundles are now chasing the subsequent unpaid PCN.

That would seem to be the scenario, Op had been away, motor gone in absence, as permit expired

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

Then where is the motor? Is it in a storage compound? Surely if they tow away a vehicle, they cannot dispose of ti without contacting the owner as no levy is in place?

 

I think there may be a provision where there is a residents parking scheme, for unauthorised/permitless motors to be towed, or if permit expired, did council consider it abandoned and removed it as such, was there road tax on it when it was removed? as a tax disc can be a presumption against abandonment?

 

We need Op to give a few more details.

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

Good evening everyone,

 

Well, to make it clear(er) - I didn't raise the concern since my car was an old Ford KA , 97 reg and in a way it was a relief to have it towed away at a time. However, at this stage - and I am not sure how the letter from bailiffs ( chasing unpaid PCN I assume) have reached me at my new address. As per tomtubby's suggestion I shall liaise with Traffic Enforcement Centre to get further information - however I have just taken a look at the letter from the bailiff and there appears to be absolutely no additional information regarding PCN - the only details are my car's reg number and bailiff reference.

Again, many thanks for your comment and suggestions -these are very much appreciated.

 

have a good evening,

Jo- Anne

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...