Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. 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. Can a PPC (claimant) 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.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
  • 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

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 EXCLUDES bailiffs !!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3719 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

The bailiff commits the crime of Fraud by False representation daily whenever they say they have the right to force entry, levy a third party car amongst other things. the problem is the police are so badly trained in this area the hapless coppers become a criminal themselves when they fall for the bailiffs speil, and assist them.

 

Due to tha amount of money involved and as it is councils or HMCS who are the creditor, it seems to allow the police to take a Nelson's eye view and say sorry guv it's civil.

 

Highly frustrating.

 

That said I'm in a unique position in that I could probably build up a database of instances where this is happening to scores and scores of people. Maybe evidence in a reasonable amount of numbers could change that, what do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Highly frustrating.

 

That said I'm in a unique position in that I could probably build up a database of instances where this is happening to scores and scores of people. Maybe evidence in a reasonable amount of numbers could change that, what do you think?

 

If there was a database with full details, and a synopsis as to where the law is breached in each case, it would be a nice dossier to dump on MOJ imho, given sufficient press coverage, they would have nowhere to hide

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

If there was a database with full details, and a synopsis as to where the law is breached in each case, it would be a nice dossier to dump on MOJ imho, given sufficient press coverage, they would have nowhere to hide

 

I'm going to have a think about this and see if it's something that might be doable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think much of the problem is down to education. Bailiffs have always depended on debtors poor understanding of the law regarding what they can and cannot do. Unfortunately that lack of knowledge also extends to the police.

 

It is not hard to understand why, the police are trained in criminal law of course. Perhaps when the simplified regulations which form part of the TCE bill are introduced it will make matters easier and remove the need for constantly having to refer to antiquated case law

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have a think about this and see if it's something that might be doable.

 

A good idea in theory but practice may make it unwieldy unless there is a set of parameters that can be adhered to. Each has to be taken on its own merits and of course each is different.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good idea in theory but practice may make it unwieldy unless there is a set of parameters that can be adhered to. Each has to be taken on its own merits and of course each is different.

 

I appreciate that, I'm thinking - just concentrate on certiciated bailiffs chasing council tax and PCNs and simply whether or not they are misleading people about fees. I can probably get a fair about of info about that given what I do for a living.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that, I'm thinking - just concentrate on certiciated bailiffs chasing council tax and PCNs and simply whether or not they are misleading people about fees. I can probably get a fair about of info about that given what I do for a living.

 

The only real proof can be taken from those that are committed in writing and who would decide which is right or wrong.. Even then they have to be given the chance of putting it right - after all how many "rare mistakes" or "admin errors" crop up.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I know.

 

What we need is for a test case. For sure I totally get that the statute allows the owner to be chased BUT I'm absolutely convinced a reasonable judge will still expect the claimant to prove that there was offer & acceptance + the desire for both parties to enter into legal relations and all that common law contract stuff.

 

There is proof this has been accepted and all aspects of a contract have been formed, albeit by a County Court judge. However, he still saw the 'fine' as a penalty which is a whole different aspect, especially where 'tickets' (invoices) are issued in free retail car parks. Where can the loss be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Yet again today I received another distressing email this time from a trainee solicitor as he too was persuaded to believe the nonsense on the internet that section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stops BAILIFFS from clamping his car at his property. He too took the "advice" of one particular website and "removed" the car clamp and stuck a daft notice on the car and on his house to advise the bailiff that he had removed the "implied right of access". The amount demanded at that time was approx £420. Unfortunately he had received all prior notices from the council but he had overlooked paying the debt.

 

On Tuesday afternoon bailiffs representing Waltham Forest located his vehicle by way of ANPR parked on a road and promptly removed the car to the pound. The amount now demanded had risen to £1024 which includes a "removal fee" and "damage to clamp fee of £250 !!!" together with "storage charges". His mother was forced to pay to avoid the car his car being sold this Thursday.

 

I sent him a copy of this link which makes it clear that section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act EXCLUDES bailiffs !!!

 

Thankfully give his position as a trainee solicitor he is looking at making complaints about the website for misleading the public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy hat on now.... could that site be maintained by a bailiff and hes giving out stuoid avice so he and his colleagues can get more cash?

 

 

Also, you would have thought that a trainee solicitor would have checked facts in full instead of believing what they read on the internet.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The website concerned is not run by bailiffs but like many sites these days that particular site encourage visitors to complete a varierty of questions using something called a "wizard" and when getting the the end of the set questions they are asked whether they would like to be referred to a "no win, no fee" solicitor !!!

 

The "trainee solicitor" has only been in training a few months and like other people, "believed" that the people behind the site were legal experts ( unlike him). This will be forming part of his complaint to the relevant regulatory bodies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The website concerned is not run by bailiffs but like many sites these days that particular site encourage visitors to complete a varierty of questions using something called a "wizard" and when getting the the end of the set questions they are asked whether they would like to be referred to a "no win, no fee" solicitor !!!

 

The "trainee solicitor" has only been in training a few months and like other people, "believed" that the people behind the site were legal experts ( unlike him). This will be forming part of his complaint to the relevant regulatory bodies.

 

Unfortunately the authorities are generally reluctant to pursue any dangerous advice given on forums, usually there will be a disclaimer somewhere which the adviser will rely on.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

One can but dream that this particular help forum (which does anything but help) will eventually have action taken against it, even if it is based in a different jurisdiction. Does that really preclude it from action in the UK? That poor trainee solicitor will be more cautious in future. How many more need to fall on this particular site's sword before it is removed? The people running it are liabilities.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes read this other forum, but if its the one im thinking of, its not the only one offering similar useless advice.

Are we not allowed to say the names though?, because no one ever mentions them by name!

None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mention the names, you are in effect giving them free advertising.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the websites concerned are mentioned, it boosts their Google ranking which is the last thing we want happening. I agree their treatment of CAG, in particular TT is disgraceful, but sometimes there really is something to be said about not sinking to their level.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet that site is ran by a bailiff who is trying to discredit reputable sites and cause people to get into more trouble, thereby increasing his profits.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet that site is ran by a bailiff who is trying to discredit reputable sites and cause people to get into more trouble, thereby increasing his profits.

.

.

The Consumer Action forum and me in particular are the subject of almost daily rants from that site and they do so in the mistaken belief that "apparently" as their site is based in Dubai that they are "immune" from either legal or any other action. In a very short while they will know different.

 

The site is not run by an "ex bailiff". In reality it is run by a Will Writer who merely has access to "Lexus Nexus" or another similar legal cases Library.

 

Reading extracts of legal cases does not mean you are a lawyer in the same way as building an Airfix model of a plane does not make you a Pilot!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

.

 

 

Reading extracts of legal cases does not mean you are a lawyer in the same way as building an Airfix model of a plane does not make you a Pilot!!!

 

 

Ouch!!!!

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

.

The Consumer Action forum and me in particular are the subject of almost daily rants from that site and they do so in the mistaken belief that "apparently" as their site is based in Dubai that they are "immune" from either legal or any other action. In a very short while they will know different.

 

The site is not run by an "ex bailiff". In reality it is run by a Will Writer who merely has access to "Lexus Nexus" or another similar legal cases Library.

 

Reading extracts of legal cases does not mean you are a lawyer in the same way as building an Airfix model of a plane does not make you a Pilot!!!

 

Interesting info there. Hopefully they will get shut down. Or worse.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

.

The Consumer Action forum and me in particular are the subject of almost daily rants from that site and they do so in the mistaken belief that "apparently" as their site is based in Dubai that they are "immune" from either legal or any other action. In a very short while they will know different.

 

The site is not run by an "ex bailiff". In reality it is run by a Will Writer who merely has access to "Lexus Nexus" or another similar legal cases Library.

 

Reading extracts of legal cases does not mean you are a lawyer in the same way as building an Airfix model of a plane does not make you a Pilot!!!

.

.

 

If I have ever made an error I will be the first to apologise and that is what I will now do.....

 

At a meeting yesterday I was shown a document that states that in fact this particular "advice" site is NOT based in Dubai after all. The website is hosted in a place called Burlington in Massachusets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

.

The Consumer Action forum and me in particular are the subject of almost daily rants from that site and they do so in the mistaken belief that "apparently" as their site is based in Dubai that they are "immune" from either legal or any other action. In a very short while they will know different.

 

The site is not run by an "ex bailiff". In reality it is run by a Will Writer who merely has access to "Lexus Nexus" or another similar legal cases Library.

 

Reading extracts of legal cases does not mean you are a lawyer in the same way as building an Airfix model of a plane does not make you a Pilot!!!

Equally...... Reading extracts of legal cases does not qualify you as a Paralegal or make you a Stipenduary Magistrate in the same way as floating your boat in the bath does not allow the suggestion you have served in the Royal Navy!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...