Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well it adds up which is an Apollo 11 achievement!   Does simeon need reminding again that it is HIS responsibilty to make sure that all the Exhibits are correctly labelled, ordered and numbered etc, and that they are all correctly cross-referenced in the particulars?  Because we can't check that remotely.   The only remaining thing (which I think would be helpful to have added but is not a necessity) is a list or schedule of exhibits.  It just helps to introduce the exhibits.  But simeon will have to produce that himself - so it may be advisable not to bother...   But I don't want to rock the boat any further and am happy with #165 - unless there are any glaring errors I've not noticed.   [EDIT:  cross posted with 166 and 167.  I will check 165 over as well]
    • No this is (£387.12 for Rubble) not (£8387.12 ) Repairs is £8000.00 and £5190.00 for unfinished work
    • The figures now match, so as far as I'm concerned that's that.   If there is duplication then that's the OP's look out, there has been nearly a year to make simple lists of costs.   I think "the three of us" should have a last read through.   It's up to Simeon to make sure the references to the exhibits are accurate, they certainly weren't accurate in the version I've just edited, in fact they were contradictory, but that's up to him.   If the "three of us" don't see any obvious errors then the document is good to go tomorrow morning (not as the last minute).
    • We might, finally, be there -   Particulars of Counterclaim   1.      The original Claimant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the original Defendant/now Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant and that the Claimant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant provided the Claimant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the Claimant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.   5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the Claimant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the Claimant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The Claimant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the Claimant asked the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The Claimant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the Claimant’s work but the Claimant was absent.  The Inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the Claimant's work.  The Inspector spoke to the Claimant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The Inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The Building Inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the Claimant who agreed to follow them.   10.    The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The Claimant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant of £3000 (see receipt, Exhibit 1).   11.    The Claimant asked if the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.   12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the Claimant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the Claimant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the Claimant £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   14.  It later came to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s attention that the Claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property that the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant suspected either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When the Claimant challenged the Defendant he admitted he had done this.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   15.    On 21 September 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the Claimant (Exhibit 2).  Over a month later the Claimant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Exhibit 3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the Claimant.   16.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed in Exhibit 4.   17.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the Claimant also negligently caused substantial damage to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Exhibit 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £16,577.12 in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete, £3,000.00, Exhibit 1; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in paras 15 & 16 above, £5,190.00, Exhibits 2 & 3 & 4; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above, £8387.12, Exhibit 5; (d)  the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.  This has not yet been costed.   19. In addition to the amount in paragraph 18 above, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant also claims 8% interest under the County Courts Act 1984 from 26 October 2020 which was the last day the builder or one of his colleagues worked at the property     STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I believe that the facts stated in this particulars of counterclaim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

dca chasing glasgow bus lane fine - I'd sold car weeks before


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2266 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,

at my wits end with this,

 

i sold a car 18th AUG 2014

 

the new owner went into a bus lane in Glasgow city centre on 12th SEPT 2014.

 

The council contacted DVLA one week after and they provided them with my details, because their system was still showing me as the registered keeper.

 

For over a year now and i have been fighting Glasgow city council and stirling park(debt recovery) over this mistake,

 

i have provided DVLA headed documents to show that i wasnt the registered keeper at the time of the contravention yet they STILL chasing me for the debt.

 

They have no right chasing me for money that i ain't liable for as far as iam aware??:|

 

Can someone please help, so i can get these people off my back?

Edited by honeybee13
Pejorative word removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The dca can be ignored

They are not baillifs

And have no such legal powers

 

Let then pass it back to the council

 

Dx

  • Confused 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its got to the point where the letter today says they have sent out sheriff officers to look for assets to be sold at auction (my car that i sold AUG 2014),

 

they claim they are going to court to get access to my bank account.

 

above all its the constant letters and phone calls i want to stop..

 

.. is there a template letter i could sent them that would be enough for them to realise that iam not been bullied into paying a debt thats not mine?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Short and is no

 

And read the dca letters carefully

They don't say will anywhere

 

Only the council can do those things

 

Have you written to the enforcement dept

And copied them the dvla letter?

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instruct your local MP to get a grip of the council, and cc in all of your local councillors too.

 

Tell the LA, that they should issue court summons this week if they're so confident on winning when you have provided them with the evidence that you're not responsible, councils really are dumb.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup sent DCA and Council the documents, there response is that because i never appealed within 28 days then i'am liable for the debt :roll: i wasn't in the country during the appeal period so i was none the wiser.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore the DCA completely, deal direct with the LA.

 

And to reiterate IGNORE the tin pot powerless DCA, they can do exactly nothing!

 

Send the clueless clowns the telephone harassment letter,

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387367-Harassment-by-Telephone-**Update-21st-April-2014**

 

And then IGNORE them.

 

Keep a diary of events regarding their harassment, and start the LA's complaints procedure, and use the harassment by their chosen third party clown outfit against them, they are ultimately responsible for the actions of their chosen third parties.

 

And if you have this

they claim they are going to court to get access to my bank account.
in writing, then a complaint regarding that blatant untruth should be made to the FCA also.
  • Confused 1

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't sure if MPs would be interested in debt or legal issues, sorry for the naivety regarding this situation

 

Your MP is there to do what we ask of them. They will no doubt palm it off onto the councillors but they need to be informed of what is going on in their constituents lives, in order they can at some point in the next millennium, bring about change.

 

And start your LA's complaints procedure, this is wrong on every level and as usual LA's are notoriously lethargic about changing.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't you just use the proper appeal process and go to the adjudication service?

 

As above i wasn't in the country during their 28 day appeals window and after that they are not interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except technically he doesnt because the vehicle was not registered in the OP's name and as such the PCN should never have been issued to him. The council is wrong and they know it. But like almost all councils, they see the public as an anonymous statistic and think they can ignore and theyll pay up.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been advised, ignore the tin pot powerless dca, and start the LA's lethargic complaints procedure, email and writing ONLY.

 

If you write to them then obtain ''proof of posting'' which is free from the PO counter.

 

You can find your local MP's details and email them using https://www.writetothem.com/

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except technically he doesnt because the vehicle was not registered in the OP's name and as such the PCN should never have been issued to him. The council is wrong and they know it. But like almost all councils, they see the public as an anonymous statistic and think they can ignore and theyll pay up.

 

The PCN was issued to the person they correctly (based on DVLA info) believed to be the owner the person who the PCN was served on then has 28 days to dispute the claim which he failed to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Ops info, dvla provided documents to the council to say the op wasn't the owner/keeper of the vehicle. Council is at fault here and the pcn should have been cancelled upon receipt of the info. They didn't cancel it, and they kept chasing the op.

 

Again, fully the councils fault

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The PCN was issued to the person they correctly (based on DVLA info) believed to be the owner the person who the PCN was served on then has 28 days to dispute the claim which he failed to do.

 

does this mean i can take action on the DVLA for breach of data protection?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been advised, ignore the tin pot powerless dca, and start the LA's lethargic complaints procedure, email and writing ONLY.

 

If you write to them then obtain ''proof of posting'' which is free from the PO counter.

 

You can find your local MP's details and email them using

 

ty for the advice i will be following this up tomorrow morning

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea!!

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Ops info, dvla provided documents to the council to say the op wasn't the owner/keeper of the vehicle. Council is at fault here and the pcn should have been cancelled upon receipt of the info. They didn't cancel it, and they kept chasing the op.

 

Again, fully the councils fault

 

So if you received a PCN and the Council missed a legal deadline would you still feel it only right you paid it? The timescales apply to both parties you cannot just cherry pick which regulations you think are fair!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't this on the DCA forum? The OP seems to think the registered keeper of a vehicle is the owner, and is seeking some magic letter to send out.

 

Advice so far ranges from ignoring the DCA, to contacing an MP, to sending a telephone harassment letter, to lodging a complaint etc.

 

If he's going to get proper advice, it needs to be on the correct forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...