Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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 02/01/2023 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 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, 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.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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

Son's unpaid magistrate's court fine ; bailiff at door & inventory collected


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2392 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

If the OP was coerced by the bailiffs into paying the "fine" then surely they can claim this back as the original debt plus 8% statutory interest was not theirs to start with in the first place? For all they know the son could have taken the post as the post would have been addressed to the son and not them. I am sure that by law you cannot open post addressed to someone else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Now I'm getting really worried.

 

Marston could drag this forever until we give up until which time value of bike could go even lower.

 

Not sure but last time I replaced my car key it was £430.

 

We're trying to sell but almost all buyers insisting a spare key. With 1 key, we're getting £500 less than asking.

 

I have been advising you on this subject for the past year and please do pay attention to the advice that I gave you a few days ago (link below).

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?463677-magistrate-s-court-fine-bailiff-at-door-amp-inventory-collected&p=5060550&viewfull=1#post5060550

 

There is something else as well that I have only just picked up on:

 

A few days ago, you were looking at claiming £1,000 for 'depreciation' of the bike and another £500 for 'replacement' key. It was only today when reading your above post, that I realise that it was the spare key that the enforcement agent seized and that your son still has another key. I genuinely hadn't noticed this before !!!

 

One other final point, this entire situation arose not because your son failed to pay a court fine but because when notified that a warrant had been issued and passed to an enforcement agent to enforce, payment was made to the court instead of the enforcement company. It was that mistake that led to the visit taking place.

 

PS: When I purchased my car a year ago, it only came with one key. The car was no cheaper because it didn't have a spare key.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its absolutely amazing how many debtors sell their cars to neighbours /friends/relatives just as the EA turns up.

 

The law is clear on this.

If their is a claim.of 3rd party ownership it I up to the owner to prove ownership not for the EA to establish ownership.

 

So if an EA turns up at the parents house were the debtor lives then yes the EA can make the parents prove ownership.

It would also depend on how cooperative the parents are. If they are being abusive, shouting swearing threating behaviour then the EA will go down to the letter of the law. If they are being cooperative then maybe the EA would only sieze in the debtors room orvehicle etc.

 

In many cases the parents are wiling to settle a debt, especially if its a magistrates court fine as they can escalate eventually to arrest warrants if not paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok first of all thanks for all the replies. We've decided to follow on the advice provided by BailiffAdvice

but as son is living some 100 miles from us and due to work & other commitments,

finding little hard to organise with the process.

 

 

In short, we'd not yet made complaints with issueing magistrate court and still waiting for answers from the complaint process but expecting to be done by coming week.

 

BailiffAdvice: Yes it's a spare key and no, we made payments to magistrate court after the bailiff's visit.

 

First thing I would like to clear is that we were never in dispute about the fine or fees of bailiff

but how they proceed with it ie letter handed that was printed on previous dates

but agent claiming that she personally hand delivered that letter on the date printed.

 

 

We would even swallow that lie if letter was of final warning kind but it was for collection notice.

So not sure where that ostrich story came from :???:

Edit: oh generic comment

 

Secondly I didn't chose to pay but one day when they came by, unfortunately wife was alone at home and she got scared.

There were 5 men and a woman:shock:

 

 

Agent found just 1 valuable item that belonged to my son which was the bike key in previous visit but in clear words, she did said that all that is inside property will be taken regardless who that belongs to.

This she said in front of 2 community police officers. In simple words, threats were made to take away belongings from address regardless.

 

Thirdly, yes it's just a spare key and may or may not devalue the sale price but definitely not the end of the world.

The question is as a Bailiff co regulated by rules, laws & regulation,

is it not their responsibility to return any items taken on their visit once fully settled?

 

 

Is this process supposed to take forever while they go on their usual trickery?

Numerous phone calls, emails, complaint process, acknowledge mails, rinse & repeat, and still nothing for months now.

 

 

So bailiff can do whatever they like, hold belongings for however long they want without any fines or recpercussion?

disgruntled2007: The cod-like odour becomes ever more pungent...seriously.. ????

 

As no news from Marston since last complaint, only option now is to write to fines manager at court. What if they says that the fine has been settled and nothing to do with them any further?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Received reply from collectica.

 

I write in response to your correspondence on 6 September 2017. I’m sorry you’ve had reason to complain.

 

I understand you are unhappy as you believe our agent took a motorcycle key from you and since payment has been made, the key has not been returned to you.

 

Having spoken to our agents, neither of the agents who attended your address recall taking a set of keys from your property. I understand that an inventory was taken the first time an agent attended your address, however there is no evidence that a key was taken from your property at this time.

 

In conclusion I believe your account has been handled correctly and that our agents have acted professionally throughout their visits. I can confirm that your account is now paid in full, and no further action will take place regarding account XXXXXXXX in the future.

 

Yours sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for updating the forum with the response.

 

I should imagine that you are disappointed at the reply but frankly, the reply is what I expected.

 

It depends what you wish to do now. My personal opinion, is that you should put this matter 'to bed' and move on. As you have said, the bike key that was taken was the spare key and as such, would not have stopped your son selling his bike and neither would it have led to a lesser sale price being achieved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received reply from collectica.

 

When you first posted your query (approx 18 months ago) you did say that the spare key had not been included on the Inventory.

 

Given the response from Collectica, you would face an uphill struggle trying to argue that the key had been taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Starfarer. Can you confirm whether the inventory was incorporated on a "Notice after goods have been taken into control" or whether the inventory was an entirely separate document.

 

If the latter is the case, did you receive a notice after goods have been taken into control?

 

Not sure about this as the heading is just "Inventory" & sub headings "About this Notice - The goods listed at the back of this notice belong to you or you and a co-owner and have been taken into control by an enforcement agent. "

 

The 2nd page is "Goods taken into control".

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what you wish to do now. My personal opinion, is that you should put this matter 'to bed' and move on. As you have said, the bike key that was taken was the spare key and as such, would not have stopped your son selling his bike and neither would it have led to a lesser sale price being achieved.

 

Absence of spare key does affect sale of vehicle. Problem now is probably the key that bailiff took away is the ONLY key left as can't find the one at home. Does this changes the situation now?

 

 

When you first posted your query (approx 18 months ago) you did say that the spare key had not been included on the Inventory.

 

Given the response from Collectica, you would face an uphill struggle trying to argue that the key had been taken.

 

?? I re read my 1st post and I did wrote that the key was taken by agent. I had a quick chat with Union's legal rep and he actually got surprised by the Marston's reply despite the signed paperwork. They're willing to take the case but first want to view all the documents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absence of spare key does affect sale of vehicle. Problem now is probably the key that bailiff took away is the ONLY key left as can't find the one at home. Does this changes the situation now?

 

?? I re read my 1st post and I did wrote that the key was taken by agent. I had a quick chat with Union's legal rep and he actually got surprised by the Marston's reply despite the signed paperwork. They're willing to take the case but first want to view all the documents.

 

In your post from 18 months ago, you did indeed state that the enforcement agent took the spare key...however, you also confirmed that the key did not feature on the Inventory.

 

You have stated as well that your Union's legal representative has expressed an interest in taking this case on. The only person that would be permitted to pursue this matter would be the debtor (in this case, your son).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes my membership covers for family but the firm will have full authorisation to chase the case ( I think it's what they said with few forms to sign). First I'll need to hand over all the documents including the ad that was posted which luckily I can print from ebay, gumtree & autotrader. Only concern is it's the 3rd party firm referred by Union and not sure if we're comfortable with some private information. But we've no other option with no key at the moment.

 

Edit: still waiting for reply from magistrate court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

b

Starfarer.

 

After entering your premises, the enforcement agent was required to leave a Notice after entry. If your son was not there, the notice should have been left the notice in a conspicuous place for him, pursuant to Paragraph 28(5) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement act 2007.

 

If no notice was left, then the bailiff has breached legislation and was technically not even in a position to take control of goods. That is the first thing that you need to challenge Collectica on and if they cannot confirm that a notice was left, then the account has been handled anything but correctly.

 

Secondly, you need to ask if a notice after taking control of goods was issued and if not, why was an inventory left?

 

They say they did not take anything.

 

Please do not mislead the OP into thinking there is any viable action here. There is nothing.

 

At most a statutory breach but with no damages, a waste of time and money.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absence of spare key does affect sale of vehicle. Problem now is probably the key that bailiff took away is the ONLY key left as can't find the one at home. Does this changes the situation now?

 

A year and a half ago (May 2016), you posted about a bailiff visit for your son. You stated that a spare key to your sons’s motorbike had been taken. This was despite the fact that the Inventory left did not state a ‘spare key’ had been taken.

 

A few weeks ago, you returned to the forum and stated that in September 2016, another bailiff visit had taken place and that your wife had paid a debt in full (whether this was the same debt from May 2016 or not, we don't know. Suffice to say, that account was closed.

 

When you returned back to the forum a couple of weeks ago, you wanted advice on whether you had grounds to make a court claim in respect of the suspected removal of the 'spare key' 18 months earlier. The amount of the County Court Small Claims action was as follows:

 

a) Bailiff not following correct procedure ( inventory collected should've returned once paid) - £3000

b) Depreciation of vehicle (30% in a year) - £1000

c) cost of replacement key - £500

d) Tribunal fee - £150

 

Total: £4650

 

Thankfully you heeded the advice given by me and others and realised that you did not have grounds for such a claim. Despite this, you are still adamant that you have grounds for making a claim for £500 for a 'replacement' key. This is despite the following comment from you:

 

Yes it's just a spare key and may or may not devalue the sale price but definitely not the end of the world.

 

One poster questioned whether you had obtained an estimate for a replacement key. You have never responded.

 

You have now had a response back from Collectica and they are stating that a 'spare key' was not taken. The Inventory confirms the same.

 

You are now saying that the bike cannot be sold....because you have mislaid the original key.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Starfarer.

 

After entering your premises, the enforcement agent was required to leave a Notice after entry. If your son was not there, the notice should have been left the notice in a conspicuous place for him, pursuant to Paragraph 28(5) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement act 2007.

 

If no notice was left, then the bailiff has breached legislation and was technically not even in a position to take control of goods. That is the first thing that you need to challenge Collectica on and if they cannot confirm that a notice was left, then the account has been handled anything but correctly.

 

Secondly, you need to ask if a notice after taking control of goods was issued and if not, why was an inventory left?

 

This is an account that was paid and closed almost a year and a half ago. The only query is that the debtor's father thinks that at the time of the visit, an enforcement agent seized a spare key to his son's motorbike. The Inventory did not make mention of a 'spare key'.

 

The son left the property and left the bike behind. It had a dead battery etc and the OP (the debtors father wanted to sell it). He had the main key for the bike but claims that he was offered £500 less because there was no spare key.

 

You appear to now want to lead the father into believing that 'the bailiff had breached legislation' because he may have used the wrong form 18 months ago !!!! It would not matter in the slightest whether the forms were correct or not. No goods were actually taken. The registration number of the bike was recorded. That was all. The mother paid the debt in full in September 2016.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an account that was paid and closed almost a year and a half ago. The only query is that the debtor's father thinks that at the time of the visit, an enforcement agent seized a spare key to his son's motorbike. The Inventory did not make mention of a 'spare me".

 

No goods were actually taken. The registration number of the bike was recorded. That was all. The mother paid the debt in full in September 2016.

 

What I don't understand why you keep on insisting that the key was not taken. I've inventory list for goods taken issued by agent and it list 1x bike key reg XX12 XXX. Will upload copy later in evening.

 

Thought my posts were clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Admin please!

 

It is all very well to let my stalker follow me around the discussion threads but this thread has been started by someone who is seeking help regarding the loss of a key.

 

It clearly is not a waste of time for the OP, otherwise (s)he wouldn't have returned.

 

Nobody has promised the OP the world and nobody has suggested that any money should be invested in pursuing this matter. My stalker just added these silly suggestions to add value to his attempts to flame.

 

If the OP wishes to pursue it, I am more than happy to help in any way that I can.

 

Hi,yes definitely would like to pursue further. Will upload copy of documents later and don't think any other notices were issued. The key was taken in presence of 2 police officers. I'll try to contact police department to see if they can provide with more details. Think I've still got police ref no somewhere and they definitely should have noted down details of the call.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...