Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • 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.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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

Warrants of Control (Parking) Discussion thread


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2866 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

There is no warrant in this case - not even one yet unlawfully prepared by Marstons who no doubt produce something that looks like a warrant by using the commercial software template that they purchased from One Step Solutions.

 

Except that that bailiff companies have no legal authority to prepare warrants - which is not the same as copying one that has been already prepared lawfully by the local authority concerned. That IS allowed - but if the local authority ever prepared a genuine warrant in this case, I'll give you the money mesself.

 

The TEC authorisation almost certainly went to the local authority's back office agents who then passed an electronic transmission of the name of the person, the address and the registration number (and probably several hundred others ) to Marstons under what is known as a 'batch'. This operation almost certainly bypassed the local authority as well.

 

But passing on names. addresses and registrations by back office companies to bailiff companies is NOT the same as preparing a warrant which the back office companies also cannot legally prepare.

 

So I expect any 'warrant' that might appear here to come from Marstons no doubt with invented times of TEC authorisation and the passing on the 'enforcement agent' written into it.

 

If anybody doubts that Marstons and no other party will print the 'warrant' if the OP asks for one, then they need to ask themselves why Marstons and other bailiff companies purchase this software - if not to use it.

 

One Step Solutions will not doubt be at Parkex at the Ricoh Arena later this month with up to a dozen bailiff companies also in attendance

 

Go check them and their services out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the op please ignore the preceding post, it should really be in a discussion thread where unproven theories are examined. There is no evidence to support anything mentioned here.

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

I might have know DB would be the first to criticise. Only the ignorant who have no idea how PCN enforcement is carried out (even the Ministry of Justice admit that it relies on a 'presumption of guilt') would make a stupid comment like that. In the decade I have been helping the public I have seen hundreds of Marstons' 'warrants', but I have NEVER seen a local authority prepared one.

 

Indeed Marstons have stood up in court on more than one occasion and argued that they are entitled to issue warrants.

 

Incidentally I also have the High Court on my side having prepared a case in July 2012 whereby the same points were put forward and the case was won with the client who came to me being awarded over £4000 costs. It is rare indeed fro parking cases to go to the High Court -indeed the Judge summed the case up by adding that the local authority and their bailiffs were terrorising their own community The only difference here is that the bailiff company was not Marstons, but they used the same misguided principle.

 

Why don't you wait and see where this 'warrant' comes from before trying to belittle others when frankly you have no idea what you are talking about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had this Marstons bailiff had a 'warrant' with him then surely he would not have waltzed off with a van whose make and registration number would not have tallied with said 'warrant'.

 

Now why would any bailiff leave the one overwhelming legal document at home when its production at the scene would have given him (on the surface at least) the authority and credibility to effect a legal seizure?

 

As I said - there was no warrant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, you always make me laugh fair-parking.

In fairness, no, we don't carry warrants. We carry a facsimile of the electronic warrant. That's all we need to carry.

Is there authority to enforce? Yes.

Is there a real paper warrant? No.

Does there need to be? No.

 

 

Back to the op.

Can the van be taken? Yes. You will need a tools of the trade claim or a 3rd party claim. No need for formal interpleader, just a 3rd party claiming ownership in the correct format to marstons is usually enough.

 

Can the "sold" car be taken? Yes. If it was sold after becoming bound. If before, you will need to provide a receipt, proof of funds transfer and V5 in new keeper name.

 

Hiding it as DB has said can work, but in the age of anpr , not always does it work.

Beware of storing on third party property. An application can be made without notice to enter third party property so that wont work either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last poster appears to have little or no understanding of parking enforcement which aligns perfectly with the 'we've always done it this way, so it must be right' misnomer prevalent within the bailiff industry. Of course no matter how many you enforce unlawfully, it will never become lawful.

 

It helps to if you read my posts more carefully. I made it quite clear that if (and only if) a local authority and not its back office company or appointed bailiffs had prepared a warrant. then you most certainly can use a smart phone to show the COPY. However what I did make clear (twice) is that there was NO warrant in this case.Thus no copy.

 

As I say it will come from Marstons when it finally sees the light of day. The local authority will not be aware of its existence, which would be odd if it had prepared it.

 

Yes I suspect that there is an element of humour in all this for those making money out of not conforming with the law as it is written

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no warrant in this case - not even one yet unlawfully prepared by Marstons who no doubt produce something that looks like a warrant by using the commercial software template that they purchased from One Step Solutions.

 

Except that that bailiff companies have no legal authority to prepare warrants - which is not the same as copying one that has been already prepared lawfully by the local authority concerned. That IS allowed - but if the local authority ever prepared a genuine warrant in this case, I'll give you the money mesself..

 

Hi FP,

 

You and I have spoken on this subject on many occasions over the past 7 or 8 years.

 

This is a subject that you are very passionate about, and the level of research that you have undertaken over the years regarding the 'issuing' of warrants is really quite incredible. I think that it is fair to say, that the subject matter is one that we have already agreed to 'disagree' on.

 

PS: My Parkex badge arrived yesterday so I may see you there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last poster appears to have little or no understanding of parking enforcement which aligns perfectly with the 'we've always done it this way, so it must be right' misnomer prevalent within the bailiff industry. Of course no matter how many you enforce unlawfully, it will never become lawful.

 

It helps to if you read my posts more carefully. I made it quite clear that if (and only if) a local authority and not its back office company or appointed bailiffs had prepared a warrant. then you most certainly can use a smart phone to show the COPY. However what I did make clear (twice) is that there was NO warrant in this case.Thus no copy.

 

As I say it will come from Marstons when it finally sees the light of day. The local authority will not be aware of its existence, which would be odd if it had prepared it.

 

Yes I suspect that there is an element of humour in all this for those making money out of not conforming with the law as it is written

 

FP, please show where it says that a warrant must be shown.

Please show where it says that a warrant must be in paper format.

 

As I said, the warrant is a digital instruction. Enforcement agents transfer that data onto a document that lists all the relevant details, and for the purpose of enforcement, becomes the warrant.

You keep saying that it cant be done, and yet it is.

Also, can you quote a single case where a judgment backs up what you claim? No? Thought not. And yet, if I could be bothered to, which I cant, I could produce cases that have been through court where it was found that the EA can enforce, and did enforce.

 

If you want to believe your own fairy stories, that's fine, but don't spout s***e if you cant back it up. All you will do is land debtors in more debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets assume I had a bailiff call today Grumpy, wrong street right number imagine I hit him with my walking stick and drove my car away as he tried to seize it, what are my odds of going to jail for obstruction as a third party, bearing in mind I threatened him with a tolchocking after he refused to show me the digital Cr@p warrant not in my name on his phone?

 

Assume I have cctv video and audio of it sent to police, and I am in Manchester now hours after the call 100 miles away from home on business?

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

Lets assume I had a bailiff call today Grumpy, wrong street right number imagine I hit him with my walking stick and drove my car away as he tried to seize it, what are my odds of going to jail for obstruction as a third party, bearing in mind I threatened him with a tolchocking after he refused to show me the digital Cr@p warrant not in my name on his phone?

 

Assume I have cctv video and audio of it sent to police, and I am in Manchester now hours after the call 100 miles away from home on business?

 

What??

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he claimed to have won. But has supplied no case details or judgement to that effect.

 

What are the legal rules on issuing a warrant ?

 

Surely a warrant must be issued by a legally authorised person ?

 

A warrant must be legally authorised, before any enforcement.

 

Once authorised it can be electronically held and a paper version need not be shown.

 

If it is found that enforcement activity is taking place without warrants or they are being issued afterwards, then presumably this would be illegal ?

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

Reverting to the use swear words and answering your own questions (before allowing any reply) are sure signs of a lack of co-ordination, but for the benefit of those who can't (or wont) read, the High Court case number was HX12X02808 and was heard before Justice Owen on 18 July 2012. The local authority appealed but without success.

 

Further the law that requires a local authority (and NO other party) to prepare a warrant is CPR 75.7.3.The rules requiring a bailiff to carry a warrant are Department of Transport statutory guide to local authorities 10.68. These points were accepted by Justice Owen.

 

All smart phone 'warrants' show is that the bailiff company sent it to the bailiff usually after rapidly printing one in its own office a few minutes earlier. A classic example of smoke and mirrors, because the thing that can never be shown is that the source of the 'warrant' lies with the local authority. The trail always goes cold in the bailiff company's office

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Further the law that requires a local authority (and NO other party) to prepare a warrant is CPR 75.7.3.

 

The rules requiring a bailiff to carry a warrant are Department of Transport statutory guide to local authorities 10.68. These points were accepted by Justice Owen.

 

And before anyone mocks FP, they should read CPR 75.7.3 for themselves. There is little doubt remaining. It is known that CPR 75 is to undergo amendments and I have little doubt that 7.3 will be amended in some way.

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part75#IDAGQ0HC

 

FP....The DfT guidance has changed so I will check to see if 10.68 is still applicable or whether it has been renumbered etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was never under the impression that anyone else but the authority constructed the warrant, but they do so on instruction from the TEC.

 

I am unsure what difference this makes TBH.

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

As I have said in the past decade I have NEVER come across any local authorities who have prepared a warrant but have seen hundreds prepared by bailiff companies and presented as 'genuine'. Perhaps the comments of Lord McNally speaking in the House of Lords on 19th July 2011 might when added that as far as the preparation of warrants is concerned 'bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings' - source Hansard 20th July 2011 might be considered.

 

In short they have no legal authority to prepare warrant and if they do it has no authority

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont thnk thy will be prepared as a pice of paper FP it will be an eletronoic process, what is wrong with the bailiff printing the document as sent by the authority. Is this not a trivial point ?

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

Once again, people are not carefully reading what I have said. I have made no reference to paper warrants. I'm well aware that warrants can be prepared on computers and transferred electronically - my website has covered this point for years - but this does NOT happen and no completed warrant prepared by a local authority is ever transferred to a bailiff company and thus whatever appears on a smart phone is NOT a copy. It is document generated by bailiff companies and thus fails to comply with CPR 75 7 3, Lord McNally's comments and the judgment of Mr Justice Owen.

 

As I have said because bailiffs have always done it this way does not make this illegal procedure any more lawful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont thnk thy will be prepared as a pice of paper FP it will be an eletronoic process, what is wrong with the bailiff printing the document as sent by the authority. Is this not a trivial point ?

 

Can't be trivial, given that it authorises seizure of goods if payment is not made.

 

There has to be a proper legal procedure, where an employee authorised by a local authority has gone through a process of conducting relevant checks e.g has a complaint been received or payment been made. After checks are made, they then sign off on the warrant being issued, with date/time being recorded.

 

It can't just be an electronic process, with details added to a spreadsheet and sent out for enforcement. The council should have a separate record and be able to print off a copy of the warrant they authorised.

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

Just reading back . Also FP the statutory guidence mentioned is now obsolete, procedure for baiiffs enforcing penalties is now covered by the TCE 2007.

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

Sorry that should have read Traffic Management Act 2004. TCE 2007 and particularly Schedule 12 does not apply to parking enforcement with its reliance of a presumption of guilt. Thus the courts listed which are the High Court, the County Court and a Magistrates Court cannot and do not issue warrants for parking as this falls below their required legal minimum standard of proof which in the first two is 'on the balance of probabilities' and 'beyond all reasonable doubt t' in the latter. Presumptions of guilt by an administrative court (TEC) which does not issue any warrants simply do cut the mustard.

 

I have explained this before and like this thread none of protagonists have been able to produce any proof to the contrary, their comments being limited unsupported doubts and personal abuse. That is a compliment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't be trivial, given that it authorises seizure of goods if payment is not made.

 

There has to be a proper legal procedure, where an employee authorised by a local authority has gone through a process of conducting relevant checks e.g has a complaint been received or payment been made. After checks are made, they then sign off on the warrant being issued, with date/time being recorded.

 

It can't just be an electronic process, with details added to a spreadsheet and sent out for enforcement. The council should have a separate record and be able to print off a copy of the warrant they authorised.

Where will this end, the bailiff sends a MMS with a jpeg of the warrant to the debtor?

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...