Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I’m currently on day 9 of mild symptoms  Starting about 5 days after My daughter had symptoms and subsequently tested positive.  she’s well over it now.   From my point of view I’ve had far Worse but Christ the symptoms are weird.    Anyway apparently if I’ve made it to day 9 or 10 without taking a turn for the worse , chances I’m on the road to recovery, so that’s some kind of relief.
    • Dr North highlights an unwanted effect of Lockdown and closure of food outlets and pubs, rodent infestations, rats go where there is food.   https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/corona/covid-rats/
    • We will see if the Role Of 6 and being outside etc hold fast tomorrow with Halloween, will the Children rebel and go Trick or Treating?  Will 9 and 10 year old's be Tasered for disobeying a copper?
    • It's not just the elite and the masses either. It seems to me that lockdown is skewed to the north, or at least away from the south east.   The R number seems to be a blunt instrument and there are areas with higher number that aren't locked down. Yet again, let the local public health people decide.
    • Firstly let me say that this is not a frustrated contract because in order to meet the requirements of the doctrine of frustration, the contract must be really impossible to perform.  Maybe because the house doesn't exist anymore or because there is a law against it etc. Here you are simply talking about delay. So please forget frustration.   Secondly the advice you have received from Citizens Advice I'm afraid is dangerous and could lead you into litigation which you might possibly lose. Ignore it.   One thing I am not clear on it is how long the installation work will take. What have you been told?   I understand that you made a contract which suggested that the installation might take place at any time before mid-november. I'm afraid that in these kinds of service or building contracts you have to accept a reasonable delay. A 1st of February deadline was completely unacceptable and would have been unreasonable. However I understand that under pressure from you they have now given you a deadline of 7th of December.   Firstly I think that a delay of a time up to the 7th of December is probably just within the bounds of reasonableness. Secondly because you effectively put pressure on them to have a shorter deadline and they came up with the 7th of December one could say that you have now been complicit in the delay and so I don't think you are in a position to reject it.   I understand that your confidence may have been undermined by what has happened so far and I think that you are justified but I'm afraid that I don't think that gives you  a reason or an opportunity to void the contract now.   I think you are going to have to accept 7th of December installation date but I think it would be reasonable now for you to write to the supplier and to let them know that time is of the essence and that the 7th of December deadline is the last date which you will accept for installation and if the installation does not occur on that date then you will consider that the contract has been terminated by their breach and you will take all necessary action to recover your money.   I think you should send this letter in the form of a letter of claim.   A letter of claim normally gives 14 days notice before County Court action will be commenced.   In this case I think that you can give them notice that if the installation does not occur by the 7th of December and if you then do not receive your full refund by the 14th of December you will start the immediate action in the county court to recover the money plus interest and without any further notice.   The advice above depends on what you have to tell me about the time needed for the installation. Also if you decide to send the letter of claim which I've suggested above then I think it will be a good idea if you would draft your letter of claim and post it here so we can check it.    
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2331 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

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wooo hooooo NoToMob :) I used to be out on the bike chasing them scamera cars all the time. :) rs2k was me.

 

No bike an even less lung function stopped me :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha...he had a knife, at least he was arrested for an actual criminal offence not a dubious civil related one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning all, re last night program .

What was clarified last night is that the old bill do do the bailiffs bidding . They park

their anpr van round the corner and when they get a ping they radio the woman bailiff .

Then she instructs the police to pull the vehicle over . Frack me that cannot be legal .

Did you notice that as soon as any motorist got lairy the old bill were ready to step in .

Stitch up no other way to explain it. Do the program makers realise how dubious legally

this set up is ?

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't watch this programme. It makes my blood boil and I have never had a parking ticket. I am the sensible one, who checks where I can park legally and will pay for parking, rather than ever take the chance. But I don't live in a major town or city where I am taking my car regularly. Councils around the country appear to be making parking as difficult as possible, as they don't want cars and they will prey on motorists who don't park correctly to make money from them.

 

These roadside operations could well be deemed illegal by the courts, not that it would ever get that far, as nobody would put the money up for a judicial review.

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

A quick point to make: It is highly likely that the Driving Instructors car was a tool of the trade.

 

It may be that this was dealt with at the time and edited out of the show however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A quick point to make: It is highly likely that the Driving Instructors car was a tool of the trade.

 

It may be that this was dealt with at the time and edited out of the show however.

 

HCEO

 

I asked this question the other day and people could not answer it. The Police legally stop the car and ask the driver to speak to a bailiff. What is to stop the driver simply driving on as the bailiff will not have seized the car ? An enforcement officer will not have seized the car, until they have written out the relevant paperwork ?

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

No it isn't legal. It's worth remembering what His Honour Judge Cryan said whilst cross examining a Marstons bailiff engaged on joint operations

 

‘Had it occurred to you at any stage that what might be happening could be of doubtful legality?’

‘Some people might be sceptical about whether what you are describing to me is the real world, or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A quick point to make: It is highly likely that the Driving Instructors car was a tool of the trade.

 

It may be that this was dealt with at the time and edited out of the show however.

 

Well in the interests of fairness if that was the case it should have been left in.

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

with regards to the "Parking Mad' episode last night, viewers may wish to revisit a thread that I started a couple of weeks ago (link below) and read my post number 4 which concerns the Metropolitan Police's response to a Freedom of Information request about these joint 'operations'.

 

Post number 4 concerns the Met Police's answer on the matter of the legality of such operations:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?422834-Police-and-Bailiff-%91ANPR-Roadside-Operations%92...response-at-last-from-the-Metropolitan-Police-!!!(1-Viewing)-nbsp

Link to post
Share on other sites

That guy who didn't like people parking on his street saw a man in a suit and immediately said "He must be on at least 100k".

 

I have to do this. I don't earn 100k, I earn less than 20k. The car park is not worth the £7 a day, so I have to park on residential streets. I pay the road tax which allows me to do this. A lot of those people have driveways anyway. If they don't like it, they should vote for a permit system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What would happen if everyone was to ask for the order to be sent to them that allowed the operation in the first place, which can be requested under s4(4)(15) of PACE 1984?

 

This would annoy the Officer that arranged the stop in the first place, but looking here again at see

 

s4(1) - s4(d) and s4(4)(15) and what about s4(16)

 

No where in c.60 s4 of the RTA 1984 or others states is it permissible for the Police to stop any vehicle for a civil debt or a EA formally (civil enforcement agent/bailiff), a Court fine maybe, if an outstanding warrant is there to act upon that states that the debtor is wanted or an arrest warrant is in force. They are obliged to assist an HCEO I believe.

 

So are the Police using s4(1)(a) for this purpose

quote

(a) a person who has committed an offence other than a road traffic offence or a [F1vehicle] excise offence;

 

A compelling argument can be found here http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topic/145016-police-recovering-a-civil-debt/ see post #6

again serving officers can not come up with a valid reason for stopping a car for an EA, but they do admit that they do.

 

I have linked to the PDF of c60. s4 RTA. 1984 worth reading for the extra info you may like to know. but for ease for the relevant sections read here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/4

 

 

The full RTA Act can be viewed here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents

 

 

So an important question here why have EA's been given the power to use ANPR and finally some very good reading from the notoomob here

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=3112.0

 

 

See here on page 10 a long read I am afraid but worth the read, but will make a person smile. I am watching you

 

 

 

MM

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A quick point to make: It is highly likely that the Driving Instructors car was a tool of the trade.

 

It may be that this was dealt with at the time and edited out of the show however.

 

 

I was actually shocked to see that the bailiff took this vehicle (in particular knowing the the incident was being filmed) as it was clear for all to see that the vehicle MUST have been a 'Tool of the Trade' and it was highly questionable whether it should be seized.

 

From the Metropolitan Police's response to the recent Freedom of Information request (on the other thread) it is clear that they have realised that the joint operations should NOT be undertaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS:

 

Thank you Mikeymack for your above post (which I intend answering later this evening.

 

I hadn't realised that a copy of my press article had appeared on the NoTo Mob website(below):

 

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=3112.0

 

Right at this very moment I am putting the final touches to another press article on the matter of the 'Police and Bailiff Roadside Operations'. It is due for publication on Monday and I can then post a copy here on the forum.

 

PS: The word 'NoToMob' stands for No To Mobile CCTV enforcement. They have certainly done very well indeed and I can ASSURE anyone viewing this thread that there are some very influentical people involved in the NoToMob ( I know a few of them) and they are certainly 'shaking up' many local authorities at this present time......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know them well..

I hope you can spend a little time going through my points as they have bearing on this post anyway... The only time the Police can assist an EA is if they are an HCEO, normal EA,s should not be able to use these operations as an enforcement tool to collect what is basically a civil debt..

i await the in depth reply later

 

MM

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The official viewing figures for the 1st episode was 3.9 million viewers and a 'little birdie' haas told me that the figures increased to approx 4.9 million for the 2nd episode and it is estimated that WELL OVER 5 million people viewed last night's episode !!!

 

The official 'BARB' figures are not due for another week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought I saw the notice placed on the cars, by the bailiffs, state " In the custody of the law". Is that legal?

That is the actual status - when the bailiff is acting in the capacity of a court bailiff on a court warrant. However under CPE they act in the capacity of a private bailiff and the 'warrant' is issued by the Local Authority. The Local Authority is not part of "the law".

There is much smoke and mirrors in CPR part 75 regarding this (and the TEC).

 

A compelling argument can be found here http://www.policespecials.com/forum/...-a-civil-debt/ see post #6

again serving officers can not come up with a valid reason for stopping a car for an EA, but they do admit that they do.

I only read the first page of that. Far too disappointed by the woeful lack of knowledge of the police posters regarding CPE and the actual capacity of the bailiff.

Is it worth reading the rest of it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

lamma

 

 

I only read the first page of that. Far too disappointed by the woeful lack of knowledge of the police posters regarding CPE and the actual capacity of the bailiff.

Is it worth reading the rest of it ?

 

This is the point no one can sort out this mess, a mess it is, once the MOJ talks to everyone and puts it in writing on how and when the Police and EA's can work together in this type of situation. Until then you will have everyone thinking one thing doing another, then making their own rules when in reality they should ALL work from the same book and be on the same PAGE.

 

 

JUST like PACE which is a full detailed account of how things MUST be done. If the MOJ integrated the works done by EA's into the training manual as part of basic training then things may work better!! This way the Police will know EXACTLY what the LAW is not what the EA's say it is.

 

 

What IS needed is exact clear precise writing on what and how the EA's and Police can work together and which EA or HCEO or what the title is for them.

 

 

The Police always state that "it's a civil matter" why then do they do these operations with EA's? Unless it has something to do with the Courts or a Writ then the two teams so to speak should work independently from each other. The Police are not the private source of support for a Civil enforcement team are they?

 

 

MM

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not had an answer to the question asked a couple of times.

 

What is to stop a motorist driving off and not speaking to a bailiff ? Once the driver has complied with a constables request to stop under S.163 and given any details they have asked for, they are under no obligation to speak to a bailiff. The bailiff will not have seized the vehicle and has no power to stop the driver. The Police cannot stop the driver, as they have not breached the peace and the constable in not acting under a warrant of a court in relation to the collection of a fine.

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

My personal opinion is that there is nothing to stop the driver driving off if the stop has only been made at the bailiffs request which given the footage shown appears an illegal stop to me.

 

However, if you were stopped by the Police in such a manner, would you drive off? I know I wouldn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply HHJ Cryan also observed in his cross examination of a Marstons bailiff

 

‘You see, what I am partly finding difficult envisaging is the idea of a motorist waiting around in an entirely voluntary basis whilst forms are filled in and you make computer checks on people and go back to them’.

‘One view of what is happening here, as a matter of reality, is that when someone is pulled over by a police officer in uniform, who asks official questions, and then says ‘Here is a bailiff who is going to ask you more official questions’, the overall impression of the whole of this is that the engagement of the bailiff is no less involuntary – in other words, the obligation on the motorist to remain is no less present when the bailiff takes over as when the police officer was there’.

‘Do you not accept that that is an impression which may well be in the mind of the average motorist when stopped in these circumstances…?

At which the bailiff's (sorry Marstons) barrister intervened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My personal opinion is that there is nothing to stop the driver driving off if the stop has only been made at the bailiffs request which given the footage shown appears an illegal stop to me.

 

However, if you were stopped by the Police in such a manner, would you drive off? I know I wouldn't.

 

It really depends. We don't live in a Police state. The Police have to work within the law and enforcement agents have to follow rules/laws.

 

I don't agree with people not paying tickets that were correctly issued. They should think about the consequences of not paying. Some of these people will continue parking illegally, even though they get a ticket each time. Pretty silly really.

 

There could be circumstances where a driver would not want to speak to a bailiff and they should be aware of their rights to drive on, after following the reasonable request of a Police Officer to stop. If there is no law requiring them to speak to a bailiff at one of these roadside operations, they should be aware of this.

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

Time to be very blunt and not pussyfoot around the question on everyone's lips so I will ask it

 

 

1. We know it is LAWFUL for a uniformed Police officer to stop ANY vehicle correct?

 

 

2. Is it lawful for an EA it intervene even after the Officer has completed their enquiries?

 

 

3. Is it within the drivers prerogative to drive away once the uniformed Officer is finished.

 

 

4. What reason would the said Officer have to detain the driver if they drove away?

 

 

5. If the driver did move off would the Officer have any legal authority to further stop the driver if no offence has occurred?

 

 

6. Most enforcement stops are situated within the confines of a designated bus stop contrary to rule 47 in as much you must not stop or park in a bus stop clearway as plated on the lamp post/bus stop sign?

 

 

7. What is the exact wording within ANY Act that allows ANY EA to speak to a member out in public or on the public CARRIAGEWAY?

 

 

8. Are EA's exempt from seat belt laws? if not why was the EA not wearing hers in last nights show see this at the 5 mins mark perhaps she should get one in the post haahaa

 

 

MM

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 yes probably

 

2: he can approach as could you or I anyone in the street otherwise chuggers could be dragged off to jail, but the driver is under no obligation to speak with or deal with the EA if they are merely a private bailiff for a purely civil debt

 

3: If the police have no business with the motorist then I think they could drive off, in fact if the EA came over whilst the police were speaking to the driver and they had an issue themselves with the driver and tried to intervene at that point the EA would be the criminal for obstructing the police possibly

 

4: none

 

5: not if there was no other reason to detain the motorist

 

6: The bus company would probably be within their right to get the bailiff if not the police vehicle towed, saw that happen in Hanley in the mid 1990sy, police had a speed trap in a bus stop, bus company tow truck came out and there was a heated debate going on between the coppers and a bus inspector, with a few passengers waiting at the stop for a bus that had to stop in the nearside carriageway of an urban expressway as the bus stop was occupied by the police car.

 

7: Don't think there is any specific section in any Statute that expressly permits this.

 

I'm sure there will be further comments on this, but you are absolutely correct MM the questions must be asked.

Edited by brassnecked
typo

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...