Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I got a quote from a builder to erect a basic timber leanto on the back of my property, and do some remedial work to an already existing brick shed. The area for the leanto already had decking but this was rotting so was to be removed.  The builder is a part time firman, and is a near neighbour of my daughter, and semed a friendly enough person.  When he came to view the job in May 20, I explained I was not looking to start the works until begining of August 20, so I could comfortabley get the funds together.  He mentioned he would be free to start on 1st July 20 as had no work booked in for that period.  I explained that I am disabled with a variety of consitions included limited mobility. I run a business from home from my loft office and wanted the leanto so I could have a dedicated space downstairs to work from hen needed. He sent me a quote via email. The quote was in a Ltd company name, but had no address on it and had a start date of 1st July 20.  I agreed in the end to this start date as he said he was free. Total quoted for all works was £10,720 with a deposit of £4390 to be paid immediately for materials to start on 01/07/20.  He sent me some pictures of garden rooms he had recently completed, and I liked the idea of having UPVC cladding for minimal maintenance and asked how much more this would be, and was advised £1730, so I paid a deposit of £6120 on 01/09/20.  The bank account details I was provided to pay the deposit was the builders wifes account.  he said the company was new.  He sent me an email on 30/06/20 saying he was collecting ALL the materials on 01/07/20 and would start on 02/07/20, then he was delayed as was let down by some suppliers. Work did not actually start until 17/07/20 after I requetsed a refund due to breach of contract. They arrived and took town the old decking. there has been constant delays, excuses and outright lies and I again requested a cancellation of the contract and refund as of part of my money as they would turn up one day, then nothing, citing, supply issues, workers being sick, his child being sick, etc.  As he had assured us everything would be ready befoe 15/08/20 we booked a small gathering for a barbecue for my stepdaughters 21st and made the builder aware. We requested a full schedule of the works to be done each day and a completion date, which he gave in writing as 13/08/20, stating that the perspecx roof would be fitted on 11/08/20. Needless to say this did not happen, he claims there were supply issues with the perspex sheets and he ended up putting up a gazebo in the half completed frame of the building on the morning of 15/08/20 as no roof was on and I was concerned for rain, and confirming that the sheets for the roof would be dleivered the following week.  Well the builder went on holiday on 20/08/20, 2 workrs came on 20/08/20 and 21/08/20 to put up tarpaulin as still no roof had arrived, no cladding had arrived and a list of other works ahd not been done. On the morning of 22/08/20 we discovered we had a leak as thay had damaged a pipe when putting up the tarpaulin. I called and sent a text message to the worker and also texted the builder who gave me his plumbers number, who never came to fix the leak. on 27/08/20 I text builder again as still not heard anything form anyone and he said he was back in the country the next day and would come and see what still needed to be done and get things sorted.  He never arrived. On 01/09/20 I texted the builder who said he was at work the next day and my job would be on.  I asked him to explain exactly what that meant as I needed the work done as a priority,  He said, plumber coming today, cladding fitting tomorrow, roof panels Thursday.  No plumber arrived that day.  I contacted builder the next day, he said they were not coming as team member was sick, but he would get plumber there today.  i told him if no one came today, we would get someone else in to do works as I was getting bitten by mosquites from the stagnnant water.  No one came that day or the next.  I decided I would put the remaming works on a bulder site to get estimates to do the remaining works and then would give the builder a deadline which I did.  I spoke to the builder on 08/09/20 when he called to let me know thta he had again chased the roof panels, but he wanted me to sign a waiver about the roof.  I told him no, he had told me on numberous occassions that he had ALL the supplies, he know what was need from the start, and he had lied on previous occassions as he now admitted he had only ordered the roof panels on 21/08/20. he was however saying he had ordered bespoke panels to fit the roof, which were not necessary, discussed or agreed with me.  I told him that he had 1 week to complete all the remaining works or I would give the job to someone else and would reques a refund of monies as by now I had paid a total of £9655. All payments to his wifes account.   The builder called me on 15/09/20 to let me know he had been assured the roof panels were being delivred on that Thursday 17/09/20. I told him that was too late. he knew today was the dealine, he had not even bothered to acknowledge my email and as he clearly was not in a position to complete ALL the works by the end of that day, I would be employing alternate builders to start the next day 16/09/20, which I did.   Sorry the post is so long, but I wanted to give the history.   I have sent a letter guaranteed delivery addressed to the builder, his wife and the company  to their home address asking for a reund of £4500 withing 7 day.   I plan to take legal proceedings against ALL 3.  Although the quote had the company name on it there is no address or contact information on it, all communication came from his personal email address, he requested that the money be paid into his wife's account.   His wife is not a director of the company, she did become a company secretary on 22/06/20, so I believe I rightfully can request she repay the money as she had to right to it.   He has refused to send a breakdown of materials actually used, which is all I am prepared to pay for.  He has said I am not due a refund as he has paid for the materials. He has not fitted the cladding, or done any of the other works, which could have been completed whilst waiting for the roof panels.   Incidentally, the new builders saterted on 16/09/20, and obtained the same roof panels that morning and by Friday 18/09/20 had fitted the roof, cladded one side of the building, fitted,  UPVC doors to leant and brick shed, fitted and 2 UPVC wndows to  leanto.   Your advice regarding the status of the wife would be most helpful
    • Includes eligibility, appeals, tax credits and Universal Credit View the full article
    • Public backs debt enforcement to support vital public services - survey | CIVEA View the full article
    • The CMA has today published further detail on its views on the law in relation to cancellations and refunds during the pandemic. View the full article
    • A passenger is told she had accepted vouchers, although BA's website did not list them as an option. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 4 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2323 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

Well time to get the discussion going. What comments on tonight's show please?

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
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. Lets start the ball rolling, did anyone notice the illegal search at the 19 minutes mark by the EA's? When they went through the bins, EA's do not have any authority to search through them, they had not even ascertained if it was the debtor that lived there but still went through the rubbish.

 

 

2. Did anyone love her face when she had to let the car go the look of disgust on that face was just so perfect

 

 

3. The EA's comments "it's like being a detective" this you are not and you have openly shown the whole country you act above the law.

 

 

4. Looking through someone's window the way they did is contrary to law, again they did not ascertain if the ACTUAL debtor was/is the owner/tenant again showing the public you have little or no RESPECT for the law

 

 

5. The comments of this EA are unreal and keeps referring to being a "copper" if you wish to question a debtor like a criminal then give them the PACE caution "oh you can't can you as you are not coppers are you, also you are not AUTHORISED to do so are you?"

 

 

6. What right have you got to look through the window if you have not ascertained if the debtor actually lives there at that time, as they may have moved and you are prying into affairs that do not concern the EA

 

 

7. The EA has established the debtor is not there but asks for PERSONAL information in regards to them without their consent this was at the 20 minute mark, again asking someone to break the law in this case the DPA 1998 asking the bare chested man to give them details of any letters.

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

I saw the last few mins... just reminded me of High way robbery !!! makes me sick this country !!:-x

Abbey Settled 3,600:cool:

 

Just started battle with

EGG

Virgin CC

Abbey

MBNA

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there was an example of the Police exceeding their specific role for this roadside operation, which was to purely stop a vehicle, ask for driving licence, insurance and then to stop any breach of the peace. The Police appeared to be assisting the bailiff in their enforcement activity, which is not allowed.

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 lot of comments from members of the public stating "you do not have the authority to do this", so in all honestly it may be time for the Met to seriously look in to the legalities of using certain EA's at this sort of stop.

 

 

As being discussed on a different thread. Here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?422834-Police-and-Bailiff-‘ANPR-Roadside-Operations’...response-at-last-from-the-Metropolitan-Police-!!!(22-Viewing)-nbsp

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

unclebulgaria67 This topic of Police assistance is going to go to the very heart of the MET, why do they think they can stop a vehicle for a CIVIL debt, they can't but always do. It should now be in the basic training manual to have a section to new recruits to become knowledgeable in this side of the law.

 

 

EA's have a job to do but they too MUST abide by the law and stop bending it to suit their own needs.

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

So if stopped by the police and all was in order and you drove off and just ignored the Bailiff what would happen ?

Abbey Settled 3,600:cool:

 

Just started battle with

EGG

Virgin CC

Abbey

MBNA

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
So if stopped by the police and all was in order and you drove off and just ignored the Bailiff what would happen ?

 

Nothing. This was the consensus when discussed on here before. The Police guidance in roadside operations is to avoid any arrest for breach of the peace. The Police would have no legitimate reason to stop any motorist further after they had already fully complied with their S168 stop.

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

Nothing..... You do not have to talk to an EA. The reason for the stop has been sorted by the Police Officer walking away, because the EA wishes to speak to the owner at the time of the ALLEDGED PCN. Which might not even be you, they have no legal standing in which to stop a member of the public on the public CARRIAGE way the EA's rely on the Police to do the stop for them have a read of the other topic in the above thread

 

 

We are having some in depth discussions on this very matter

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
So if stopped by the police and all was in order and you drove off and just ignored the Bailiff what would happen ?

 

 

In law nothing should as no offence has been committed, and no law compels you to speak to or deal with a bailiff however skanky they are. going off how the Met operate they may well, initiate a high speed chase to stop the car for the bailif/EA quite unlawfully most likely. All roadside stops where the police stop a car soley when bailiff Civil ANPR goes ping are wholly unlawful this travesty will bite the Met on the bum soon imho

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

The use of an EA using the ANPR system is seriously flawed, the car may have changed hands, but they INSIST in using it to get payment for the OWNER at the TIME which maybe be several months in the past.

 

 

The DUE PCN is against the owner at the time not the on at THIS time, they really need to get this mess sorted ASAP

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 MoJ should rescind the right of the EA to use the ANPR as a tool and most certainly ban them from using the Police stop's as an enforcement tool, this is wrong in so many ways since the new regs came into force it should have been dealt with then.

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 use of an EA using the ANPR system is seriously flawed, the car may have changed hands, but they INSIST in using it to get payment for the OWNER at the TIME which maybe be several months in the past.

 

 

The DUE PCN is against the owner at the time not the on at THIS time, they really need to get this mess sorted ASAP

 

As none were shown it would be interesting to know how many cars stopped and the driver forced to pay up by Debbie were NEW owners who she said had to to pay for the previous owners PC, as the warrant was to the cars index number, whilst plod stood idly by and let her fleece a third party.

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

The warrant is for a named person not a vehicle, but they use out of date data from the DVLA or it may be that the partner is the driver, but again the warrant details are specific with a name. if that name is different to the driver the stop is illegal as the driver cannot in all honesty supply information to the EA as this breaches privacy laws. If the warrant has a named person and the person stopped is not the named debtor then the EA must retire

 

 

What would be brilliant to see is if a driver demands to see the warrant and the EA produces a doctored one and the POLICE officer is as sharp as a pin and notices this, what a story line that would make

 

 

In a different thread I have commented on this subject, but the EA should NOT take control of goods not belonging to the NAMED person on the Warrant

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

You are absolutely correct MM the warrant is to a named debtor, but the EA may well ignore that and press the innocent for payment that is a fact unfortunately plod are more likely to arrest the innocent at this roadside stitch up for a public order offence whilst the bailiff/EA remove the innocents car. another fact from the programme was that the bailiffs admitted they were on performance reklated Pay aka Commission.....

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 was actually more concerned with this episode than the others for so many reasons. I lost count of the number of times that the Whyte & co bailiffs said that the car has outstanding warrants against it !!!

 

The absurdity of this comment can be best demonstrated by considering the following:

 

I could be fined for speaking on a mobile but this does not mean that there is a warrant against the PHONE

 

I could be fined if my dog messed in an open park area but this does not mean that there is a warrant against the DOG

 

I could be fined for overfilling my refuse bins but this again does not mean that there is a warrant against the REFUSE BINS

 

In all cases (including the parking tickets) the warrant is against the OWNER (of the mobile car, the dog, the refuse bins or the motor vehicle).

Link to post
Share on other sites

TT that illustrates why roadside operations are fatally flawed, as the Warrant is against the car owner at the time of the contravention, not neccesarily the person driving on the day the car is pulled over due to being flagged by ANPR It is civil so not an offence in a criminal sense, and is an unpaid " Penalty Charge Notice" not a "Fine", but the bailiffs/EA tell the police they are " Unpaid Parking Fines" that helps foster a mindset in the police at the roadside that these are somehow criminal fines, it is a form of misrepresentation that has a psychological effect on the coppers at the scene per se making them compliant to the EAs instructions.

 

As it is established who is liable for the PCN, but the car Registration is on the Warrant New Owner who bought the car within say the last six weeks is on a sticky wicket, as the DVLA may not have changed keeper details, and the ANPR will not therefore be updated, Whyte & Co or JBW or whoever will be reluctant to accept evidence profferd by the innocent as their ANPR has flagged the car for a pull, they are unlikely to have hard copy paperwork or receipts with them at the time of the pull, the Vehicle Registration number is on the Warrant, so bailiff feels secure in taking the car if New Owner doesn''t pay. Now that interpleader is in the mix it can only become worse.

 

Just had a thought UB, yes there is no compulsion to deal with the EA at the roadside once copper walks away, but as seen last night, with the sheer numbers of police and Whyte & Co EAs, the way the road was coned off etc, would make it very difficult to drive off without a copper or EA jumping in front to stop you from doing just that whatever the legalities of the situation.

 

These "Operations" should cease with immediate effect, but sadly they will carry on.

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

they seem to be in control of the stop and not the police . but watching it at the moment Horsham got featured . I have to look for the stars of the show

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brassnecked. Your above post is spot on...well done.

 

By coincidence I have written an extensive article on these Bailiff and Police ANPR Roadside Operations for a trade publication that goes to press over the weekend. Once published I will be allowed to post a copy here on the forum. I agree with you that these operations should stop right now and the "Parking Mad" series has highlighted the serious failings of these operations and worryingly, "Debbie" (the female bailiff from Whyte & Co) appears to have little regard for the regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They way the roadside operations are done will have to change anyway re the Taking Control of Good sections that cover these. When they apply a wheelclamp on a car, if the PCN is not settled immediately, the EA's have to keep the car at the spot it was stopped for a minimum of 2 hours, so the person owing the PCN has a chance to settle, before the car is taken away. If the bailffs are stopping cars on a main road, the Police should not allow clamped cars to be kept on the road for 2 hours, if they start to cause a hazard.

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

Has anyone contacted the programme makers to point out these flaws ?

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

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

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

 

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

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

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

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

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

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

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the new bailiff regulations MOJ are insisting that bailiffs undergo specific training etc. With respect seeing the way in which the bailiffs acted last night it is clear that they will do precisely what THEY want to do and further training will not make any difference. Bearing in mind that the bailiff was aware that he was being filmed I was very angry at what was said to the seriously disabled motorist who was pulled over for ONE parking ticket. This gentleman had lost both his legs and had the use of a vehicle provided under the Motability Scheme. I would assume that given the severity of his disability that the vehicle would have been modified etc.

 

The bailiff quite rightly confirmed that he could not seize a Motability vehicle and tried to insist that the driver had REFUSED to pay his ticket. The driver quickly argued that he was NOT refusing to pay and that instead, he could not AFFORD to pay but could make a payment proposal of £5 per week. This was rejected and on hearing this offer the bailiff was seen taunting the driver by saying that:

 

"You can afford to run a nice car Sir"

 

The driver was quick to respond saying that the vehicle costs £50 per week and the payment is deducted from his Disability Living Allowance.

 

Upon realising that payment would not be forthcoming the bailiff then demonstrated his total lack of compassion by informing this desperately disabled man that he would therefore have to contact Motability Finance to advise them that the driver had broken the terms of his Motability Finance Agreement by failing to pay a parking ticket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon realising that payment would not be forthcoming the bailiff then demonstrated his total lack of compassion by informing this desperately disabled man that he would therefore have to contact Motability Finance to advise them that the driver had broken the terms of his Motability Finance Agreement by failing to pay a parking ticket.

 

 

Is there such a term ?

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

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

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

 

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

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

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

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

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

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

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there such a term ?

 

I doubt it. There may be a wording about any criminal fines related to the use of the vehicle.

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

Citizen B

 

In answer to your question about Motability, about two years ago a lady contacted the debt charity (where I work one day a week) as her Motability vehicle had been taken back by Motability as she had a LOT of unpaid parking tickets (which from memory was about 20 tickets).

 

At that time I was involved in a lot of discussion with the Motability legal team and it was then that I was made aware that there is indeed a clause in the Agreements. However, the clause (at that time) stated that the driver could be in default if they failed to pay motoring FINES ( which are not parking tickets).

 

In light of last night's programme I will be contacting Motability Finance for further details.

 

If anyone viewing this post has a Motability vehicle I would be pleased to know what clauses are in the Agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...