Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Received the attached today. The centre has free parking provided the number plate is entered on arrival at the surgery, which we forgot about. Given it's another of these private companies, what would be the best route here - ignore until letters either stop or court action threatened? New Note.pdf
    • Hi All, Firstly, many thanks to all that have contributed with advice on this thread - much appreciated. Daughter phoned the court and they said they cannot waive the £275 fee. Also said that if she did set aside it would be heard in an English Court as papers served to an English address even though it is an incorrect address............is this correct? Makes me feel like less likely to win? Received the SAR back from PE and they have stated they received the English address from Experian. We've looked on her credit report and there is a linked address there from a company called Lendable that did 3 searches on her.......... one on her Scottish address, 1 on our neighbours address? and one on the English address. She says she and her ex went to look at buying a car - he cannot drive but was going to get the finance. I can only assume they have done a search on his address? Anyway it got refused unsurprisingly. There are no other links to that address on the credit report and no other searches from outside companies so how did PE obtain this address without a search on her credit report? It should be said copies of all pcn's where included so now we have copies of the original ones that were never received for some unkown reason - exactly the same as 8 mins one (but this one for 21mins over an hour) - stating keeper liability and all addressed to Scottish address. Now on to another matter............yesterday she informed me she has another pcn from a different company and now received a 'legal' letter. I've attached the 3 bits of info she has given me. I'm just worried these may try the same trick, so is it worth actually contacting them before it escalates further and state the no keeper liability in Scotland defence as they are claiming it as keeper liability -  and that she doesn't recognize the offence? Would you believe she actually got this pcn when they went to look at buying a car as mentioned above...............just incredible! Thanks. T. PCNG24.pdf
    • This morning I have received an email from Lowells, quite out the blue as I've not heard anything from them for years. it states "Action required on your overdue account"
    • So this is what I've got so far; PLEASE PLACE THIS EMAIL BEFORE THE COURT WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY  Re: Case Number XXXX - ParkingEye Ltd (claimant) vs Cardiff Devil (defendant) In response to the letter from the court dated 19/02/2024, I am writing to the court as the defendant in this claim to register my objection in the strongest possible terms to the hearing being heard “on the papers”, and to request a regular oral hearing instead. Since the claimant is a nationwide parking company with net assets of over £53,000,000 on their balance sheet as at the end of December 2022, it is therefore safe to assume that they will retain a team of qualified solicitors on their payroll to prepare court paperwork on their behalf.  Conversely, the defendant is a litigant-in-person with little legal knowledge.  As a result, the defendant contends that the case being heard on paper evidence only would put the defendant at a severe disadvantage. The defendant also contends that the circumstances of this case are not at all straightforward and there are several points that the defendant wishes to contest at the hearing, such as inaccuracies in the claimant’s CPR 31:34 submissions, the potential intentional redaction of crucial evidence in the claimant’s contract with the tenant, also the claimant's lack of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 to establish the defendant liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, and their lack of adherance to local planning laws amongst others.   Thanks CD
    • Savers who rushed to lock away money before the end of the financial year in 2023 into short term Isa fixes will be seeing accounts mature now.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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3628 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I am the director of my own LTD Company. The company has three Vehicles one of which

is permanently parked on my drive at my home.


The companies registered address is the same as my home address.

The vehicles are all Registered to and owned by the company.


The council tax is in my name NOT the companies.


I'm having an issue at present where a few years ago i paid the council tax in cash at the the local office

and they have lost the record of the payment and refused to take the receipt they gave me as evidence of me paying it.


In short they have got a liability order and have tried with various different bailiffs to have it enforced.


first Bristow and sutor had it ,

then Equita and

now it is back with Bristow and Sutor.


Bristow and sutor levied the company vehicle , just before xmas.


I wrote them a very strong letter from the company ,

explaining to them that the vehicle was registered and owned by the company

and any attempt to remove or tamper with company property would be very costly on their part.


They replied with the usual rubbish about "levied in good faith"

and that they would hold off on any action whilst they check with DVLA

but the company needs to supply them with proof of ownership.


I replied that the company is whilst not obliged to provide this information would be happy to

once in receipt of the required £50 Administration fee.


Nothing was heard of this matter again ,

although they kept sending me (myself) the usual drivel letters about attending the premises etc etc.


Last week in my abscence a bailiff (i presume the same one)

has put another Levy on the same vehicle as before for the same liability order.


i am in the process of making a complaint from the company about this matter to the courts

but wanted to ask in here about the validity of what they are doing?


The value of the car is much more than the alleged debt.

are they allowed to keep levying a vehicle that they know not to be owned by the alleged debtor ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you make a FORMAL COMPLAINT to the CEO of the council

regarding the levy AND the maladministration of your account


you have proof of payment its there incompliance that's put you in this position

and you cant be held responsible for it


put the ceo on notice that you will not be going away any time soon

and if necessary you will be taking your complaint to the ombudsman


are capita the back office provider for the administration and enforcement council tax for your council

they happen to own 2 bailiff firms Equita and Bristow & Suitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...