Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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 
      • 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

Collect Services - Threat to Remove Blue Badge (Disabled OAP's) car for PCN


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3455 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 am writing on behalf of an elderly 80-year-old,

seen your Forums in the past, and hoping you might be able to give me some advice on his behalf.

 

Mr B was given a PCN by Kingston Council for driving in a bus lane.

He has had several periods in hospital, and therefore the matter has now been processed to bailiffs, Collect Services,

who have now called twice at his property (despite being advised he is a vulnerable person).

 

A complaint was made to Collect and a copy of their complaints procedure requested.

 

 

No response has been received from that, and

 

 

a complaint has been lodged with CIVEA, but he has today received the letter below, which has caused him great distress

 

 

"Dear XXXX XXXX

 

Due to your failure to settle this unpaid Penalty Charge Notice(s) your vehicle has now been included on our outstanding pcn ANPR database.

 

In the event we LOCATE your vehicle it will be REMOVED and taken to auction without any further warning.

 

Additional costs of £xxx.xx will be incurred plus auctioneers costs."

 

The car is his sole means of getting around (he can barely walk a few yards) and displays a blue badge registered in his name.

 

I had always believed (and indeed have seen on the Citizens Advice Website)

that a car displaying a blue badge and for the use of a disabled person cannot be taken by bailiffs.

 

Is this correct.

 

 

If so what steps should now be taken.

 

 

The car is in his driveway (he has no garaging facilities or anywhere else he can leave the car)

and he is quite upset that these people (who have already been very aggressive with a carer who answered the door for him).

 

 

Can they take this car with the blue badge?

 

 

Should we write to them?

 

 

Is there legislation we need to quote?

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

 

He cannot afford the amount they are requesting (now over or near£600),

 

 

and these bailiffs seem to think they can just walk roughshod over whatever regulations are in place to help vulnerable people like him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am writing on behalf of an elderly 80-year-old,

seen your Forums in the past, and hoping you might be able to give me some advice on his behalf.

 

Mr B was given a PCN by Kingston Council for driving in a bus lane.

He has had several periods in hospital, and therefore the matter has now been processed to bailiffs, Collect Services,

who have now called twice at his property (despite being advised he is a vulnerable person).

 

A complaint was made to Collect and a copy of their complaints procedure requested.

 

 

No response has been received from that, and

 

 

a complaint has been lodged with CIVEA, but he has today received the letter below, which has caused him great distress

 

 

"Dear XXXX XXXX

 

Due to your failure to settle this unpaid Penalty Charge Notice(s) your vehicle has now been included on our outstanding pcn ANPR database.

 

In the event we LOCATE your vehicle it will be REMOVED and taken to auction without any further warning.

 

Additional costs of £xxx.xx will be incurred plus auctioneers costs."

 

The car is his sole means of getting around (he can barely walk a few yards) and displays a blue badge registered in his name.

 

I had always believed (and indeed have seen on the Citizens Advice Website)

that a car displaying a blue badge and for the use of a disabled person cannot be taken by bailiffs.

 

Is this correct.

 

 

If so what steps should now be taken.

 

 

The car is in his driveway (he has no garaging facilities or anywhere else he can leave the car)

and he is quite upset that these people (who have already been very aggressive with a carer who answered the door for him).

 

 

Can they take this car with the blue badge?

 

 

Should we write to them?

 

 

Is there legislation we need to quote?

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

 

He cannot afford the amount they are requesting (now over or near£600),

 

 

and these bailiffs seem to think they can just walk roughshod over whatever regulations are in place to help vulnerable people like him.

 

Is the car provided to the gentleman through the motability scheme or is it a case he owns the car and the blue badge was granted to him on application?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is his own car, owned outright, and the blue badge has been granted by his local council a few years back (after medical reports, etc.) due to his inability to walk more than a few yards, circulation and heart problems.

 

He receives Attendance Allowance.

 

I found the blue badge advice on a Citizens Advice Bureau page (can't link so will cut and paste)

 

Can bailiffs take a vehicle?

 

Bailiffs are allowed to take your vehicle when collecting a debt. There are some exceptions to this, which are:

 

a vehicle which is necessary for your work, study or business, and where there is no alternative public transport you could use instead, as long as it is not worth more than £1350 - this rule does not apply if your debts are for business rates or taxes

 

a vehicle which you're paying for on a hire puchase or conditional sale agreement

 

a vehicle which is displaying a disabled blue badge and is used for transporting a disabled person

 

Much appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sent a message to our resident bailiff expert asking her to look in on this. I am registered disabled and a blue badge holder with my car being 'leased' to me through the motability scheme, bailiffs cannot touch it but as to a private vehicle being exempt I am not so sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough, Mr B (not his real name) did apply for Motability but did not qualify because he did not receive any disability benefits until after the age 0f 65, and therefore receives Attendance Allowance and not the required DLA.

 

These bailiffs have constantly ignored and refused to accept that he is a vulnerable household - he is in his eighties, suffering from cancer and heart disease, and was recently attacked in his own home so becomes extremely nervous at the presence of strangers. If he isn't vulnerable, I don't know who is!!

 

We are currently compiling a full complaint to CIVEA, but in view of this letter today think we need some urgent advice as to what they can or cannot do. Seriously worried that if anyone calls to take his car while he is on his own at home, he could suffer a heart attack or something.

 

Once again your help is much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you lend him the money? Regardless of any complaint he is liable for the debt and it will not go away.

 

Is that really called for greenand mean? Maybe the OP cannot afford to lend him the money and is just trying to be a good neighbor and help the old gentleman!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Sparks, that is exactly what I am trying to do.

 

Regardless of whether or not I could afford to lend Mr B the money, £400 worth of the sum claimed owed was added AFTER the Bailiffs had chosen to breach their Code of Conduct and visit a person they knew to be classified as 'Vulnerable'.

 

Perhaps I am somewhat naive in this matter, but I do believe these people should be held accountable for simply believing they have no obligation to adhere to the regulations set up for their industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime you need to ensure both Blue Badge & Timeclock are left on display on the vehicle dashboard. Does he get a free Road Fund Licence - I appreciate that tax discs are no longer issued but if this still has time to run and shows the taxation class as Disabled then this is another pointer. If he doesn't get a free tax disc then I would be inclined to remove the present one from view - he is not committing any offence now.

 

What Collect have come out with so far will be all bluff & bluster to try and force the issue. Have the Council been informed about all this? Do you know if there were any mitigating circumstances surrounding the original ticket?

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he doesn't have a Free Road Fund Licence, just the blue badge in his name because of his inability to walk. The blue badge is clearly displayed in his window.

 

Yes, the Council involved have been fully informed and have received a formal complaint as to the behaviour of their bailiffs in disregarding his vulnerability status.

 

The only mitigating circumstances surrounding the ticket were that he was too ill to attend to it when it was received (at one point it appeared he was not going to survive) and by the time had recovered enough to ask for help with his affairs the Bailiffs had become involved. It was at this point I composed a letter advising both Collect and the Council of his vulnerability status and that they should cease their intention to call at the property and deal with collection by other means. Collect ignored this and called twice. Once I answered the door and the person was extremely aggressive, demanding to discuss the matter with me (which I believe is also against their regulations).

 

I am sure that Mr B could pay the amount of the original ticket - perhaps from deductions from his Pension Credit at an acceptable rate, but this has now been multiplied sixfold by bailiff's charges.

 

The most serious aspect, and I don't feel I am exaggerating here, is that any stress on his doorstep could literally kill him, and I simply cannot believe that these people are allowed to behave in this manner when their National Standards quite clearly state otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has proof of his vulnerability been sent to both Council & Bailiffs? Don't get me wrong but Councils & Bailiffs hear similar stories every day, proof must be provided - for illness usually a letter from a professional medical person & for Benefits usually proof of an Award Notice. I appreciate time is ticking away tonight but hopefully more direct progress can be made in the morning.

 

Do you know if his local Councillor is easily approachable as that is another avenue to use.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Medical documentation was sent in the form of a detailed list of all the medication he takes for heart problems, artery blockages. etc. Obviously a doctor would not prescribe medication if it was not required!

 

I also believe, according to what I have read of the Enforcement Agents' Standards, that to be 'elderly' in itself is enough to be considered vulnerable (I assume a man in his eighties would qualify) (paragraph 77), and they have written proof of his age. They also say the use of discretion is a must in any cases where they may be potential for vulnerability (paragraph 70 and 71).

 

I will await to hear more in the morning, and thanks again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The National Standards are only a guide and not law. Each Council & Enforcement Co are signed up to abide by them but when push comes to shove they pick and choose what they want & regularly come up with "they are only guidelines". Complaining to CIVEA I'm afraid will not produce very much as they are a bit of a "boys club" in that they are funded by their membership.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The process for contesting this is the filing of an Out of Time Witness Statement. The success or otherwise of such an application will be the strength of the argument as to why this was not dealt with prior to the bailiffs' warrant being granted.

 

You have touched on this, but without solid details. I understand that he has had medical issues and been in hospital - the question is, could you convince an impartial person that these issues prevented him from paying or appealing the charge? If you could, it is worth a try. If you couldn't, his case will be weaker.

 

You will need to bear in mind that despite his 80 years, he is a driver in control of a vehicle, fit and able to drive a car and therefore in theory (though not necessarily in fact) in sufficient control of his affairs to be able to be able to pay a PCN.

 

If you think he can argue that he was unable to do so because of circumstance, then the Out of Time Witness Statement is the way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To confirm the situation immediately after the traffic violation occurred. Mr B was admitted to hospital two days after (he was obviously at that time unaware of the bus lane violation), and was seriously ill for a considerable time, at one point not being expected to survive.

 

By the time he had sufficiently recovered to deal with numerous aspects of letters, etc., the Bailiffs had been instructed.

 

Obviously he is now fit to drive, and if he wasn't would not do so. At times when he was unable or medically required not to drive (such as immediately after his heart bypass), he has not done so.

 

However surely his status as a 'Vulnerable Household' is not dependant on his ability to be in charge of a car. I notice 'Vulnerable Status' also might include the pregnant and those may have English language problems, neither of whom it would be considered as unfit to drive. The Council in question have ignored all medical documentation sent to them. The Bailiffs have also ignored a request for a copy of their complaints procedure.

 

However, my main question was not directly concerning the PCN, but a point of principal and legality as to whether his car, displaying a blue badge, can be removed, after having read that it cannot on a Citizens Advice Bureau page. This is, of course, our immediate concern, as without a car it would render him housebound (he lives halfway up a hill and cannot walk up from the bus stop). Would this not therefore be contrary to the rights of disabled person (only thinking..). I am aware the Police cannot remove the car, unless it is causing a dangerous obstruction, so why should greater powers apply to a bailiff, so it is less a question about parking violation and more about disability rights.

 

Once again, many thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's correct that the car can't be removed, but that doesn't absolve him of the debt - it just means the bailiff can't take that particular piece of property. On the assumption that he'd rather get the debt cancelled and done with, then you might be able to pursue the vulnerable status angle, as well as the DDA angle, but I wouldn't do that instead of a witness statement - I'd do it as well as.

 

Complaints generally are not an effective way of dealing with these matters. I would strongly advise an Out of Time Witness Statement be filed, with the same info you posted here concerning the timing of the illness, its severity and so on, and any corroborating evidence that he was in hospital. It's a strong case to take forward, but much better in my view to do so through the proper process. That's what they are there for - exactly situations like this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that really called for greenand mean? Maybe the OP cannot afford to lend him the money and is just trying to be a good neighbor and help the old gentleman!

 

 

 

They are not really helping the matter they are just postponing the collection of the debt. Trying to raise the funds or negotiating a payment plan would be more helpful than complaining about their behaviour or arguing what they can and cannot seize. They may have regulations to adhere to but at the same time the car owner has a legal responsibility to pay the debt regardless of any complaint the debt remains. If he is that vulnerable and unable to look after his own affairs at 80 years old maybe driving is not such a good idea anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If he is that vulnerable and unable to look after his own affairs at 80 years old maybe driving is not such a good idea anyway?"

 

He is passed fit to drive by his doctors and DVLA - the only ones that matter. If you read the criteria of 'Vulnerable People' you will also see that pregnant women, the unemployed or those who have a poor command of English are included. As I think I stated above, are you claiming they shouldn't drive also?

 

I also understand that a man in the War flew a Spitfire with no legs. A certain Douglas Bader. Perhaps he shouldn't have done that? Disability is no indication of an ability or not to be able to drive.

 

"They are not really helping the matter"

 

I came on this forum to try and find the ruling on a point of law, not to be lectured as to what I should or should not be doing when in fact I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever regarding any debt, raising funds or the management thereof.

 

The gentleman in question was attacked in his own home a while back and as far as I am concerned if I am in some small way trying to prevent a disabled War Veteran suffering distress in the last few years or possibly months of his life, regardless of what he does or does not owe, and that those in positions of power are made to adhere to their own quality standards, my conscience is completely clear.

 

My main reason for 'helping' him on this forum is purely because I have access to the internet. He does not, in common with many senior citizens. As for your suggestion that therefore I should 'lend him the money', judging by your past posts on similar issues you quite clearly have a poorly-disguised agenda with your remarks, so don't propose to respond further to trolling, anymore than I would have done had it been on twitter.

Edited by dettydoo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks, soapstone, much appreciated.

 

Just one question, again as a point of argument, what would the situation be if the enforcement agents breached these The Taking Control Of Goods Regulations 2013, i.e. came and took the car even with a disabled badge on it?

They would be in a bit of bother, and Collect Services could well feature ib the Sun, Daily Heil, Torygraph etc as heartless B'stards.

 

Yes you with Wylie Coyote as avatar, the debt needs to be paid , but there is a more sensitive way of collecting it in these particular circumstances, surely?

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

Do I assume you're not interested in having him file an Out of Time Witness Statement? It's the correct procedure to follow, but if you don't want to, then I won't keep posting back. That's what you need to do though if you want to get the debt cancelled. You seem to be focusing purely on protecting the car, when you could get the whole debt overturned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can pass that information on to his relations who were dealing with the paperwork of the debt originally.

 

Just to confirm I never at any point have assumed any responsibility for helping him either pay or get out of his penalty charge notice, I just wanted to clarify whether or not a car with a blue badge could be taken, and I am happy we have now established it cannot.

 

But thanks to everyone who offered assistance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...