Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is this correct ?
    • OK, so I've rather unfairly picked up a CCJ from a business overdraft debt that's been going on for years. I had court claim forms in 2014 which I managed to stave off. and again in sept 2016. This time I've acknowledged the service, filling in what I thought was the correct amount I thought I owed. I've since had the personal guarantee paper copies in my possession and I owe £21K. I sent them back along with a new address for all correspondence to be sent to, and then agreed to a Tomlin order to pay debt off monthly.  Now, these were sent back and forth and eventually signed, but apparently only partially. So DD was set up at same time, in Jan 2017. over next couple of months we paid, and also go letters to sign new Tomlin which we ignored as it was signed. In March we got another TO with 7 days to sign it and send back. We had one day to get this to them and phoned to say it wouldn't be there, that's ok they said, well extend it, just keep paying and send it back asap, we did send recorded (since lost receipt). We assumed they'd got it, and didn't hear a peep from them. Until July 18, when I found id got a CCJ from Feb that year. I've logged a complaint with solicitor, and had a response, they are denying any knowledge of anything. They had no TO so took it to court without my knowledge.  I didn't think there was anything I can do. However, as it turns out, the court sent papers to an old address even though solicitor had new address for 13 months, and address for correspondence was on the claim papers I sent back. Upon closer inspection the numbers are all wrong too, nor a lot but its about £200 adrift. We called their office too within the 30 day notice period, oddly they have no record of that.  And all this is on a "Business Charge Card Guarantee" …. anyone explain that?? In the mean time we've paid £5K+ of the debt off. At no point did anyone in the process let us know we'd had the CCJ logged against us. Is that right?? Or legal? I was intending to get it set side, but was told by them it was pointless. Just want to get back to point A. Paying it isn't the problem, it getting the CCJ reset. Please Help!!! 
    • same with jaguar s-types etc. all kind of weird issues if the battery is on the way out or the terminals/earth straps are not reconnected tightely/properly.   mine was the earthing strap to the gearbox, was rotted and got knocked during the gearbox oil change.
    • what have they got that they can respond too that counters your SB defence? zilch.   as with every erudio claimform or PAPLOC thread on CAG you solely got the claim because for whatever reason , to that date, everything was ignored.   once a response is made they go away.   default CCJ avoided. you must read up and understand how arrows [erudio!!] operate  
    • so won by a section 75 claim under the consumer credit act then   consequential losses are also covered by section 75 as the card provide is equally liable as you've already found out   as for the dealer and court there is no time limit, well 6yrs I believe   though it would be a tough battle but made slightly easier as BC coughed up. but again what would you in all reality 'win' probably go bust or change name        
  • Our picks

Michael Browne

Drivers may be able to reclaim millions in unfair parking fines

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1849 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

Motorists could demand the refund of more than £100m in parking fines,

after what experts described as an “explosive” tribunal ruling left local government traffic officials in “absolute panic”.

 

Councils have handed over parking management to private companies,

but in many instances have also asked them to handle any appeals against penalty charge notices (PCNs).

 

 

This process is supposed to be handled by councils,

partly because it would be a conflict of interest for a company to examine its own possible mistakes.

 

The Traffic Penalty Tribunal is the second point of appeal and

 

 

an adjudicator, Christopher Nicholls,

has spelled out that council contractors must not be left to process PCN objections.

 

 

His ruling stated: “I find that no reasonable local authority could have concluded this contract met the terms of its regulatory and public law duties.”

 

As a result, 13 motorists in Gloucestershire were awarded their parking fines and costs

after their initial appeals were turned down by the county council’s contractor, Apcoa.

 

 

The motorists were repaid sums ranging from £42.50 to £155.67.

 

The decision has widespread implications for people who may have been incorrectly fined.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/drivers-may-reclaim-millions-in-unfair-parking-fines-9746466.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not one of them but would like to see this come off. Then again if a lot of money has to go out, it will mean CT is raised to counter.

I doubt anyone will just get a refund, my betting is it will have to be reclaimed like always and as the majority won't know anything about it, the fines will stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is less likely to mean council tax rises, which can be capped and are in any case politically risky for the councils involved. More probably consequences will be cuts in social services and staffing. Excellent news.

 

I am sceptical of the factual basis of the story anyway. Under the 1992 Road Traffic Act, council officers had to consider formal representations, but not informal ones. I don't know if that changed when the TMA came in, but there was historically no compulsion for councils to deal with informal reps themselves. Whether allowing the issuing companies to deal with them is fair or reasonable is a matter of opinion, but adjudication rulings aren't law. I think it would take more than one ruling to force councils to refund stacks of old charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...