Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Should this ever happen to me, I will make an appeal at the first stage to avoid any problems that may occur at a later stage. Although, any individual in a similar position should decide for themselves what they think is an appropriate course of action. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3073 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

Morning :-)

 

A friend of mine is having a multitude of issues with her local council mainly due to not disclosing changes of circumstances leading to overpayments of housing benefit and council tax benefit.

 

This is just for the council tax.

 

In the first instance, her local council did a recalculation of benefits after I got involved but for the years 2013-14 they have presented a bill for nearly £500.

 

After some communication with them, they have stated that they will not be able to agree a payment arrangement until a liability order is in place. In this area, a LO adds another £75 to the bill. Surely they should be willing to enter negotiations before it gets anywhere near a court??

 

Another small(ish) issue was that the council sent her a final notice for her 2014-15 demanding full payment within 7 days except they posted the letter out via a third party and I got the letter with 2 days to spare. They threatened to get a liability order which would incur another £75 for a debt totalling less than £12. Surely they should not have done this!

 

Complaint letter done and will be posted later :|

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paragraphs 34 and 51 in Nicolson v Tottenham Magistrates would seem arguable. The problem is getting the council to appreciate that.

 

 

34. As a matter of straightforward construction of Regulation 34(7) that means that the Magistrates must be satisfied:

 

i) that the local authority has actually incurred those costs;

 

ii) that the costs in question were incurred in obtaining the liability order; and

 

iii)
that it was reasonable for the local authority to incur them
.

 

 

51. If the necessary causal link is established to the satisfaction of the court then the next question is whether the costs claimed have been "reasonably" incurred. It may be that the method by which the costs are calculated demonstrates this without the need for further evidence; but there may be individual cases in which it would be open to the respondent to argue that the costs were not reasonably incurred, for example, if it was not reasonable for the local authority to take steps to enforce payment, or if the costs which were incurred were excessive – e.g. if the local authority sent a QC along to argue a simple point of law in the Magistrates' Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Outlawla, the information that you have posted relates to the question about the liability order costs. My reading of the query from Silverfox is whether or not the local authority can accept a payment arrangement WITHOUT having to resort to actually having a Liability Order issued. I know that this is a subject that you will very likely know the answer to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Council can do whatever it likes (so yes it can make an arrangement without obtaining a court order). The billing authority is not legally obliged to make complaint to the Magistrates court when a taxpayer defaults, it has discretion.

 

My initial post is relevant because the council may make an application for a liability order (to protect its interest) but without costs because a Magistrates' court SHOULD NOT consider in those circumstances it reasonable for the authority to take steps to enforce payment.

 

EDIT:

 

Notice the term "SHOULD NOT" above. I doubt any Magistrates' court would take any notice of whether it was reasonable for the authority to take steps to enforce payment in practice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! thank you so much outlawla. When I read your reply I didn't quite understand but now, having re read the underlined bits, I see where you are coming from.

 

Should the council decide to issue the summons, I will make sure we both are there to dispute it and the costs as we are more than prepared to enter into negotiations with them.

 

Initially, my friend will pay an extra £20 per month on top of her normal CT and I have made that clear in my letter to them.

 

I am sending a SAR to them as well which may show some discrepancies in their workings.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the council can set up an arrangement without a LO, but will want the extra cash involved, and the ease of passing the debt to their tame bailiffs to enforce if a payment is missed, or am I just cynical.

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

These one-sided regulations really need to be sorted out - I reckon in 60% (at least) of the liability orders issues people already ARE paying the councils what they CAN.

 

Liability orders, as I frequently say, should NOT be issued until the end of the financial year and should only be issued where NO communication and payment have been received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Final Notice today except they are now demanding over £100 less that before. I don't think they know exactly what is owing. I have sent them an email raising the points raised above and told them we would be attending the magistrates should they proceed.

A formal Complaint was received by them on the same date of the Final Notice so I hope they have crossed in the post.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A little update.

 

I had a response to the formal complaint and as expected, they said they did nothing wrong however on the same day, I received a letter from the council tax department. The same people who said they couldn't make any arrangement until a liability order was in place.

 

They have merged the amount from 2013/14 and this years council tax and this means she will be paying £188 a month for 4 months. This she can do so long as she continues with her usual overtime.

 

Some councils seem to think they can ride roughshod over people so it makes sense to complain. I would call it a result. No court involvement.

 

Just the SAR to come back now and I can check what has been done with her accounts and try to decipher the codes to see if other errors have been made (on both sides)

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that what the council did to this lady was outside their legal power (ultra vires) in terms of their use of the statutory instruments (Regulation). Was the power beyond the main statute, is my question. A Regulation cannot have more power than its deriving power, which in this case is the Local Government Finance Act 1992. If it is doing this to her, your friend that is, besides a success for this lady they are nevertheless likely to use this liability Order threat against others notwithstanding the problem with exaggerated costs: Nicolson [2015] High Court authority. I had a problem with the Civil Service pertaining to 'DWP' and as I knew their arrangements were not only wrong against self, it was obvious it would be seriously detrimental on others in my situation. To cut a long story short, I referred matter to the Parliament Ombudsman which effect was that DWP changed their systems to where 2 decision makers (experienced regional supervisors) make the decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good result Silverfox well done.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...