Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
  • 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
      • 160 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 3086 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

The entire process of Out of Time witness statements is frankly a complete nightmare and is very much misunderstood by debtors...and sadly, even more so by local authorities whose role is to decide whether they should be accepted or rejected !!!

 

To provide an acceptable answer I need to go backwards a short bit.

 

When a PCN is issued, either a notice will be left on the vehicle or; in the case of a contravention identified by CCTV camera, by a Notice to Owner being issued by post. With CCCTV contraventions, the local authority will make a request to DVLA within a specified number of days for the name and address of the registered keeper.

 

On receipt of the PCN on the vehicle or the Notice to Owner, the registered keeper (RK) has a set of number of days to make representation to the local authority. If this is rejected, a Notice of Rejection will be issued and the RK can nominate to have the decision REVIEWED by either NPAS or London Tribunals.

 

If the RK fails to either pay or appeal within 28 days, a Charge Certificate is issued. The original penalty charge will increase by 50%.

 

If payment is not made, the local authority will register the penalty charge as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

The RK will then receive a court order (known as an Order for Recovery) from the local authority. Attached to the Order for Recovery will be a Witness Statement which can be used to challenge the 'order'.

 

WITNESS STATEMENTS

 

The RK has 21 days to either pay or challenge the Order for Recovery by completing the attached Witness Statement. There are four grounds on which a challenge can be made and the most popular grounds are either that the RK had not received the Notice to Owner or that an appeal had been submitted to the LA (or London Tribunals). If the witness statement is completed on ground one (not received a penalty charge notice) then the Order for Recovery is cancelled and a new Notice to Owner is issued.

 

Out of Time Witness Statement

 

This part confuses a lot of people. In the first instance, there is no such document as an 'Out of Time Witness Statement!!

 

If a Witness Statement is not submitted within 21 days then a Warrant of Control is issued. Even at this later stage, the RK can still submit a Witness Statement but in doing so, they have to also submit a SEPARATE statutory notice called a TE7 (Application to file a statement out of time). The purpose of this document (TE7) is to EXPLAIN WHY the witness statement is being submitted late (ie: outside of the 21 day period and after a warrant has been issued).

 

What happens after the Witness Statement AND the Application to file Witness Statement 'Out of Time' are sent to the Local Authority?

 

The Traffic Enforcement Centre send both documents to the local authority for them to decide whether or not they are happy to accept a very late witness statement. Unfortunately, a large percentage of such applications are refused by the Local Authority.

 

What happens if the local authority refuse to grant permission to file the witness statement late?

 

The RK can ask the court to REVIEW the decision. A fee of either £50 or £155 is charged. An N244 is completed and a District Judge will review whether the local authority should have granted permission to file the Witness Statement LATE (Out of Time) or whether they were right in refusing (to grant permission).

 

In your case, the District Judge has reviewed the decision (and also taken into account the additional information provided by you ) and has decided that the local authority should have GRANTED permission for you to file your Witness Statement late. Accordingly, your witness statement will now be processed. The warrant will be revoked and the case will revert back to the Notice to Owner stage...and this is where the difficulty begins.

 

A you have already paid, the local authority will refund to you the amount of the PCN. In almost all cases, they will try to tell you that you must contact the enforcement company for a refund of the bailiff fees. This is actually INCORRECT and the true position is that the local authority is responsible for refunding you. I will not lie to you...this part is not easy to resolve and is made worse because the Local Government Ombudsman will not make a ruling on this point (despite a great deal of documentation including Barristers opinion beig sent to him).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If you read it , it says:

"The application for leave to file a Statutory Declaration out of time/ Witness Statement to be GRANTED."

 

At this time no monies will be refunded however if the application is successful - which previously has been denied - then that could be a different matter.

 

PT, if you read my detailed outlined above you will see that in fact, the court have accepted the witness statement. As I have said many times, Out of Time witness statements are complicated to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is stop someone issuing a small court claim against the local authority for not refunding the enforcement fees. The basis being that had the LA accepted the application as District Judge X ruled they should have, the enforcement fees would not have been due.

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

unclebulgaria67 said:
What is stop someone issuing a small court claim against the local authority for not refunding the enforcement fees. The basis being that had the LA accepted the application as District Judge X ruled they should have, the enforcement fees would not have been due.

 

The problem with this particular case is that the regiesterd keeper had been put under pressure to pay the bailiffs after they visited his current property. All notices had been sent to his previous address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to do anything for now. The ball is now in the Council's court. They will revoke the Order for Recovery and bailiff fees, and one of two things will happen:

 

Either they will refer the original PCN to the adjudicator (unlikely)

 

or they will issue a Notice to Owner at your new address (since the PCN itself is still live)

 

Keep the matter in mind, but there's not need for you to chase them just yet - give them time to act and they will be in touch with you. Timescales for refunds can be asked of them in due course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks a lot for your reply jamberson!

things are now turning ugly, again... so, I received the official court order in which it is ordered that the order for recovery of unpaid penalty charge be revoked as well as charge certificate and the notice to owner/enforcement notice be cancelled. great news I thought hoping for the council to be in touch to refund me the difference between the original pin and what I have paid to the bailiffs plus my n244 fee which I should have never have had to pay in the first place if they would have followed the procedures.

But no, today I received a letter from Southwark saying that they have investigated the case and find that correct procedures were followed. they now want another £130 for the original PCN. please see letter attached. it seems to me that my evidence was not provided to them by the court, only their order, otherwise they would know that I know about their unlawful ways and that I have requested to get my money back?

Please see both letters attached. I am confused as to why the court order doesn't make any mention of ordering the council to pay me back my money?

 

I look forward hearing your advice

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]59605[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]59606[/ATTACH]pencil.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think this is just saying they will reissue the notice to owner giving 28 days to appeal it. If you appeal and win, you get your back. They are not asking for another £130.

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

The letters you got merely confirm what happened. You have a copy of the court order revoking the Order for Recovery, which sets you back to NTO stage. The letter from the council says the same - they seem to have added in some other stuff, presumably to protect themselves legally by asserting that everything they did was correctly by procedure - but as it says at the bottom, a Notice to Owner will be issued to you shortly.

 

For now, you don't need to do anything, but you can enquire about the refund if you wish. Send them an email, and ask for confirmation that it's in progress - be prepared that it may take a few weeks.

 

By the way, when you get the NTO you need to decide what to do - appeal or pay. Feel free to post back here for advice on that. You might be able to get it cancelled, depending on the strength of your case. One thing at a time...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Thanks a lot for your reply Jamberson!

 

The following has happened since the letter from the council.

 

1. I have been refunded £202 by Newlyn out of the paid £277.

2. When enquiring about the outstanding £75 they said that they would keep this as by making the first payment to them I agreed to their terms and conditions as well as accepting liability for the sum demanded. I said the court order says differently and that I wouldn't have had to pay the money if the LA would have adhered to preocedures. There was no argueing with her, so I said "I will be back" :)

3. So far no NTO has been received following the letter from the LA.

4.Furthermore the £50 fee I had to pay for the case to be reviewed is also still outstanding.

 

Can I write back to the LA saying that, seeing that the bailiffs are holding on to £75 and the fee of £50 I shouldn't have had to pay (if they had followed the procedures in the first place) is still not returned either, I will only pay the £5 difference to the LA to make up the amount of £130 asked of me for the PCN?

 

Should I seek help from the parliamentary ombudsman regarding the bailiffs? Ie reporting their misconduct (I see them keeping part of the money that the court ordered to pay back in full as misconduct)?

 

I look forward hearing your advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This belongs back on the bailiff forum as it's specialist stuff.

 

As I understand it, and don't take this as gospel - the council is obliged to refund you the full amount, not the bailiff, and in any case, not part-payment. The bit about accepting terms and conditions and liability sounds extremely iffy to me.

 

You could write to the council, with a copy of the court order, relevant parts quoted and request a full refund, which I think is what should have happened anyway. If they don't comply, then the complaints route is open to you.

 

Someone who knows more than me needs to confirm this - post something on the bailiff forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to the appropriate forum as suggested

 

Regards

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot again for your reply Jamberson! This is exactly what I thought, but wanted to double-check before making the next move. I will compose a letter to the LA this weekend and post it here to see if everything is covered.

 

It's very frustrating indeed. However, equally I don't really mind if the end of this goes a less official route, ie instead of LA paying me back in full etc., I just pay them an outstanding £5, as it would mean a lot less letters and work for me. I know I will have to pay the £130 for the original NTO anyway, as I was parked on the wrong side of the road with my paid ticket (one side was pay and display the other was residents only) and my first attempt of challenging it by saying I was loading was accepted under the condition that I sent them a delivery note, which I don't have :/

 

All the best,

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The following has happened since the letter from the council.

 

1. I have been refunded £202 by Newlyn out of the paid £277.

 

2. When enquiring about the outstanding £75 they said that they would keep this as by making the first payment to them I agreed to their terms and conditions as well as accepting liability for the sum demanded. I said the court order says differently and that I wouldn't have had to pay the money if the LA would have adhered to preocedures. There was no argueing with her, so I said "I will be back" :)

 

3. So far no NTO has been received following the letter from the LA.

 

4.Furthermore the £50 fee I had to pay for the case to be reviewed is also still outstanding.

 

Can I write back to the LA saying that, seeing that the bailiffs are holding on to £75 and the fee of £50 I shouldn't have had to pay (if they had followed the procedures in the first place) is still not returned either, I will only pay the £5 difference to the LA to make up the amount of £130 asked of me for the PCN?

 

Should I seek help from the parliamentary ombudsman regarding the bailiffs? Ie reporting their misconduct (I see them keeping part of the money that the court ordered to pay back in full as misconduct)?

 

I am surprised that you have received a refund from Newlyn. In most cases, the refund will come from the local authority (in this case, LB of Southwark). However, it is possible that the reason for Newlyn issuing the refund could be that they had not as yet passed your payment over to Southwark.

 

Whenever an OoT is accepted, I always recommend waiting a period of 14 days before taking any further action given that either party can issue an N244 to seek a review of the Court Officer's decision. Although it is unusual for local authorities to do so,...I do know of cases where this has happened.

 

With regards to the refund of your court fee of £50, I am sorry to advise you but in most cases the order made by the Judge does not provide for a refund.......UNLESS consideration of a refund had been outlined in your N244 application. Yesterday I was delighted to receive a message from a lady that I had been assisting that the Judge accepted her review and ordered the local authority to repay her court fee of £155 (in her case she had decided to attend court in person).

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for clarifying Bailiff Advice! I have not taken any action since the court order was issued. 1 week later I had the letter from the LA saying they followed correct procedures and then a couple of days after that I received the refund from Newlyn with the £75 outstanding I phoned them up and asked them where the rest had been.

 

It's now been/approaching a month since the LA's letter and I have yet to receive the new NTO they mentioned and/or the outstanding £75. I have not received a N244 from the other party, given the evidence it is highly unlikely.

 

"UNLESS consideration of a refund had been outlined in your N244 application." I have done exactly that. I said that I should not have had to pay the £50 fee in the first place if the council would have followed correct procedures thereby forcing me to pay the fee and the bailiff.

 

What do you advice to be the next steps? Should I compose a letter to the LA regarding the outstanding £75 owed by Newlyn and the £50 court fee?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...