Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 3562 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

Hello,

 

I was hoping some one could advise me.

I received a parking ticket in January out side university on the road. The original amount was £25 (oh how I wish I had paid it then!). Sadly my aunt died the day after and I forgot said parking ticket.

 

I am a student and a single mother and buried my head in the sand. Last week I received a letter from B&S saying I needed to pay £157. The letter was dated the 8th of July I did not receive it until the 23rd??

 

Any way I didn't get paid until today 30/07/14 and intended to pay the full amount today (which I have done).

 

I was out all day today in my absence I had a piece of paper posted through my door from an "enforcement agent" entitled "notice of enforcement agent visit" which I picked up when I got home. I did not at any point see the "agent" in question.

 

I then paid £157. Do I have to pay £235 for 1 failed visit? I don't even know if the agent that "signed" visited personally? (He is registered I did check).

 

I have emailed BS and told them that I have paid the £157 and as per the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 I believe my account is settled.

 

Please help I really cant afford to give the parasites £235 it will literally take all of my wages. I am really worried about them taking my car (its parked in a public car park)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you kept the envelope in which you received the letter on the 23rd July? The day you received the Notice of Enforcement is critical as you have 7 clear days from

receipt of that letter. [7 clear days means starting from the day after you receive the letter and does not include Sundays or bank holidays. In your case that should be

the 1st August.

Write to the bailiff company and the fine issuing authority complaining that despite the letter being dated the 8th July, you only received it on the 23rd July. So the bailiff was not

entitled to call until the 1st August and ask to confirm that the £235 will be removed and the matter ended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find it :( I didn't think it was important when I got the letter so go knows where it is. I have spoken to the council this am and agreed to pay £5pw to pay them back their "fees". I can't have them take my car which is the only thing of value I have.

 

Thank you for your advise but with out the envelope I am stuffed aren't I.

 

I've had this problem with that company before. Last time the registered ballif on the letter was a man and the person that knocked was a women. Which when I rang and told BS this they told me wasn't true it was a man (with long blonde hair and a skirt) they kept on trying to enforce until the council realised they had as I had said all along over charged me and it all miraculously stopped.

 

Horrible horrible company

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get in a state about it-most people don't retain the envelope. That doesn't stop you complaining to both companies. bailiff companies are adept at dating their letters one

day but not sending them out for days and then some of them use postal companies other than the Royal Mail which are often much slower to deliver.

 

Bailiffs and bailiff companies lie-it seems to in their genes. When you have problems with them saying that a man called rather than a woman write back and put them to strict proof

who called. In that instance, I suspect that the person who delivered your letter was not a bailiff at all so not entitled to make a charge for the visit. They know who actually

called and can prove where the man they claimed called,actually was and that probably was nowhere near where you were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Claire,

 

One good part about the new regulations is the PROTECTION that is given to 'vulnerable' debtors. If you are able to provide evidence that you have financial difficulty each company has agreed that they will REWIND the case back to the Notice of Enforcement stage and thereby REMOVE the Enforcement Fee of £235 from the account.

 

I can say with all honesty that each case that I know of where a debtor has written to the enforcement company and provided 'evidence' in support of financial difficulties /vulnerability the £235 has been removed. There is no point at all just telephoning the enforcement company...you will need to write to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The post from Tomtubby above is an extra string to your bow. The first one is that the bailiff had no right to visit you until the 7 clear days had elapsed. This he did not do and

so under the Regulations, the charge of £235 is not enforceable.

 

It is such a pity that you elected to pay the fees [i am assuming you mean the £235] when you weren't liable for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know :( I just can't deal with the fight at the moment. I need to be able to get on with my life with out worrying about this c***. If I had the envelope and I could prove it I would go for it but I can't. I can't put myself in a situation where I am worried they will take my car or similar. I have written to my pm the authorities pm an Eric pickles office expressing my disgust though that made me feel a smidge better. Than you for all of your advice it is really kind of you. £5 pw is worth my sanity at the moment xxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Write to the CEO of the Council marking your letter "Formal Complaint". That way if the Council have contracted out the running of the back office to a company like capita

[who own a number of bailiff companies] then you bypass them and the CEO knows what is happening.

Explain about the date you received the letter and thus the bailiff was wrong at Law to come when he did. Carry on to say that you are paying £5 per week under duress because

a] you cannot be without your car and you are afraid that the car may be clamped otherwise

b] you are vulnerable [explain why], you cannot afford the unjustified £235 but you do not have the strength to fight it despite it meaning that you are depriving your child/children

and yourself of that money

 

If you told the Council that the bailiff called before he was legally entitled, then you should complain that the Council should at least have asked the bailiffs for an explanation

of why it took so long for the letter to arrive.

 

If you didn't tell the Council, then stress that the bailiff came earlier than he should have and ask why you should be paying the £235 when you are in dire financial straits.

Outline your financial situation so that the CEO knows the position. And once again ask the CEO why the letter took so long and that you have copied the letter to the Local Government Ombudsman. And do send a copy of your letter to the Ombudsman as they will want to know the unlawful practices carried out by B&S.

 

Good luck with the outcome. We will all be rooting for you here on the Forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...