Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • First of all welcome to the Forum. Do not worry about Drips+ -a dead sheep has more power so do not let them bother you and never contact them. It is a pity that you wrote to PE  which would be perfectly normal, except with crooks like PE  as you may have revealed you were the driver. You have lost the protection of POF A but it is not a fatal. Please do not even think of paying a penny. The amount may go higher in the short term but when the poor dears do not hear from you they get worried ( because they think to won't pay) do they start sending begging letters and reduce the amount owed.I One of the Site Team will be along shortly and give you a template to fill in which helps us to give you the best advice should they not give up. Just complete the form and post up photos of the signs at the entrance to the hotel and others around the car park and the terms on their ticket machine if there is one.
    • HI   You took possession of the Property in 2010 but when did you end the Tenancy Agreement?   Did you give them the required Notice to end your Tenancy?   You mention you paid a Deposit in 2010, was this returned when you ended the Tenancy?   You need to know exactly what they are claiming money owed is for and surprised that solicitors letter does not mention this.   Send the Landlord a Subject Access Request (SAR) asking for 'ALL DATA'  (ensure to send a copy to the Solicitor acting for them as well. 
    • yes only court...   can I confirm this was settled via Barclaycard and chargeback as it was a debit card, rather than section 75 via a creditcard?  
    • Hi   Sorry for the delay in getting back to you don't worry we have not forgot you.   So they have destroyed ALL DATA personal to you as you did not take the Property. (really they have put there foot in it)   If they hold no personal data then they have NO evidence of what was agreed to with your Holding Deposit and the refusal to return it.   Now if it was me I would let them drop themselves in it even further by responding to there SAR response.   Thank you for your SAR Response dated XX/XX/2019   Due to this response I require clarification of the following:   1. Have you followed the Data Protection Act 2018 & General Data Protection Regulations on Destroying My Personal Data?   2. If you have Destroyed All My Personal Data then what documentation do you hold that I have signed/agreed to the Holding Deposit being Non-Refundable and to provide copies of this documentation.   3. I require a copy of your Policy on Holding Deposits   Please bear in mind the above is what I would do.   I do think it is looking like you may have to go down the court route (make sure and have a good read of that link I previously gave you to the Tenants Fee Act).
    • HI   Firstly the parking in front of your drive, do you have a pavement with a Drop Kerb in front of your property to access your driveway, if so are they infringing on the Drop Kerb? (note your can ask the council to to paint a white line with lines at the end on the road in front of the drop kerb please note there may be a cost from the council to do so)   As for the CCTV look at this ICO link: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/   Due to the new DPA/GDPR if you have CCTV on your Property and it views outside of that Properties Bounderies they then need to register as a Data Controller with the ICO.   So I would make a Formal Complaint in writing to the Councils Data Controller, ICO (specifically asking if this individual is Registered with them as a Data Controller) & Police, you need to keep a good paper trail of this individuals actions.   I hope this individual knows the Law on Harassment as from your thread that is the impression I get is no matter what you do they will find something else to complaint about.  
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2112 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 all

 

 

My cousin has just been on the phone giving chapter and verse on her run in with a bailiff who clamped her car for a pcn, she is of course furious (this not my 'bag' so to speak so I couldn't offer much advice)

 

 

She has been reading various forums and I fear she is about to go off at a tangent taking bad advice en route.

 

 

It comes across to her she needs to quote Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court among others to take matters further but. she can't tell me why she thinks it is relevant only that she has 'read' it on a forum as advice given to another!!!! I have done a bit of searching and drawn a blank, does anyone know of this case please?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi WD hope you had a good Christmas, did she give the details of how she had the PCN, and is it police or council, did she say which bailiffs they were also?

 

Not too sure how Ali v Bromley Magistrates would help, as it appears to be a case where someone cut off a clamp put on by a PPC (like Parking Eye) clamper

 

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/8980822.Woolworths_developer_who_cut_off_wheel_clamp_wins_court_battle/

 

I'm sure tomtubby will know the best way forward as long as you get your cousin to give the full facts, and tell her to keep off that other site as it won't make the situation any better at all.

 

The quoted case seems to be used on two sites I better not name on here as my post will be deleted.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CitizenB you beat me to it....:)


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CitizenB you beat me to it....:)

 

 

:cheer2::whoo:


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case of Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court was one of many similar cases that were successful before the Protection of Freedoms Act was introduced and private clampers BANNED from applying an immobilisation devices on vehicles that were parked on private land (such as supermarkets, out of town shopping precincts and service stations etc).

 

The following are the details of Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court taken from the news article:

 

 

A PROPERTY developer who fought back against a wheel clamper by cutting a clamp off a workmate’s van has been found not guilty of criminal damage and common assault.

 

Jengiz Ali admitted using an angle grinder to cut the clamp off the vehicle at the back of the old Woolworths shop in Chatsworth Parade, Queensway, Petts Wood, during a dispute between clampers and builders.

 

He also admitted pushing the clamper who had put the device on the white Renault van during the incident on November 4 last year.

 

But on Monday (April 18) Bromley Magistrates’ Court heard the signage about clamping in the area was unclear and Mr Ali had cut off the clamp after asking for it to be removed because he believed it had been unlawfully put on.

 

The 45-year-old told the court he thought the clamping was unlawful because he thought when he bought the old Woolworths plot, he had also bought the service road behind.

 

And he told the court he had pushed the clamper away because he did not want him to be harmed when he was using the grinder.

 

Mr Ali’s solicitor Mike Arnsby also said they did not believe there was a contract between the clampers London Parking Services and Smartypants, the dry cleaner which actually owns the stretch of service road where the van was parked

 

Finding Mr Ali not guilty of both charges, the chairwoman of the bench Lynne Ramsay said: “We do not find the criminal damage proved as Mr Ali believed he was removing an unlawful clamp on a private road.

 

“Mr Ali thought he was acting reasonably as he did not want Mr Dawson [the clamper] to be harmed by his actions.

“We find Mr Ali not guilty of criminal damage or common assault.”

 

Speaking after the verdict Mr Ali, of Towncourt Lane, Petts Wood, said: “I’m just delighted.

 

“I do not think they had any right to clamp the vehicle and I think they were trying it on.

 

“If they had a contract with the drycleaners they would have produced it.”

 

END

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said, Mr Ali's case was one of many similar cases before the Protection of Freedoms Act prohibited private clamping companies from apply an immobilisation device to a vehicle.

 

It should be made VERY CLEAR that this case has nothing at all to do with bailiffs and was at the time only applicable to private clampers (which thankfully were banned under PoFA).

 

This case has no relevance today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry,

 

The matter of bailiffs being EXCLUDED from the Protection of Freedoms Act was the subject of the following thread and in post number one I have exhibited as evidence a copy of a joint Home Office and DVLA Fact Sheet.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?394562-Protection-of-Freedoms-Act-2012-EXCLUDES-bailiffs-!!!!

Edited by tomtubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This case has no relevance today." (tomtubby)

 

As I thought it is of it's time and the activity in question clamping by private clampers and PPCs is now defunct, so it cannot be applicable now, and certainly not to 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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys....why did I get the feeling she had been to a particular site and the information she was reading lived up to its reputation of being rubbish ????

 

 

I am going to ring her later today but thought it best to give her time to calm down and gather her thoughts. It was very much a one sided conversation earlier and I didn't really get all the details in any way, shape or form as she danced all over the place lol!! I did grasp it is a pcn and the Council is Waveney District I never got to ask who the bailiffs were but as I understand it is an old pcn from 2007 and I know she has moved house several times since then (I think we all have gypsy blood in us as we do tend move around a lot) and the chances of her ever knowing about it would be a zero.

 

 

Thanks TT at least I can now tell her with certainty the precedence she has been reading about has absolutely no bearing on bailiffs whatsoever and is now defunct to all intent and purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was first she heard the good old Stat Dec may be of assistance


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received an email this morning from a debtor thanking me for posting details of this case as she had complained to Hackney Council regarding a bailiff clamping her car and she too had relied upon this case law (Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court).

 

The council has asked her to provide details of the legal case to support her argument and have warned her of the dangers of relying upon information on the internet. She also believed that the Protection of Freedoms Act applied to bailiffs ( which of course it does not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused, why is that other site quoting the case of "Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court"?

 

Surely it should be written as R v Ali if it was a criminal case? I don't think it was reported either so you'll will never get a full copy of the judgment.

 

Mr Ali wasn't suing Bromley Magistrates Court! I suspect somebody over there doesn't know what they're talking about! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm confused, why is that other site quoting the case of "Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court"?

 

Surely it should be written as R v Ali if it was a criminal case? I don't think it was reported either so you'll will never get a full copy of the judgment.

 

Mr Ali wasn't suing Bromley Magistrates Court! I suspect somebody over there doesn't know what they're talking about! :D

 

I would have thought Mr Ali was defending his action in removing the clamp.either way it is of no use whatsoever regarding a bailiff clamping a car, as the clamper in question was the sort now banned.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have thought Mr Ali was defending his action in removing the clamp.either way it is of no use whatsoever regarding a bailiff clamping a car, as the clamper in question was the sort now banned.

 

 

Even if he was the Defendant that is not how you report a criminal case. Try and use that citation in Court and the Judge will laugh at you and kick your arse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if he was the Defendant that is not how you report a criminal case. Try and use that citation in Court and the Judge will laugh at you and kick your arse.

 

Exactly so Ganymede, and it would be as much use as a chocolate fireguard (oops forgot, you could eat that) in any case


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly so Ganymede, and it would be as much use as a chocolate fireguard (oops forgot, you could eat that) in any case

 

 

Yum. Sounds pretty useful to me. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm confused, why is that other site quoting the case of "Ali v Bromley Magistrates Court"?

 

Surely it should be written as R v Ali if it was a criminal case? I don't think it was reported either so you'll will never get a full copy of the judgment.

 

Mr Ali wasn't suing Bromley Magistrates Court! I suspect somebody over there doesn't know what they're talking about! :D

 

 

And therein lays a common problem.

 

If you read the opening post from the following thead that I started a few months ago you will see that one particular debtor was left with a legal bill of £4,000 for relying on case law that he had read about on the internet and which in reality.... did NOT say what the website CLAIMED it did.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?393990-WARNING.....Legal-claim-for-quot-levy-abandonment-quot-.-Case-LOST....claimant-ordered-to-pay-%A34-000-to-bailiff-company-!!!

I

 

In that particular case the debtor had been lead to believe that the legal case of Bannister v Hyde had confirmed that if abailiff clamped a car and then left the premises that this was levy abandonment and accordingly, the clamp can be removed and the debtor wil not be prosecuted. You will see that I have provided a copy of the judgment and not surprisingly, the judgement says NO SUCH THING!!

 

The case of Ali v Bromley was pretty well known about in the days when "rouge clampers" terrorised motorists but cannot be of any relevance whatsoever since PoFA was introduced.

 

Like you I am most concerned at the title as there can be no way that Ali sued the court!!

Edited by tomtubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression the only "reports" for this case were those made in the newspapers - if so cannot see any Judge being impressed if someone uses newspaper reports as their "source".


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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was under the impression the only "reports" for this case were those made in the newspapers - if so cannot see any Judge being impressed if someone uses newspaper reports as their "source".

 

I have come across the case of Mr Ali v London Parking Services a number of times regarding private parking contractors prior to the PoFA being introduced but to my knowledge there is no judgment as such and merely a news article, As much use as a chocolare teapot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was under the impression the only "reports" for this case were those made in the newspapers - if so cannot see any Judge being impressed if someone uses newspaper reports as their "source".

 

 

 

Sometimes cases can be "reported" by The Times, but not a red tops or some local paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...