Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good evening DX100   Here is a draft of my response to the court order.  I would be obliged if you could review it and avise me if I am on the right track.   Defendant Statement of Position in Response to the Order of the Sheriff   The defendant suffered Severe Depression illness almost 12 months prior to the closer of the Bank account. HBOS was made aware of the defendant illness.  A Medical Certificate dated 15 Sept 2017 was handed over to the bank as a proof. (A copy of the report will be submitted exclusively to the court review) The defendant, with the support of her ex-partner, sought a resolution from the OC regarding the escalation of her OD account, which it was mostly formed of extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. HBOS agreed to reduce the outstand OD sum to £XXX and closed the account. The defendant is confident that her ex-partner has settled the agreed sum with OC, but not absolutely certain, considering her health state at that time. She has been actively trying to reach for her ex-partner for documented evidence, but the fact that, we believe, he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad and communication has been, to put it politely, very difficult due to the nature of his deployment. As the court is aware, the defendant has been trying to retrieve the data of her dealing with/from OC which it should reflect history of the above.  The defendant has already written twice to HBOS, as well as visiting her bank branch, on 01 March 2021, in person demanding the requested data.  HBOS promised to send the data to her as soon as they can. In addition to the above reasoning and contend, the defendant refute the claimants claim is owed or payable.  Due to punitive and extortionate fees the facility became untenable. Any alleged balance  claimed will consist totally of default penalties, punitive charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety and any alleged balance was due to punitive and extortionate charges . It is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-               a.    Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and Conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.               b.    Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.               c.    Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and justify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.               d.    Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.               e.    Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.     10.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Same thing. The fact that you declared £4.99 means that is the extent of any reasonable foreseeably consequence. Just go for that small amount. If they cause any problems then you can have a laugh when they spend many times more than what you're claiming in order to resist you. In future, when you contract with somebody – you need to understand that effectively it is an exchange of the reasonable expectations which you create in each other by your agreement.  
    • Current situation: contacted myhermes website's robot talk about the parcel and waiting for their email response. Thanks @BankFodder   I understand that if I were going to pursue under contract law, £4.99 would be the amount that I am entitled for compensate. How about if I were going to pursue this matter under tort - negligence? Would this allow me to pursue them according the true value of the items?
    • Hi UncleB, thanks for responding. I did call them back and it appears to be hit & miss with Devitt and dependent upon which Customer service agent you get.   Spoke with a very pleasant lady and told her that I, like them recorded all calls and gave date time of call and specific time at which a green card was stipulated in order for me to take out the policy.   *Two days later a hard copy of the green card landed on my doorstep. *Free of charge too.
    • Have you received a Parking Ticket? - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group   please complete the above then we'll be best placed to advise further but the bottom line is no and don't ever appeal.    
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 25 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2865 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

Hi, I'm trying to resolve this issue with a PCN that has gone to Bailiffs

for parking without a Blue Badge issue,

(because the BB fell from the dashboard) on behalf of my partner

and i would like to know if anyone is able to clarify

 

1- Who has the actual responsibility over this PCN under the law...

Is it the Owner, Keeper or Driver?

 

and

 

2- point me towards the legislation and/or case law that supports this?

 

I am asking this because

 

3- i was wondering if it is still possible

to submit a late TE9 appeal to the court

on the basis that the notice to owner and/or PCN

was never actually served to the owner?

 

4- And has anyone tried this before?

 

 

Thanks in advance for the help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to the correct forum

If I have helped you please leave me a message by clicking my star

 

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI

Read Here

3. Reclaim Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial

Read Here

5. Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

6. Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

7. Thinking of a Full & Final Settlement?

Read Here

 

How To Upload Documents To Cag

Instructions

 

I DON'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM BUT IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

 

 

 

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are perhaps inappropriate for posting on the main forum. Site rules explain this in more detail.

 

If you receive a private message which you consider abusive, derogatory or otherwise inappropriate, whether it be about yourself or other members, please report it using the "report" icon

 

If you are approached (or have been approached) by private message with an offer of help "Off Forum" or with a view to asking you to visit another website, please inform the site team via the report icon, especially if this results in a request for a fee. Remember, this is for your own protection

my views are my own and are given in good faith to try and help people. Please seek professional advice on your case if necessary

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
the NTO and then the Charge Certificate and then the Order for Recovery.

Were none of these received?.

 

I guess so. she only gave me the Order for Recovery and the Letter sent by the bailiffs,

but i have no reason to think she didn't received the other ones, so i am assuming she got them.

 

basically the problem here is that she apparently ignored this

and now she's asking me to help her out

i think she could have appealed this on the basis that she has a Blue badge

and it was displayed correctly when we left the car,

but must have fallen somehow as it was on the floor of the car when we got back

and the parking ticket was issued...

 

Consequently, i am trying to explore on whether if we could perhaps

get this reverted back to a stage where i can

file an appeal on her behalf about the blue badge

which is what she should have done in the first place...

by submitting the TE9 claiming that the actual owner of this car, which is me,

or the driver at the time (wichever is the ultimately liable one)

never received a Notice to Owner regarding this.

 

The RK is liable,

how about the owner?

 

I phoned the tribunal and they sent me an email

for me to submit a late TE9, so i was wondering

if this is a valid legal option

but i have no idea what is the law and case law regarding this.

 

Is there any possibility we can do that?

and can someone point me to the relevant legislation and case law regarding this

so that i can have a better idea on how to proceed?

Edited by skegnar
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not the case that the RK is liable, nor that the owner is liable. The person liable is the person named on the Notice to Owner. If that person is NOT the owner, they can contest liability during the 28 days available to make representations. Once that has passed, they remain liable.

 

Only that person, who I gather is not you, can file a TE9 or engage in the appeals route in any way. The hard fact is, assuming she did get the documents, she remains liable and an after-the-event argument that she is not the legal owner is unlikely to succeed. However if she wants to try and absolve herself from liability, she will need to file the forms, not you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for your reply

 

Only that person, who I gather is not you, can file a TE9 or engage in the appeals route in any way.

However if she wants to try and absolve herself from liability, she will need to file the forms, not you.

 

She asked me to help on this, so i am the one doing the research and the work for her

and she will be the one signing and submitting the forms.

 

 

It is not the case that the RK is liable, nor that the owner is liable. The person liable is the person named on the Notice to Owner. If that person is NOT the owner, they can contest liability during the 28 days available to make representations. Once that has passed, they remain liable.(...)

 

The hard fact is, assuming she did get the documents, she remains liable and an after-the-event argument that she is not the legal owner is unlikely to succeed.

 

I fully understand this may be a long shot now... but i wanted to know if this was an actual option,

because at this point i don't see any other option apart from paying £96 to the bailiffs.

 

Yes, I know that at the moment they are considering her to be liable.

What i want is to understand if a RK receiving a PCN/NTO on a car owned or driven by someone else

is able to identify and thus instruct them to pursue the relevant party

thus passing the liability to either the driver or the owner,

whomever is responsible.

 

When i mean responsible i mean who is ultimately responsible according to the law...

I know they send the paperwork to the RK, but using common sense

i presume the RK is not responsible according to the law on parking offenses,

but either the owner or the driver.

So if that is the case i wanted to know which one is responsible.

 

The thing is that there is no registry for Ownership and they always assume the RK is the owner,

hence why they send the NTO to the RK.

 

I presume the RK is only responsible if and only

the RK is actually also the owner and only if the driver is not identified by the RK,

but i have no way to know if this is the case or not because i don't know what is the applicable legislation and case law,

so at the moment this is just a supposition on my part,

hence my request for help on what is the applicable legislation and case law

so that i can have a look.

Edited by skegnar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the Road Traffic Act 1991 the responsibility for any PCN rests with the owner and the owner is presumed to be the registered keeper of the vehicle as recorded at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), since usually these are the same person.

 

I've no idea whether TEC will accept an out of time statement at this late stage

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

 

Do you know if there is any template or relevant thread

around regarding similar situations

when the RK was not the owner

that i can look into, in order to to get some ideas on what to put on the late TE9

to submit to TEC asap?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you discuss this situation, you make reference to who is "responsible". It's not a question of responsibility - it's a question of liability. Liability for the debt rests with the person named on the bailiff warrant, who in the absence of any action on their part, will be the person named on the NTO.

 

You friend is named on the NTO and, one must assume, on the warrant - and so she is liable for the debt.

 

In terms of challenging it, an out of time statutory declaration is the only way, and that is likely to be rejected anyway, as there is no reason for it being out of time.

 

Sorry, but I do think you're clutching at straws.

 

Try posting on the bailiff section of the forum - you might get a different angle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the help so far

 

i'll gladly clutch at any straws,

since at this stage it is either pay up the £96 to the Bailiffs hoping they won't try any dirty tricks

or go for the long shot.

 

She's saying i have to be the one who pays up the £96 now

because i own the car and i said i would look into it and do a bit of research in order to help her a while ago,

(about 1 week before she got the letter from the bailiffs)

but was too busy with work, so i was unable to actually do it for her

for the last couple of weeks

so she figures i am now responsible for the bailiffs being brought into the situation....

and quite frankly i would prefer to pay up the £96 than to start a stupid money argument with her over this...

 

so its either the long shot TE7/TE9 or cough up the money...

hence why i wanted to know more about this OOT TE7/TE9 submission process...

and the responsibility issue...

Case law... and if there are some examples and/or templates around...

to see if i could put up the best possible defense for her

and increase the likelihood of me not being the one who gets burned at the end of this process...

 

although i have an annoyingly strong feeling

that its what is going to happen...

one way or another...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we clarify that its your car (you own it) but the RK is someone else? Or was it the fact that your partner is the BB holder and she was using the car at the time the PCN was issued? You already confirm that the BB was not correctly displayed so one way or another, the PCN needed to be dealt with and as such, either you or your partner will have to pay.

 

Can't see what the problem is TBH.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no case law, really. It's a common situation and crops up countless times.

 

You cannot complete the TE7/TE9 if it is not your debt - and it isn't. She will have to. There is a very important section where she has to explain why the application is out of time and was not dealt with sooner - and the council will accept or reject the application solely based on the strength of that information. So, you can see what is likely to happen - but nothing to stop her going for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the car i indeed mine.

I bought it with my own money years ago,

and i got the seller to sign a document of sale with my name on it, which i still have, to prove it,

as i was not comfortable to give all that money away

without anything written to confirm it was indeed sold to me by that person.

 

she is just the RK, as i bought the car for us both to use it but she loved the car

so she used to drive it around up to a couple of years ago,

but since then it was mostly me who drove it due to her disability.

 

regarding the BB it was correctly displayed when we left the car, but it fell to the floor somehow,

hence why the PCN.

Edited by skegnar
Link to post
Share on other sites
You cannot complete the TE7/TE9 if it is not your debt - and it isn't. She will have to.

 

Yes, you are absolutely right. I apologize if i was either unclear or confusing.

I never intended to submit anything such as e.g. the TE9/TE7 myself, or under my name.

I meant SHE will submit any paperwork under her name. I am doing part of the research on the situation on her behalf though

in order to assist her on deciding on how to proceed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just had a word with her over the phone,

looks like a bailiff was there today and apparently has put a paper through the door

saying he has put a levy on MY CAR

for an alleged debt under her name...

 

this is definitively getting me involved now... grrrrr!!! :mad2:

 

Can you advise on how to proceed... ?

 

any help would be greatly appreciated...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice would be what you don't want to hear - which is that she should pay it off before anything else happens. She is liable for it, and if she ignored the notices which were sent to her, there isn't really a way out of that.

 

If you prove to the bailiffs that the car is yours and not hers, they may agree to leave it alone. Likewise, if she leaves a Blue Badge on display, they shouldn't touch it. However the debt won't go away - it just means they can't grab the car to force payment, but could still seek to enter her home and take goods. Do you really want to play cat and mouse with them for some indefinite period, while they continue to add on ever more charges?

 

If it were me, I would accept that I forfeited the appeals process and just pay and be done. But it's up to you. The only other option is some sort of appeal to the council about the debtor being disabled - which might mean they class her as vulnerable and make some special arrangement. Not sure. As I suggested, if you go onto the bailiff section of this site, you might get some advice on how best to play them.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...