Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Agree it is not a modification that needs to be disclosed to Insurers as changing the seats has not changed the risk.  
    • Frpm David Frost and Robert Jenrick: 'Conservatives must show we respect the votes in 2016 and 2019 and not give the Opposition the chance to undo the benefits of leaving the EU'   Sweep away the Brexit gloom – or Labour will unravel a huge gain ARCHIVE.PH archived 22 Apr 2024 05:47:50 UTC  
    • Please please help we were miss sold full fibre by EE July 22  Install couldn’t go ahead no equipment sent and no. Survey it was hell  foind out no full fibre in road so we had to go back to cooper no choice we involved. Ceo and they put in a man from customer resolution s  he was vile he told me I had to go to engineers  something very odd about the ex resolution s in bt basically they took my drive up said they Would put ducting in ready for full fibre we have got £ 40 for a hours upon hours phones stress and more told to go to ombudsman  then bill was £35 we called twice told it was that price as they had treated us appalling two weeks later all sky package gets pulled we call again our bill goes to 165 the next two weeks was hell trying to get yo bottom why it’s off our package it was all on in the end I spent a day on the phone  341 mins was the call anyway I got to the bottom it was this resolution man coveting up the other issue another deadlock  to cover it all up  they hide data  ee did so couldn’t get the miss sell in writing I have now only from sept  Basically now we tried getting full fibre and they have found my drive had to be taken up again which has sunk .  The engineer has placed the wrong ducting again under my drive and need s to be taken to again apparently and the pipe sticks up middle of the drive near gate not behind look so odd it’s a big as a drain pipe open to water and it’s below touching the electrical cables to hot tub . I was sent a letter from the ex resolution to say I had stopped the work  I haven’t  it’s so sadistic she covering up for her mate in that team as the orginal install he didn’t check it had been done correctly  I took to Twitter and posted on open reach they ignored me then after 3 calls of two weeks they sent a engineer bt ignored me ceo emails blocked tag on Twitter unanswered then we get someone from twitter send a engineer he written report to say it’s dangerous since we have  had a  letter to say our problem can not be resolved  then a email to say sorry we are leaving and we can’t get into our account Bt will not talk to us ofcom tells us nothing they can do Citzens advice said go to the police  we can’t go back to virgin due so mass issue with them only option is sky  but point is they make out we have canceled we haven’t we have this mess on our drive dangeous work we are in hell  it’s like she covering up for this collegue it’s all very odd I am disabled and they like played mentaly with me open reach say bt resolved the issue no they have not  I recon they have terminated us making our we have  to hide it from mgt  Help it’s hell I don’t sleep we have 29 may we have tried  calling they just ignore me  at first they are so lovely as they say I am then they go to nnamager and say we can’t say anything to you end call  Scared police are rubbish I need help even typing is so painfull  Thankyou  anyone hello be so grateful     
    • There's a thread somewhere about someone sending the baillifs against Wizzair that is quite hilarious. I would love to see someone do the same to Ryanair. Question is, should you be the one to take that role. You are entitled to the £220, if your flight was from the UK. If it was TO the UK I suppose it is more of a grey area... though the airlines I know have been using £220 as standard. Not that surprising for Ryanair, the worst cheapskates in the universe, to go for the lower amount, and if you forward this to the CEO he will probably have a jolly good laugh and give his accountants a verbal bonus. After all he's the one who said and I paraphrase "F*** our customers, they'll fly with us again anyway". While we would all love to see Ryanair get wooped in court again, I have to join my fellow posters in thinking it's not worth the hassle for (hypothetically) £7 and not sure it will expedite the payment either. It's already an achievement that you got them to accept to pay.
    • The US competition watchdog has taken legal action to stop Tapestry's $8.5bn takeover of rival Capri.View the full article
  • 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

Eric Pickles seeking to amend the law to stop bailiffs collecting parking fines !!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3594 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

"On Friday I was sent a copy of the "background" papers regarding these proposals"

 

Do these papers speak to the Statute of Marlborough ? Or is this law still 'invisible' when it gets in the way of councils.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the TCE Act the government are seeking to repeal many ancient laws and it is possible that this is one such case that could be disappear. There are some very interesting times ahead !!

 

Even more so as time is rapidly running away if they want to get this up & running for next April.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the TCE Act the government are seeking to repeal many ancient laws and it is possible that this is one such case that could be disappear. There are some very interesting times ahead !!

 

Until such event it is still in force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"On Friday I was sent a copy of the "background" papers regarding these proposals"

 

Do these papers speak to the Statute of Marlborough ? Or is this law still 'invisible' when it gets in the way of councils.

 

Out of the original 29 chapters in the Statute of Marlborough all but 4 of them have been repealed already. Although I do concede that the one involving "taking distress on the Kings highway or the common street" is not one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of the original 29 chapters in the Statute of Marlborough all but 4 of them have been repealed already. Although I do concede that the one involving "taking distress on the Kings highway or the common street" is not one of them.

One doesn't need to question why, if they repeal that one and implement something lacking, it would effectively abolish bailiffs as we know them, in all likelihood, and remove rights to distrain and take goods and chattels to sell off for debt if they are not careful. They woulddn't want that even though the late great former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning would have loved bailiffs and distress to go the way of the dodo

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

  • 4 weeks later...

I'm in Scotland so this wouldn't affect me, but personally I'd like to campaing *for* a camera on a corner near where I live. Frequent selfish prats park on double yellows on a narrow street and in a bay clearly marked "Solo M/C Only" on the same corner. Thing is, that spot is deliberately smaller than a "proper" space, so they end up parked a foot or more out into the main road making the junction effectively blind if you're trying to pull out of the side road.

 

I would be *very* happy if someone leapt out from behind a dustbin or bus shelter and ticketed them the moment they switched the motor off. It's dangerous.

 

There's a line between parking selfishly and causing inconvenience for other road users, and causing no problem but being used to help make some jobsworth a few quid out of his "per offence" pay scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did actually query it with the council who told me that double yellow lines and parking in "wrong" bays was the remit of their parking attendants (ah for the days when we called them "traffic wardens"!). Parking outside of a bay, double parking and so on is a criminal offence and - yes - police.

 

Either way, I'm convinced a CCTV camera focussed on that corner would pay for itself in a month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hoped that Eric Pickles and the Secretary of State will not only be seeking to ban CCTV but also the dreadful use of ANPR's equipped vehicles by bailiffs to enforce an unpaid PCN !!!

 

There is a lot going on 'in the background' and bailiff companies and local authorities are VERY WORRIED at the moment. From 'briefing papers' that I have seen.......they have EVERY RIGHT TO BE WORRIED !!!!!!

 

Theses are very interesting times.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hoped that Eric Pickles and the Secretary of State will not only be seeking to ban CCTV but also the dreadful use of ANPR's equipped vehicles by bailiffs to enforce an unpaid PCN !!!

 

There is a lot going on 'in the background' and bailiff companies and local authorities are VERY WORRIED at the moment. From 'briefing papers' that I have seen.......they have EVERY RIGHT TO BE WORRIED !!!!!!

 

Theses are very interesting times.........

 

Can it be that those in the higher echelons of power have woke up to the widespread abuse of the system by greedy councils and bailiffs, and the overt fee fraud being uesd often against innocents in the case of say JBW and ANPR going kerching, with the bailiff seizing and towing the car 8 months after it has been sold on. and 12 after the PCN? Hopefully so, but I am in despair over the interpleader part of TCGA, as this will make the abuse much much worse, ANPR or not. If the innocent cannot afford the interpleader application, all the baaliff fees and the debt, then they will lose the car for certain, with no comeback or appeal; a win win for the bailiff

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

I have seen two cars clamped by Barstons in the space of two hundred yards in my area . So is this a coincidence or are they using anpr cams ?

ANPR quite probably

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

ANPR equipped vehicles being used to enforce unpaid road traffic debts should be stopped at the soonest opportunity and I made this clear today is a 6 page report in response to Eric Pickles's press release. Interesting times ahead...

Link to post
Share on other sites

ANPR equipped vehicles being used to enforce unpaid road traffic debts should be stopped at the soonest opportunity and I made this clear today is a 6 page report in response to Eric Pickles's press release. Interesting times ahead...

The "Enforcement Industry", although how it can be deemed an industry is beyond me as all it manufactures is misery and destitution, bailiffs and enforcement agencies seem to be living in the Wild West.

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

  • 1 month later...
Local authorities are aware that they are not allowed to use income from parking to "prop" up other departments and this is not being adhered to.

 

Bailiff companies have themselves to blame entirely if Eric Pickles amends the law to stop councils using bailiffs and I have said very often on this forum that bailiffs are "milking the cash cow until it turns sour" and it is absolutely dreadful that they can attempt to charge up to £1,000 ( and in many cases much more) for a parking ticket with "face value" of just £40-70. Greed on an unprecedented scale.

 

Everything to do with parking ticket enforcement went completely wrong when bailiffs had the idea of enforcing unpaid PCN's by way of ANPR vehicles.

 

Instead of visiting the property to seek payment the bailiff instead merely drives around the streets of London (and superstore outlets) looking for the registration number of a car that had been driven by the keeper on the day on which a contravention had occurred !!

 

In other words...the bailiff is NOT looking to collect payment from the person named on the warrant and instead....is looking to seize the vehicle involved in the contravention. How this can ever be deemed legal is simply beyond me !!

 

It is totally illegal and unlawful. Quote "No Government official or Agent shall seize anyones property without lawful judgement and if he does, that property shall be returned forthwith" (Magna Carta) and "Promises of grants, fines or forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void" (Bill of Rights) and lord Justice Laws in 2002 said these laws of special status cannot be repealed impliedly so still stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE:

 

It would seem that both the DfT and DCLG have been VERY busy in the past 10 weeks since issuing their joint press release about parking !!!

 

At the time, the press release had come as a shock to local authorities and "parking operators" as it would seem that very few people had known of the proposals.

 

They were all in for a further BIG surprise on Friday afternoon when DfT and DCLG issued a public Consultation Paper (link below). There can be little doubt that the government are intent on BANNING the use of CCTV cameras for parking enforcement and there are other proposals as well that are of VERY SERIOUS concern. The 'private' parking operators will no doubt be next in the firing line.

 

I have been busy since since Friday compiling a Press article and I hope to provide a word copy once it is published in a few days time.

 

In the meantime, if anyone has any comments please post them here.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/local-authority-parking

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Tomtubby for posting the above URL-it certainly makes for interesting reading. If they do decide to investigate the surplus funds from parking and where they are allocated should concentrate the

minds of quite a few councils-Westminster in particular, followed by Kensington, Camden and Harrow. The latter borough motto appears to be if you are putting down one yellow line, it is almost as cheap to lay down double lines and look at the extra revenue it produces! I know that I stopped shopping in Harrow simply because of their draconian parking wardens in those days. In the end it more people stop shopping in area like that, shops close down because of the lack of business and the revenue to the Council drops after that. But some of these Councils appear too stupid to work that out. thank goodness fro Eric Pickles .

 

 

I think that Adjudicators should have more leeway in deciding appeals. After all they know how many people are caught out by poor signage within each borough and by allowing a driver's appeal early on

it should hopefully force Councils to amend pretty quickly their errant and confusing signs.

 

Of course CCTV should be banned in most places-most are only revenue raisers. How can it be fair that if you stop on a yellow line [because there are no spare meters] to pop in and buy a newspaper that a

camera picks that up and you get a fine of £60.

 

What should also be investigated is to see what the ratio is between the number of meters and the number of cars that require meters. And given the year on year increase in cars on the road whether Councils

increase the number of meters to reflect that traffic increase. Certainly in parts of London quite a lot of the traffic circulation is caused by cars driving around the same area looking to find an empty meter.

 

Have only just had a quick peek at the document but it makes a lot of sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks TT, the document is thorough and appear4s to be going in the right direction, most likely to the abject horror of councils and their bailiffs.

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

  • 6 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...