Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The firm has benefited from the AI boom, making it the third-most valuable company in the US.View the full article
    • Former billionaire Hui Ka Yan has been fined and banned from the financial market for life.View the full article
    • In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark. In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19. But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later. A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself.  Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded) Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too) I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks. And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y. I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??  
    • At a key lecture in the City of London, the shadow chancellor will also vow to reform the Treasury.View the full article
    • Despite controversy China's Temu is becoming a global online shopping force.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
      • 160 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

Harrow Council PCN', Newlyn, kickback bailiff tender, registration plate cloning


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3581 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

Yesterday saw a reply to my SAR, popping though the letter box from Newlyn's PLC arrive.

 

It does not fully comply with with my request, in several important respects.

 

During the period when the ticket was live, I received 4 different invoices from them and none of the invoices were included in their return and only one had a breakdown of costs ie only 1 account was itemised, not the other 3.

 

No recordings of telephone conversations were received, despite the fact this was requested and despite a statement that I would receive this. There were screen entries with notes detailing their members of staffs comments on my conversations with them. These contained many errors and this is probably why I did not receive recordings or transcripts of the telephone conversations. The notes of these conversations do not bear any resemblance to the conversations which took place, hence why they have not supplied the recordings themselves. I took notes at the time, so I have my own record

 

There was no evidence of any communication between Harrow Borough Council and Newlyn despite the fact I have I proof from Harrow that they instructed Newlyn to cancel the case and return all papers to them. No correspondence was received indicating that Newlyns had returned all files to Harrow. You would expect a copy of all files to be covered by the SAR, together with an accompanying letter.

 

There is no trace of any information received from TEC, authorising them to act.

 

I sent Newlyns between 14-18 email complaints and there is no print off of these complaints, despite them being acknowledged and some being referred to in the notes of telephone conversations supplied by Newlyns. None of these complaints were ever actioned by Newlyn's.

 

There is no record of my case having been discussed by anyone within Newlyns despite their complaints policy detailing the process for handling complaints at regular meetings which would presumably be minuted detailing my name or client reference number.

 

There is no record of Newlyn's informing Harrow that I was classed as vulnerable despite notes of phone calls detailing this had been done.

 

There is no letter from Harrow to Newlyn informing them to stop proceeding with my case. I have a letter from Harrow saying they instructed them to return all files and cease action. However, Newlyn did not cease action and issued a further 2 accounts for different amounts, never broken down and itemised.

 

There are various other breaches.

 

For some strange reason, Newlyn have refunded me my £10 SAR fee. A decision to do this must be recorded and may have come from Harrow, but again, no record of this.

 

It is evident that Newlyn still have my personal data records on their system. Now remember, I was a victim of a mistake by Harrow and then misrepresentation by Newlyn. Newlyn were instructed to return all case files to Harrow and they have clearly failed to do this if they have been able to supply me with the information supplied.

 

I will reread their SAR release and cross reference it to all information I have, pointing out the gaps and requesting that the info GAPS be released.

 

I intend to phone Newlyns, using their automated client reference system which requires me to input a reference number unique to me. This should prove that they still hold my data, despite no reason for them to do so.

 

They will also hold cached information, if nothing else.

 

After that, it's off to the Information Commissioner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Metropolitan Police (Professional Standards Unit), have acknowledged receipt of my complaint which they state has been formally recorded. This relates to why they refused to investigate the cloned plates issue which was forwarded to them by my local police station. They told my police man that the crime was against the London Boroughs, London Transport and not me, as those organisations had lost possible fine income.

 

They have promised it will be investigated and that someone will get in touch, ie the officer's line manager. After that, their findings and investigation will go to a Chief Inspector.

 

They further inform that someone will contact me shortly.

 

Won't hold my breath about this but I feel that cloned plates are an issue and that the car could have been used in a crime which I would have got caught up in. Further, DVLA require me to report it to the Police. I do of course appreciate that the Police have a heavy workload and there are more serious crimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I today responded to Newlyns in respect of SAR failings and outlining what these were and what is required.

 

They wanted £35 for each 10 minutes of recordings. (IE £210 an hour ) :jaw:

 

I asked them if they would take some money off given the music I had to listen to whilst they kept me on hold. :madgrin:

 

I should send them an invoice for the same £rate for the time I have spent on this case. The information will be useful re possible damages claim.

 

I am pursuing them on principle as I already have a SAR with Harrow and this includes agents/ contractors acting on their behalf and all information should be provided that way as Harrow are the responsible party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Metropolitan Police (Professional Standards Unit), have acknowledged receipt of my complaint which they state has been formally recorded. This relates to why they refused to investigate the cloned plates issue which was forwarded to them by my local police station. They told my police man that the crime was against the London Boroughs, London Transport and not me, as those organisations had lost possible fine income.

 

They have promised it will be investigated and that someone will get in touch, ie the officer's line manager. After that, their findings and investigation will go to a Chief Inspector.

 

They further inform that someone will contact me shortly.

 

Won't hold my breath about this but I feel that cloned plates are an issue and that the car could have been used in a crime which I would have got caught up in. Further, DVLA require me to report it to the Police. I do of course appreciate that the Police have a heavy workload and there are more serious crimes.

 

An update regarding this issue.

 

Received a letter from Met Police (Directorate of Professional Standards) informing me that my original complaint has been re-assessed and is now with The Crime Recording Investigation Bureau.

 

Not sure what this means, so will need to do a bit of research. But, it's good they are at least looking at the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I received a reply from Harrow Borough Council in respect of my Subject Access Request (SAR), which they claimed was comprehensive.

 

There are glaring omissions, including no details of any complaints made by me and any related work by Harrow in respect of them, no correspondence between Harrow and Newlyns, no information at all in respect of Newlyns who are contracted to act on behalf of Harrow.

 

I have given them a comprehensive list of the information omitted, which is required.

 

I have given them a deadline of 14 days, stating I will submit a "request for assessment" to The Information Commissioners Office if the information is not supplied within that timescale.

 

The omissions are so obvious, it's almost laughable. They are a shambles of an organisation and their information management systems and management must lead to poor customer service right across all service provision within Harrow. I feel sorry for folk living there. I have never came across anything quite so poor.

 

However, it all plays into my hands, which is what I need at the end of the day, provided I give them the opportunity at each stage to correct their mistakes.

 

Not one complaint of 10/12 has yet been answered and all complaints are now at stage 2. Yet none of these have even been answered, despite automatic acknowledgements/ receipts for the complaints being generated to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I phoned TEC today to check on the progress they were making into investigating my complaint.

 

They had no record of my previous telephone conversation with them on their system and told me they had never received an email from me.

 

I feel as if there is some sort of parallel universe in the justice system.

 

Copies of all previous correspondence double checked to ensure email address was correct, their automated acknowledgement added to my email and everything reissued to them. I now have a further receipt.

 

Is it me??:mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just spoken to TEC.

 

They will not act on anything I send them ie a complaint. Harrow need to sort the mess out with TEC which they have singularly failed to do. I know they will not do this as they have failed to act correctly on any issue raised with them.

 

So, it remains live, and I as an individual who is guilty of zilch, nada, ne rien, cannot remove the case from the system or complain to TEC about it, even although I am the innocent party. Sure, I get a sympathetic ear but nothing else.

 

The bloke informed me that Harrow or any other Council for that matter, inputs the ticket, and kick starts the court process on TEC's systems, TEC themselves do not input anything. They deal with the admin side afterwards. They cannot correct Harrow's mistake.

 

What a crazy world we live in.

 

I was offered the option of "OUT OF TIME APPLICATION", which I will investigate.

 

However, I will now ask Harrow to contact TEC admitting they made a mistake and asking Harrow to delete the ticket from the system as there is a court decision against me.

 

I know full well that Harrow will not do this, as they are inept. But if I have proof I have asked them to do it and they fail to do so, I have that evidence for later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is further information on "Out Of Time"

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre/traffic-enforcement-centre/statutory-declarations

 

If you are out of time to file a Statutory Declaration/Witness Statement

If the time limit for filing a Statutory Declaration or Witness Statement has passed, the respondent may request permission to file these forms ‘out of time’.

 

The respondent must send to the TEC a completed application notice (form PE2 may be used for applications relating to Statutory Declarations and form TE7 may be used for applications relating to Witness Statements); and a completed Statutory Declaration (form PE3/PE3(vehicle emission)) or Witness Statement (form TE9):

Clear reasons for not adhering to the time period for filing should be stated on the form. The application should not be used to appeal against the original contravention.

There is no prescribed time limit in which you can apply to file the Statutory Declaration or Witness Statement out of time. On receipt of an acceptable application the TEC will notify the local authority concerned and give them 19 working days to either accept or reject the application.

If the local authority accepts the application it will be treated as an in time Statutory Declaration or Witness Statement and the court registration will be revoked (cancelled). The matter is then referred back to the local authority to decide what action they wish to take next.

If the local authority rejects the application, it will be referred to an officer at the TEC. This is for an impartial decision on whether the application should be granted or refused. Both parties will be informed of the result.

Following the decision by the court officer, either party may apply to have the decision set aside within 14 days of the decision being made. Completion of form N244 is required. If this application is accepted then the case will be transferred to the respondent’s local County Court and a District Judge will review the decision made by the Officer of the court.

 

 

Having considered this and seeing the logic in it, I am not going down this route. I will leave the onus on Harrow to resolve as it suits my longer term objectives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is further information on "Out Of Time"

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/northampton-bulk-centre/traffic-enforcement-centre/statutory-declarations

 

 

 

 

Having considered this and seeing the logic in it, I am not going down this route. I will leave the onus on Harrow to resolve as it suits my longer term objectives.

 

Wise. It is not your ticket to issue an OOT for. It is for Harrow to deal with this properly. In my area, I noticed that the traffic enforcement people now take several photos of any car they issue a ticket against. I wonder whether Harrow have pictures of the car they issued this ticket for ?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter received from Harrow regarding my FOI requests.

 

They have answered 2 of 5, to date.

 

They informed me that they estimate the cost of providing further information to be over the limit of £450 and estimate the additional work at £400, which they want paid up front. So they will not provide any further information.

 

I will forward the outstanding FOI requests to my MP and ask him to pursue them with Harrow on my behalf.

 

All of these FOI requests are directly related to Harrow Borough Council's kickback/ profit share contract with Newlyn's, so they will be keen to keep as much as possible under wraps, although I do appreciate there is legislative guidance on this, which they are using to protect themselves.

 

Interestingly, the letter is signed off by Harrow's Senior Lawyer & Team Leader- Procurement and Information Law. I wonder if he has any responsibility for the bailiff contract or if they are considering the legal implications of my case. Perhaps I am reading too much into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I chased up Eric Pickle's office today as they have not replied within his 15 day guideline for reply regarding the personal issues I raised and also the issues in respect of Harrow's bailiff kickback/ profit share contract.

 

I was assured of a reply within 10 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, I received a final reply to my SAR and complaints, made to Newlyn, bailiffs.

 

They refuse to give me an itemised breakdown of the costs of a removal notice for £???.??, issued on 2 different dates. They state that only one such invoice was issued to me, when I have 2 in my possession. They are now claiming the £???.?? was an admin error and was corrected by their audit team when discovered. However, I have proof that is not the case as I have a letter subsequent to that for the same amount.They are lying.

 

It is clear they had originally over charged me and deliberately so, in the hope I would pay. I have said they have a responsibility to provide an itemised copy of the bill.

 

They have not addressed the reason why they issued a removal notice to "the occupier".

 

They have not commented on why they claimed to have the rights of seizure and removal in Scotland when they clearly don't ie misrepresentation.

 

They have not followed their own complaints procedure.

 

They have said that they have no further interest in the matter and will not comment further to me, referring me to their client- Harrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And also today I received a reply to stage 2 of my complaint to Harrow, which whilst admitting an error did not address 99% of the issues I have raised.

 

They said they had been in touch with TEC and that the PCN had been cancelled. I phoned TEC and it is still active so they are lying. They lied before when they said they had instructed Newlyn's to cease all action against me and yet, I received a further 2 invoices from them. They even said they were in possession of the files, which was misleading and wrong. Why the need to make false statements?? When they are so easily proven to be wrong and can be documented as such.

 

They have referred me to the LGO and advised me to deal with Newlyn's, providing me with a copy of Newlyn's complaints procedure, forgetting that I have recourse to Stage 3 of Harrow's complaints procedure and must make use of it, boring as that is.

 

I have written back saying it is Harrow's responsibility to deal with my complaint including all aspects of the case with Harrow and that I will not be making use of Newlyn's complaints policy as it is Harrow who have responsibility for the actions of their bailiffs and I hold them responsible.

 

So, I escalated the complaints to Stage 3 which gives them another 20 days to properly investigate and reply.

 

I have to go through the motions before I can consider any other action. So, I need to be patient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I today received a copy of all my telephone conversations with Newlyn PLC. In effect, they now claim that they have fully complied with my Subject Access Request. I have not listened to them yet and will leave that for another day.

 

However, they have not fully complied as there is no detail of any communication between them and Harrow Borough Council, of any sort. Bearing in mind the nature of my case, and that I have asked Harrow for full details of my SAR and that I held them responsible for their contractors- Newlyns, there is an obvious breach. If correct, it also proves that there has been no full investigation of my complaint by Harrow who you would have thought would have been in touch with Newlyn relative to compiling information for a reply to my complaints.

 

All of the above plays straight into my hands for any action I might take after stage 3 of the complaints process at Harrow Borough PLC is complete. I can demonstrate this to the LGO and to the small claims court at my local Sheriff Court.

 

CAB have informed me that it is entirely appropriate to lodge an action at my local Sheriff Court using the small claims procedure, limited to £5,000 in Scotland. I reckon I have spent about 200 hours on this case and can evidence that with the number of emails I have, letters received, the recordings of telephone converstaions (gratefully now received, which Newlyn said were 4 hours long in total), research time and telephone charges etc. In reply to my SAR, Newlyn said I had sent them 42 e-mails (including chase ups) and I onlly ever received one reply from them which was to my SAR. Only one was made by them to any complaint made by me. It demonstrates the apparent uselessness of complaining, however, you must be seen to have taken all opportunities available prior to taking any legal action, and that includes exhausting any complaint and appeal process. Quite clearly, I can document that. If this happens to you, please don't admit defeat, but keep the ultimate goal in mind, accepting that they will ignore you as they believe themselves beyond approach and that as a little person you do not matter.

 

Harrow Borough Council quoted me £25 per hour to continue with my FOI claims so if I sue for a far smaller sum for my time, it is still significant, even at minimum wage rate.

 

My last post referred to Harrow's Stage 2 reply of their complaints process. In that, they stated that they had been in touch with Northampton Courts Traffic Enforcement Center and said that had instructed TEC to remove all details of my case as it was the result of an error on their part. I noted in that post that I immediately phoned TEC who advised that no such communication had been received. Not being one to hold back, I submitted a request for an investigation to TEC to ascertain if the PCN had actually been removed or if Harrow had been in touch. This was done as a fall back position, for documentary evidence for future action so that I can demonstrate I have done everything possible. Today, I received the following answer to my TEC enquiry

 

Good Afternoon,

 

 

 

Thank you for your email in response to the Order for Recovery advising you that the Local Authority has referred this matter to the court. Please note that the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is a registration point for unpaid penalty charges. As the Local Authority concerned send out all original correspondence, we are not in a position to comment on the validity of the penalty charge, or any representations you may already have made against the charge.

 

 

 

We are also unable to comment on, or amend any details concerning vehicle ownership.

 

 

 

The Local Authority has registered this penalty charge in your name.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Mr xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

TEC /CAPS Correspondence Administrative Officer

 

Northampton County Court Bulk Centre

 

21-27 St Katherine’s house

 

St Katherine’s street

 

Northampton

 

So, from the above reply, it is safe to assume that even after a full 10 days after Harrow's Stage 2 Complaint reply that they have never been in touch with TEC to admit an error and request that all reference to it be deleted.

 

Great evidence to have. Just shows how incompetent Harrow Borough Council are. Either that or they lie or think I am a mug.

 

I hope it is a combination of all three.

 

I have raised my Harrow Complaint to Stage 3 and tey have about 14 days remaining to investigate and reply. I will not be contacting the again, nor will I refer to this reply from TEC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your kind words and support.

 

I note you live in Moscow. That must be very interesting and perhaps exciting in these days of transition.

 

It's fair to say I have had a romantic view of Russia formed since my youthful days as a socialist, which I admit may be viewed as largely misconceived but also in respect of their war effort and suffering. I have always promised my wife that we would visit Moscow and hopefully St Petersburg one day. Perhaps we fellow Caggers could meet up and I could buy you some Russian tea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have met my CPN since this issue started and my medication has changed. Tomorrow, I have an appointment with my pyschiatrist and will outline the impact that this case has had on me. I think it is obvious that I have been rather obsessive about this issue and this will be noted on my medical records with her. Indeed, I plan to show her this thread and my email account, where most correspondence is stored, during the session, so that she can witness the impact on me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pyschiatrist appointment cancelled until this Friday coming.

 

Yesterday I received the following e-mail from TEC

 

PCN HR XXXXXXXXX

 

Ref XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

 

Mr kennythecelt

 

Thank you for your email of 11 February 2014 in which you complain about the service provided by the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). I am the TEC Team Leader and as such have conducted a thorough investigation into the points raised.

 

 

 

Firstly, please accept my apologies that you have not received a response to your earlier email dated 31 January 2014. I note that the email dated was 23 January was addressed incorrectly; however, subsequent emails were addressed correctly and should have been received by The TEC.

 

 

 

Penalty Charge Number (PCN) HR xxxxxxxxxx was registered with The TEC on 14 August 2013, a request for authorisation to issue a Warrant of Execution was received and authorised on 10 October 2013. No further contact was received from the local authority with regards to this PCN.

 

 

 

I can confirm that there are records of you contacting our helpdesk on 21 January 2014 (1236), 11 February 2014 (1425), 12 February 2014 (1148) and 14 February 2014 (1326).

 

 

 

Today I have revoked the above PCN and cancelled the registration. The above PCN and revoking order have been forwarded to the local authority to advise that their registration fails to comply with The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), specifically Part 75. I have confirmed to the local authority that a PCN cannot be registered with the court if the respondent resides outside England and Wales. I have also forwarded them a copy of your complaint.

 

 

 

The bailiffs that you refer to are not court bailiffs and are employed directly by the local authority. I have attached an EX345 ‘About Bailiffs and Enforcement Officers’, this will provides further information and advises how to make a complaint against a certificated bailiff.

 

 

 

I hope that this satisfactorily explains the points raised, however if you remain dissatisfied with the administrative handling of your case/level of service received etc then you have the right to refer your complaint in writing or via e mail to Mrs xxxxxxx, the Operations Manager, at the address shown at the top of this letter.

 

 

 

 

 

Regards

 

XXXXXXXXXXXX

 

TEC & CAPS Team Leader

 

TEC - 0300 123 1059

 

CAPS - 0300 123 1058

 

So, thankfully TEC have now acted and taken action to cancel the PCN.

 

They have done this without any communication from Harrow despite Harrow confirming to me, that they had cancelled the PCN, which was an obvious lie.

 

I had a quick look at section 75 of the The Civil Procedure Rules, but it is very broad ranging. So I sent the following e-mail to TEC, requesting clarification

 

FAO xxxxxxxxxxxx

TEC & CAPS Team Leader

 

 

 

Dear Sir

 

I would like to extend my grateful thanks to you for resolving this matter on my behalf. It is sad state of affairs that it was left to yourselves and myself to resolve.

 

Harrow issued me with a letter some weeks ago indicating that they had taken action to cancel the PCN and they confirmed to me that this had been undertaken. Clearly, they lied. I cannot understand why they would claim this when it is so clearly disproved.

 

For my information, can you please confirm which part(s) of section 75, of The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) that the PCN and registration by Harrow Borough Council failed to comply with please.

 

Once again, many thanks for your assistance.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Kind regards

 

Kennythecelt

 

I await their reply with interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My Subject Access Request was made to Harrow on 31/1/14. A minimal reply was received on 10/2/14, which was not comprehensive in any sense of the word.

 

They are now past the 40 day time limit.

 

This week, I shall phone the Information Commissioner for advice on what steps they can take to assist me.

 

I really do pity the residents of Harrow or anyone who happens to pass through it's boundaries. I have traveled the length and breadth of Britain and my professional career brought me into contact with many local authorities across the UK. This inept crowd are the poorest performing of the lot.

 

Just as a recap. I have done nothing wrong and have never been to Harrow but I will ensure they remember me for the harassment they have directed at me, through their incompetence and failings. This really is a matter of principle for me and I am determined to seek justice on my own behalf and to ensure that a similar situation does not occur to anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenny, have a read of the TEC User Guide, one of the attachments in the answer here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/out_of_time_witness_statements_c

 

It specifically states that TEC can NOT register debts in Scotland and outlines the process the council should go through to do so. But Harrow, as we all know, have scant regard for the law.

 

Although, one does wonder what TEC were doing registering the debt in the first place!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenny, have a read of the TEC User Guide, one of the attachments in the answer here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/out_of_time_witness_statements_c

 

It specifically states that TEC can NOT register debts in Scotland and outlines the process the council should go through to do so. But Harrow, as we all know, have scant regard for the law.

 

Although, one does wonder what TEC were doing registering the debt in the first place!

 

Many thanks for that information.:-)

 

I knew that any English, Welsh or Northern Irish Council could not register a PCN a Scottish post code. I was also led to believe that TEC could not accept such a PCN for a Scottish post code. However, it is the Council that inputs the data and the onus is on the Council not to input a Scottish post code as TEC staff are not actually involved in the process and it is input electronically by the Council.

 

From your links, and re Section 75, it appears the following is relevant

 

5.2 The TEC cannot register charges where the respondent resides outside

England and Wales. Any charge registered and posted to an address outside

England and Wales will not have been validly served.

 

5.3 Local authorities that wish to transfer a registration for enforcement in

Scotland must submit a Certificate of Money Provisions to be authenticated by

the TEC as set out in Order 35, r5 of the County Court Rules 1981.

 

Having checked, it appears the reverse in true, in that, if I sue Harrow at my local Scottish Sheriff Court I will require a to submit a Certificate of Money Provisions which needs to be authenticated so that it has power in England. So, thanks for the info, as it guides my possible court action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I phoned the Information Commisioner for advice. I explained the lack of information supplied by Harrow in reply to my Subject Access Request SAR. I also explained that they had failed to suply any information in respect of Newlyn bailiffs or any internal correspondence, nor any information in respect of my FOI and complaints.

 

I was given advice to list what information was requested, dates, etc and that they would pursue on my behalf.

 

Normally, once you contact ICO and they write to the body concerned, things start to move. If not, ICO have powers they can use which Harrow will wish to avoid.

 

It seems very surprising that Harrow continually play into my hands as all of this information helps to build my case against them.

 

One unfortunate side effect will be the cost of printing out all information which I currently have. However, I may get some assistance from CAB if I go down the route of a small claims case.

 

I have still to make up my mind on that and I intend to check the LGO to ascertain how they have reacted to any complaints made to them in respect of parking complaints and councils. From memory, I recollect that there are not many judgements against Councils, so a more cautious approach is perhaps best which may entail a phone call to them and discussing the broad situation before making it formal. If indeed, I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One point of note, which will be important later on, is to recap on Harrow's position on the conduct of it's Bailiffs ie Newlyn's whom I accuse of misrepresentation and fraud and have made that point made known to Harrow. In their final reply to my Stage 2 complaint, they effectively absolved themselves of all responsibility and said that any complaint by be should be made to Newlyn. However, I do not agree with that, as Newlyn are contracted by Harrow, are monitored by them, there is a contract which I have a copy of and they cannot simply send me a copy of Newlyns stated complaints procedure.

 

If you read the complaints procedure, it is more of an internal working document so that staff know how complaints are handled within Newlyn. For example, the more serious complaints are discussed at Director level and it also states that staff should be aware of the difficulties that clients may present them with, to avoid paying a debt. It is not a policy directed at a consumer/ client/ debtor. It is merely something that Newlyn's have submitted to Harrow as part of the contract documentation, so they can claim to have a procedure in place and for working relationships with Harrow.

 

Obviously, the route to CIVEA is open. But that is not one I will take for obvious reasons.

 

I am also aware that any action will not be against Newlyn, it will be against Harrow and by implication, anyone acting on their behalf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I will draft a carefully worded complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) regarding the lack of compliance by Harrow Borough Council to my Subject Access Request.

 

The email address is [email protected]

 

This is for the benefit of any readers and to record events for my records as well.

 

Harrow Borough Council have a responsiblity to supply all personal information covered by the act, related to me, which includes all information held by Newlyn PLC bailiffs.

 

Because of Barrow's documented litany of mistakes, my personal data is now held by a private company of bailiffs. Something that should never have happened as mistakes were made by Harrow, and these were compounded by them. Newlyn PLC have confirmed to me that they will continue to hold all of my personal information for 6 years, which is their companies policy. Now, I can see why they do that, if casework passed to them is genuine. However, my case was never genuine as it was due to an error made by Harrow Borough Council. I do not want my information held by a firm of bailiffs. Why should I accept this? What would the legal view be regarding this?

 

Harrow Borough Council have provided me with a written stated that they instructed Newlyn's to return all files to them, and Harrow confirmed this had been done. However, it has not and Newlyn continue to hold all of my personal data. On this aspect, Harrow have been proven to have lied and misled me.

 

I have paid Newlyn PLC for my Subject Access Request. Something that legally, I should not have required to do, as Harrow should have supplied it, as Newlyn's act on their behalf as agents/ contractors under a contract/ service level agreement. However, I knew that Harrow would not take the trouble to contact Newlyn and supply it to me. So, now that Newlyn have complied with the SAR, and I am relatively satisfied that they have, I can demonstrate a further failing a the part of Harrow to the ICO as I am fully aware ofwhat information is held by a private firm of bailiffs.

 

I have paid Harrow £10 for my SAR, which they refunded in view of the circumstances (but that is neither here nor there, and they have failed to comply with my SAR.

 

I am therefore compelled to complain to the ICO documenting the failures of Harrow Borough Council.

 

Part of my concerns and subsequent action will relate to the fact that my data is held by a firm of bailiffs, when I am the entirely innocent victim of a catalogue of errors by Harrow and Newlyn's.

 

However, all of my energies and subsequent action is directed at Harrow and by implication Newlyn's. There will be no separate action against Newlyn as they are contracted by Harrow who are responsible for the actions of their bailiffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...