Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Though it would be Highview you would  pursue. DCBL are nonentities-on their best day,
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3472 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

S8 can be served at any time, court action can start 14 days after receipt of S8 notice.

if rent more than 2 months in arrears it will be granted, unless you have some extenuating circumstances or come to some agreement with the LL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

How does your recent post #102 relate to 2012/3 posts? Same LL, same tenancy?

Where does issue of s48 Notice come from?

Since this thread is over 100 posts, perhaps you can provide a timeline for dates and Notices for the related AST?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I hope someone can help me, as I'm in a pickle over what to do, here is the situation:

 

 

I own a vehicle (50/50) with a family member, worth approx. £1800.

 

 

We are both registered disabled (mobility) but this is not a mobility/leased vehicle (hence low value)

 

 

From the offset, we agreed the insurance premium would be cheaper if I register as the legal/registered keeper and my relative is stated as additional driver, premium approx. £350 per year.

 

 

If we reversed this (relative as legal owner/registered keeper), the premium would be approx. £1900 but I realise the bailiff would not be able to seize it as I would be only registered as the additional driver, but I own 50% of the cars value...(my relative has no, no claims premiums)....we would never be able to pay this kind of premium!

 

 

Basically, in the short term, I will be expecting a knock from the bailiffs (in my sole name), for a debt of approx. £5000, I have no other assets etc, just 50% share in this vehicle (but I am registered as the owner/keeper), I assume the bailiff will just take this, is this allowed even though its not 100% mine? what can I do?

 

 

Could I be registered as the keeper (keep premium low) but have my relative as the "owner"? I believe, with DVLA, they only hold info and supply to bailiff the registered keeper, the based upon this, they will seize the vehicle?

Edited by confusedbunny
added more info
Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like you are classed as vulnerable

 

no bailiff action should take place at all once they are notified

 

tell us the debt story please

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is for potential rent arrears, money order will be for approx. £5000 from my landlord, I very much doubt my landlord will then agree to instalments of £5 a week (all I can afford at the moment) and just instruct bailiffs on me, I am dreading it.......

 

 

I have no way of giving my relative the £1000 share of the vehicle and haven't told her yet that the bailiffs might take it, I am so stressed....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 

I paid my landlord a deposit, which:

 

 

1st AST-Late protection, submitted fraud info, now confirmed void

 

 

Same AST, periodic- failed to return deposit, failed to re-protect or serve certificate/PI (as per superstrike ruling)

 

 

2nd AST-Late protection (17 months later), failed to provide certificate & PI, now confirmed void

 

 

Same AST,periodic-failed to return deposit, Late protection (22 months later), failed to serve certificate & PI, now confirmed void

 

 

My questions are:

 

 

1.I am still in the property, can I start a claim now? or is it best when I leave?

2. How do I start a claim?

3. How much does it cost? (I am in receipt of benefits at the moment)

 

 

Any advice will be much appreciated. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are your disabilities, as you could well be classed as vulnerable un der the National Standards, however the rules change in five days for bailiffs so get that proof of disability ready to send to the bailiff. The land lord should also realise he may well fall foul of legislation if he is too heavy with enforcement on a vulnerable tenant.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the vehicle is displaying a Blue Badge it will be protected under the new regulations that take effect on 6th April.

That is excellent, no more excuses for bailiffs who claim to be able to seize Motability cars or vehicles used by a disabled driver.

 

what is the debt actually for confusedbunny? Rent arrears, or something else?

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 am in receipt of disability, mobility and care components,although I do not have the blue badge, my relative does though at the moment, but she is not registered as the owner/keeper but as additional driver. The car is not on lease via a motability scheme.

 

 

Yes, the debt is for rent arrears.....I just do not know what to do with regards the this car, Im in a pickle where I stand, my relative will not be impressed if it gets seized and as I say I do not have her share of £1000 to repay her.

 

 

Could I show the bailiff I am disabled (DLA award letter) and show some legal form/declaration that my relative owns 50% share of the vehicle? would this be enough to prevent seizure?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dementedfeline

 

The Taking Control of Goods Regulations provides an updated list of exempt items and the wording from the regs is as follows:

 

4(d):

A vehicle on which a valid disabled person's badge is displayed because it is used for, or in relation to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for, the carriage of a disabled person.

 

 

PS:

 

The National Standards for Enforcement Agents is currently being redrafted and is with the MOJ lawyers . We are assured that they will be released before 6th April. Although 'vulnerability' has featured in the NSEA for many years, we now have statutory protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dementedfeline

 

The Taking Control of Goods Regulations provides an updated list of exempt items and the wording from the regs is as follows:

 

4(d):

A vehicle on which a valid disabled person's badge is displayed because it is used for, or in relation to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for, the carriage of a disabled person.

 

 

PS:

 

The National Standards for Enforcement Agents is currently being redrafted and is with the MOJ lawyers . We are assured that they will be released before 6th April. Although 'vulnerability' has featured in the NSEA for many years, we now have statutory protection.

 

 

Does this mean, if I am registered owner/keeper but additional driver (my relative) displays her badges, the bailiff cannot seize the vehicle under no circumstances?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean, if I am registered owner/keeper but additional driver (my relative) displays her badges, the bailiff cannot seize the vehicle under no circumstances?

They would be very silly, as you are disabled and have mobility component you should claim a Zero VED tax disc from DVLA, and have the vehicle transferred into the disabl;ed class, the bailiff cannot touch it then for sure

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

Reading the regulations as they are drafted I would say that if you are the registered owner (but not the driver) then as long as the vehicle displays the blue badge it is exempt. If however, a Blue Badge was not displayed then it can indeed be seized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the absence of a Zero rate Disabled VED I concur with TT keep the badge displayed. As a thought, when the VED regs change in September and a tax disc is no longer required I predict an increase in seizures of exempt Motability and vehicles used by disabled people as there will be no visible evidence if a badge is not on permanent display.

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

Dementedfeline

 

The Taking Control of Goods Regulations provides an updated list of exempt items and the wording from the regs is as follows:

 

4(d):

A vehicle on which a valid disabled person's badge is displayed because it is used for, or in relation to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for, the carriage of a disabled person.

 

 

PS:

 

The National Standards for Enforcement Agents is currently being redrafted and is with the MOJ lawyers . We are assured that they will be released before 6th April. Although 'vulnerability' has featured in the NSEA for many years, we now have statutory protection.

 

Thanks, tomtubby. but, sigh, yet another example of disjointed thinking - the blue badge guide published by the governmint, bless them, specifically says

 

It must only be displayed if you are travelling in the vehicle as a driver or passenger, or if someone is collecting you or dropping you off and needs to park at the place where you are being collected or dropped.

 

and I'm pretty sure I've seen advice to the effect of don't leave the badge on display when you're not using it because someone might nick it.

 

And, it may be coming in to the regs, but both blue badge and disabled tax disc didn't stop a rossendales bailiff clamping a car and threatening to remove it a few months ago. I would suggest people print out the relevant bits of the regs and have to hand to quote to bailiff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, tomtubby. but, sigh, yet another example of disjointed thinking - the blue badge guide published by the governmint, bless them, specifically says

 

It must only be displayed if you are travelling in the vehicle as a driver or passenger, or if someone is collecting you or dropping you off and needs to park at the place where you are being collected or dropped. However that said if the op has a zero rated tax disc on display it serves the same purpose to alerting the 'enforcement agent' the vehicle is controlled by someone recorded to be in receipt of the mobility component and therefore exempt from seizure.

 

and I'm pretty sure I've seen advice to the effect of don't leave the badge on display when you're not using it because someone might nick it.

 

And, it may be coming in to the regs, but both blue badge and disabled tax disc didn't stop a rossendales bailiff clamping a car and threatening to remove it a few months ago. I would suggest people print out the relevant bits of the regs and have to hand to quote to bailiff.

 

You are correct, Blue Badges are worth a fortune on the black market and it is strongly advised you do not leave it on display if parked up at home. However that said if the op has a zero rated tax disc on display it serves the same purpose to alerting the 'enforcement agent' the vehicle is controlled by someone recorded to be in receipt of the mobility component and therefore exempt from seizure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wonkeydonkey - you'd think, huh? Don't forget that soon physical tax discs will be a thing of the past, so no help there.

 

My friend's story:

 

Blue Badge - check. Disabled tax disc - check. Showed TEC acknowledgement of OOT filing - check. Informed had cancer - check. Informed only form of income was benefits - check.

 

Still clamped and threatened with tow truck if full payment not made. Bailiff actually REFUSED invite to enter house and do levy. Council - "not our problem - talk to the bailiff company". Complaint being prepared for LGO.

 

Somehow I find it wishful thinking that on 6th April the bailiffs will magically understand what they can and can't do unless the people being visited KNOW their rights - and of course, the vast majority don't or are too intimidated (understandably) to stand up for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, I have been awarded the mobility component (low rate) for 5 years, would I qualify for an exempt tax disc? (I thought it was only of you were awarded high rate).....It would be simpler to just change the ownership and insurance main driver to my relative but the premium is sky high :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Update:

 

 

My relative's (joint owner) blue badge has now expired (he has reapplied).......where do I stand now? Under the new rules, as I am potential classed as "vulnerable" and am not sole owner of the vehicle, can I prevent the bailiffs from taking the vehicle based on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
They would be very silly, as you are disabled and have mobility component you should claim a Zero VED tax disc from DVLA, and have the vehicle transferred into the disabl;ed class, the bailiff cannot touch it then for sure

 

 

Would I qualify to have the vehicle class changed to "disabled" if I only receive the low mobility component? If so, do you have a link as to how I do this please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...