Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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 
        • 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 3565 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

i need some help,

 

This is a case of mistaken identity that no one want's to admit it might have happened.

 

They are pursuing me for a council tax debt in Hillingdon from 2007-2008 for a person who has almost the same name as mine

 

On the date of July the first 2014 i received a removal notice through my letter box from Phoenix Commercial

stating that i owed them £937.89.

 

The removal notice that contained just a name MR Foster, no first name and no break down of the debt.

 

I must mention that this is the first time i was contacted about this debt.

 

I have never ever heard before about this and i have never had the chance to prove my innocence.

 

I called the debt collection agency and they advised me it was a debt from LB Hillingdon

and i need to pay the full amount otherwise i will have goods removed even if i'm not home.

 

I called Hillingdon and tried to explain the situation.

They were very unhelpful and rude and didn't want to advise me about anything apart that they wanted the money.

 

I have asked on several occasions to talk to a Senior Revenue Officer or recovery team but i was refused every single time.

 

I think i must have called them 20-30 times to sort the situation and

 

at some point i had 2 advisors confirming me that the proof I've sent them is enough and i won't face any further action.

 

I must mention that i provided several documents with my name and address

some coming from Romania to prove i have worked in a choir there but their motivation is that being a musician i could have traveled a lot.

 

I have tried out to find where they found my name and address and they told me Experian provided all the information including my date of birth.

 

Experian is denying that they ever sold any personal data as that will be against data protection and they are investigating this matter.

 

On July the 24th i was contacted by a manager of Hillingdon Council after i insisted to talk to someone higher.

She asked me some questions that i didn't fully understand as English is not my first language

and sometime when i'm under pressure i can't concentrate fully to what people are saying

and i was tending for my son who has chicken pox as well and

 

we ended up in an argument her telling me i'm a liar and me calling them bullies.

 

My birth name is .M.P-U i'm a native Romanian.

 

The persons they are looking for is a M P who lived in Hillingdon in 2007-2008.

 

In Romania my surnamecan be interpreted in 3 ways as we have diacritics.

 

I have been called on the 24 th of July 2014 by the office Phoenix Collection

and threatened that they are going to come after me as i'm a liar and they are going to take everything that i owe.

 

In my despair i have offered them to pay £20 a month till i get this case to the Valuation Tribunal services but they are no accepting anything.

 

I have logged complaints to Hillingdon, Phoenix, Local gov Ombudsman but no one really heard my case.

All they are saying is i need to pay the money and that's it.

 

I have been living under constant stress and harassment since July 2014.

 

Every single time i hear a noise outside and someone knocks on the door i start shaking and can't stop.

 

I've attended my GP and i have been prescribed anxiety medication.

 

I had to have days off from the school i'm working to guard my house and i'm having nightmares constantly that

my door is going to be knocked and my 6 years old will be scared to death.

 

I have been constantly threatened and bullied to admit that i'm the person they are looking for

and every time i keep on telling my name that is M P-u they say i'm admitting i'm the person they are looking for.

 

What more can i do to stop them?

Edited by maria paros-ungurean
more info
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest filing a statutory declaration that you are not the person.

 

also, get evidence you were not at the address in question at the time.

 

that should kill the debt dead.

 

It might also advise you need to suggest an alternate username to me via private message.

 

its not was to post/use pers details here.

 

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

Sorry about that, i'm new here.

 

I already sent them proof from Romania as a pay slip from 2008

and details that i've worked since 2001 to 2010 there but they said as i'm a musician

 

i could have traveled quite a lot in uk

 

and i could have had a house here ( not that i could have afforded one).

 

i also sent them my marriage certificate where it clearly states my maiden name as i have never changed it.

 

They just don't want to accept anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under English Law, you cannot be pursued or held liable for someone else's debt. It is also illegal to take court proceedings against someone who has committed no crime or civil wrongdoing. This is what has appeared to have happened in your case.

 

dx100uk's advice to swear a Statutory Declaration is sound and you should action this as soon as possible. If London Borough of Hillingdon and Phoenix still persist, then you may need to go to court and seek an injunction against both of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has Hillingdon Council confirmed the ADDRESS that the council tax relates to?

 

If so, is this the same address where you are now living?

 

It is more than likely that the LANDLORD provided the name to Hillingdon Council. Have you contacted the Landlord?

 

Lastly, have you sent a copy of your passport to Hillingdon Council. This should show then dates when you arrived in the UK and dates of leaving?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under English Law, you cannot be pursued or held liable for someone else's debt. It is also illegal to take court proceedings against someone who has committed no crime or civil wrongdoing. This is what has appeared to have happened in your case.

 

dx100uk's advice to swear a Statutory Declaration is sound and you should action this as soon as possible. If London Borough of Hillingdon and Phoenix still persist, then you may need to go to court and seek an injunction against both of them.

 

Council tax is generally owed by 'those in occupation' of the property during the applicable period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Council tax is generally owed by 'those in occupation' of the property during the applicable period.

 

That is the point I am making, TT. From what the OP has said in their post, the local authority and civil enforcement company are chasing the OP for someone else's debt, due, it would seem, to the local authority's incompetence and malfeasance.

 

Looking at the OP's initial post again, the local authority and civil enforcement company involved have exposed themselves to legal action as they have no grounds in law for pursuing the OP. It is also possible the landlord gave incorrect or false information to the local authority. I have come across cases, where I am, of landlords giving false information to the local authority in order to avoid paying CT for periods when their properties are unoccupied.

 

My view is that the local authority and civil enforcement company should back off, conduct a proper investigation and not plough on regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if Maria swears a Statutory Declaration that she was NOT in the UK at the time period covered by the LO, and also the other proof of non presence in the UK was sent in to council and EA contained in a Formal Complkaint to CEO, iyt might focus their revenue hungry at any cost tiny minds. Or am I clawing at the wrong leg.

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 council are clearly of the opinion that Maria has been the real person occupying the property and in order to dispel that theory I would still advise that showing the council a copy of the her passport could bring their enquiries to a close. A letter from the landlord should be simple to obtain and a copy of the tenancy agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notwithstanding, TT, the council need to be upfront with the information they are relying on and cease bullying the OP and allowing their contracted enforcement agents to do likewise. The fact the OP is Romanian is relevant.

 

As alluded in my previous post, it is not unknown for landlords to give false information about tenants to local authorities in order to avoid paying CT for which the landlord is liable during periods when their properties are unoccupied.

 

Brassnecked is on the right path as is dx100uk with the Statutory Declaration route. As stated previously, the local authority and enforcement company need to back off and conduct a proper investigation, otherwise I can see both facing legal action they are unlikely to come out of very favourably.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...