Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have received a PCN from Euro Car Parks for MFG - Esso Cobham - Gravesend. I was completely unaware that there was any such limit for parking and always considered this to be a service station. I stopped there to use the toilet, have a coffee and made a couple of work calls. I have read the previous topics on this location which suggest I can ignore this and ECP will not take legal action. The one possible complication is that the vehicle is leased by my employer so I do not want to involve them with the associated reminders and threatening letters. The PCN was first issued to the leasing company Arval who have notified ECP of the hiring company. I have attached a copy of the PCN Notice to Hirer with details removed as per instructions. What options do I have or should I just pay the PCN promptly at the reduced rate of £60? img20240424_23142631.pdf
    • What you have uploaded is a letter with daft empty threats from third-party paper tigers.  Just ignore it. What we need to see is the original invoice you received last October or November.
    • Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of  the original  PCN that they sent to the Hirer  along with your hire agreement documents. Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include  all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer.  Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference. Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper.  You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.  
  • 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

WARNING !!! Bailiff fees: Westminster....EQUITA Ltd and CAPITA Ltd.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4047 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

.

.

 

From the posts on the forum and enquiries that we receive there is little doubt that bailiffs (many times with the agreement of the local authorities) are charging fees that are frankly illegal.

 

Almost always...debtors are forced to pay either because of threatening behaviour by the bailiffs or more often....ignorance of the fee scale.

 

The public really ought to be aware of the scale of the abuse to the fees scale and worryingly, the way in which this is frequented by bailiffs working on behalf of local authorities that contract out their council tax enforcement to "back office" providers such as CAPITA Ltd.

 

As most frequent posters to this forum will know....in almost all cases where CAPITA Ltd are the "back office" providers...the Contract to provide bailiff services is strangely awarded to EQUITA Ltd. This is a very common scenario and in fact, affects two of the largest local authorities in the Country.....Birmingham City Council and Westminster Council.

 

 

For anyone new to this forum......Equita Ltd are owned by Capita Ltd.

 

Approx 10 days ago we received an enquiry from a sole trader who has a small office in Westminster and a Liability Order had been issued against his business for arrears of Non Domestic Rates in late Feb 2013 March and payment required by 6th March. He contacted Westminster approx 4 days late and and was told that the account had been referred to EQUITA Ltd. Strangely, he was even given the name and contact details for the bailiff !!

 

As mentioned above, he was just a few days late in making payment !!

 

He contacted the bailiff on the telephone to make the payment in full of approx £3,000 and was staggered to be told that there must have been an error and the amount needed to clear the debt was £750 more that he thought.

 

It was at this stage that the debtor spoke with me and I advised him to speak with the bailiff to ask whether any visits had been made. The bailiff confirmed.....no visit had yet been made.

 

My advice.....was to make payment of the full amount to Westminster Council and to write a letter of complaint. Predictably of course...the complaint to Westminster was answered by Capita Ltd and the following is taken from their reply:

 

Equita Ltd is indeed part of the Capita Group however both areas of the business have separate Contracts with the City of Westminster which are monitored. To date, no evidence of a conflict of interest has arisen.

 

I note your comments with regards to Mr xxx and the bailiff fees (of £750).

 

Equita Ltd has advised me that the amount quoted to you was the POTENTIAL figure that WOULD have been due IF THE BAILIFF HAD ATTENDED and Levied on goods with the intention to remove if payment was not made. The case has now been returned by Equita Ltd and the balance is now nil.

 

How many other small businesses and individuals have paid this fee without question !!!!

 

If this is how local authorities are treating small companies is it any wonder that we have businesses closing at such a rapid rate......

Edited by ims21
Link to post
Share on other sites

In some other spheres of business , directors of Capita and Equita would go to jail for insider dealing perhaps.

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

Bailiff fees are outrageous and they are often illegal and made up as they go along. If you get a fee from a bailiff then they should be able to provide a comprehensive transparent list of all of their charges and all charges have to be regulated. They should not be allowed to charge for visits not made or invent charges or hype them but they do. I do not know rules for commercial but for homes do not let them into the property even to use the loo. They cannot come in unless they have made peaceful access before. They can apparently come in through open door or window, not a closed or locked one. They cannot break in and they cannot put foot in door and force you to let them in. You do have rights. Some bailiffs play fair but most do not and Westminster were on that programme about them and they have been subject to several complaints of late about fees. There must be someone who governs bailiff activity and charging surely? If there is, then make a complaint in writing. Do not deal with them at door or on phone and if coming to an agreement then say you will contact the office in writing with your proposals. Make agreement you can afford in writing only. Bailiffs are scary people, but it is all for show! If possible film them if they come to the front door or to the business premises!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see if instead of complaining initially about bailiff fees, ask the Council first to confirm the bailiff fees and if they are payable now. If they say yes, then it would be much more difficult for them to turn round and say that some of their charges are potential ones. Hopefully that would lay the lie and that in these situations the fees are fraudulent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...