Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Assuming you're correct about the limitation running from the last date of deferral. The last deferral was in 2013 so the statute barring period would end on 31 August 2019, the money claim was made on 3rd June 2019 so is within the limitation period. Therefore the debt is not statute barred.
    • I agree with my site team colleague @slick132 but with variations. These people have been needing you around and cause you serious harm in terms of the amount of effort that you have been put to as well as the damage to your credit file. You have taken all sorts of different stories and also been misled by them as to their statutory obligations in respect of data disclosures. It has taken the issue of court claim to get them to make any move. You have taken control of the situation and it is you who has the whip hand at the moment. They are now proposing to telephone you to discuss the matter in some way – but you have no idea. Also, you have no idea who you are going to be speaking to and whether they have authority to commit Virgin to anything at all. If you agree to this phone call then you are at risk of handing control back to them because they will partly ask you to withdraw the action and they will also offer to make a payment as a "gesture of goodwill". Now that you have attracted their attention and they realise that something needs to be taken seriously, I don't think you should let go of the initiative. Please can you post up the email which you received from them. He was it from and what is that person's role within the company. I think you should write to them and refuse the call and tell them that you are happy to discuss matters that you will want to know what it is they think they have to discuss and who will it be who will be phoning you – and will that person has any authority to make decisions. I think should also emphasise to virgin that they are already in breach of their statutory duty. That if they decide to file a defence that they will have to sign it is a statement of truth subject to a sanction for contempt of court and that as they are clearly in breach of their statutory obligations, it would not be possible for them to sign off such a statement of truth and if they do, then you will bring the whole thing to the attention of the court and invite the court to express their own opinion on the matter. I think it's very important that they tell you in advance what they propose to discuss. I think you should tell them that if they're not prepared to disclose the purpose of their phone call and the points that they intend to cover and if the phone call is not made by somebody at a suitably elevated managerial level, then you are not prepared to discuss the matter. I'm afraid that I'm struck by the naïveté of your statement which I suppose is intended to be assertive.   Haven't we reached a point yet where you understand that you can't trust these people and although you may discuss various things on the telephone, if they then are required to minute the conversation and provide you with the resume of the conversation, you are handing them carte blanche to present the conversation in a way that suits them together with nuances included or removed, and generally slanted in their favour. They might not – but you are certainly opening up the possibilities and if that's what they do, how are you going to counter them and say that they have not correctly recorded what you discussed and agreed? You seem to be doing everything you can to keep on handing the baton back to Virgin. I have no idea why. You should not get involved in any telephone conversation unless you have first read our customer services guide and you are recording the call for your own benefit. If you cannot do this or you are not prepared to do this then don't take the call at all. Please will you post up the email that you have received, let me have your comments on what I've posted here and if you agree we will draft a response. You might like to start. Apparently they are proposing to telephone today and so we need to get a move on. If they happen to telephone before you have received a written reply to your message, then you should simply tell the caller that you are still waiting for their response to the email which you sent a little while earlier and you're not prepared to discuss anything until you have their written reply to that.
    • Well done on getting your refund and thanks for the update. I understand that you are still out of pocket. If you would like to get that money back and we will help you and I think it will be fairly straightforward. The amount of money outstanding is scarcely worth his while causing any trouble. It would be very helpful if you could post up a link to the new advertisement and also do you have any pics of the car and also its registration number please. I think we owe this to possible new owners in case they come to this forum.
    • im being an idiiot, its late, ive corrected those dates and will submit tomorrow unless someone states otherwise
    • ive gone through all documents no DN but they include one in their application dated 13 oct 2016
  • Our picks

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1628 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I was visiting my friends last week,

she has a sorned vehicle on her drive which she had sold two days before,

the new owner was due to collect it the same night

 

A white van appears on her drive and a man knocks on the door,

My friend thinks its a delivery for the neighbour,

my friend opens the bedroom window, and has a conversation with the Gentleman on the door,

he says he is a bailiff and he has come to collect 392.00 for an unpaid parking ticket,

 

I can honestly stay my friend was stunned,

she did not know anything about it,

she contacted the Local council,

they could not tell her anything as the system was down,

she went on the Councils web site and checked there was a ticket for 82.00 which she paid immediately.

 

She has two grown up children,

she knows one of them has probably had the ticket.

 

 

there are two men on the drive in a white van,

they proceed to clamp the sold vehicle,

my friend explains that the car has been sold

and the owner is coming to collect it today.

The man says he doesn't care,

the white van remains parked on the drive for 30 mins during this time,

 

 

my friend asks where is the court order to clamp the car,

the reply was the chap showed he half a piece of paper with a line of text on the paper

saying mentioning a court in Northampton which she knows nothing about,

she has never received any documents from a court in Northampton.

 

The white van leaves and returns about 1 hour later

stating they are towing the vehicle away at 17.15hrs unless she pays up,

 

 

she explains she doesn't get paid until next week and asks what is the hurry to tow a clamped vehicle

the chap explains by the end of the evening she will be paying him £1,000 pound,

and asks her for her log book and keys -- which she no longer has.

 

My friend telephones her son who is due home from work (she does not live at the property anymore)

her son and his girlfriend actually live there, she lives with her partner,

 

 

her son pulls up and beeps at the van ,

one of the occupants gets out and asks her son where he lives

he says he lives next door ,

they then ask him to park as close to the house as possible as they are going to tow a vehicle.

 

He then proceeds to park his car at the top of his drive

the white van cannot get onto the drive,

 

 

eventually the white van leaves after threatening to call the police,

my friend did call the Police,

they told her not to pay and gave her a reference number the officer said it sounded like extortion

 

The new owner of the vehicle arrived later that night arranged her boyfriends pick up truck

and took her car away stating no one had any right to clamp her car

and of the bailiffs want the clamp back they can pay for it.

 

What will happen to my friend,

will she be arrested,

shes very upset by the whole thing,

 

 

I have known her for twenty years she would not ignore a parking ticket

Edited by maroondevo52
formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

she has never received any documents from a court in Northampton

 

I have known her for twenty years she would not ignore a parking ticket

 

Before getting to the very late stage of a personal visit, your friend should have received three notices from the local authority (a Notice to Owner, a Charge Certificate and an Order for Recovery).

 

She should then have received a Notice of Enforcement from Bristow & Sutor. Give that your friend is adamant that she knew nothing about this Penalty Charge Notice, then it is vitally important that she first speaks with the council in the morning to ascertain the reason why notices from them (the council) had not been received by her.

 

Once she has spoken with the council, please post back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debtor must find out quickly what the PCN is and arrange payment. She doesn't have to let the bailiff in.

 

The New Owner might be threatened with having the car taken if the bailiffs can find her address and it isn't in a garage. Problem for them it is private land not the debtor's property so shouldn't be able to take it. Showing a receipt or proof of a money transfer and the green slip from the V5 should be enough for the bailiff if they did trace the car.

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

If the car was taken whilst under control, which it was if clamped. It is an offence and the police can be called to recover the stolen goods unfortunately.

 

I should add that this is if the bailiff is legally acting under a warrant of control, of course.

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

Utter dangerous and misleading rubbish DB. Parking enforcement is not subject to rules that only apply to judicial courts who have issued warrants themselves. Further if there was a warrant in this case, I'll give you the money mesself.

 

The OP is better office filing a out of time stat dec as per BA

Link to post
Share on other sites
Utter dangerous and misleading rubbish DB. Parking enforcement is not subject to rules that only apply to judicial courts who have issued warrants themselves. Further if there was a warrant in this case, I'll give you the money mesself.

 

The OP is better office filing a out of time stat dec as per BA

 

Yes I know there is no warrant , it is just a fantasy which the rest of the world engages in, give it a rest.

 

If goods are taken under control, they are under control. If there is a dispute then that has to be decided and if found to be correct the goods will be released. Taking goods which are under control is an offence under section 68 of the TCE, it is also theft.

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
If the car was taken whilst under control, which it was if clamped. It is an offence and the police can be called to recover the stolen goods unfortunately.

 

I should add that this is if the bailiff is legally acting under a warrant of control, of course.

If the new owner bought whilst goods are bound, then yes the bailiff can probably have the car, and theft of the clamp if the police can be bothered to act in a "Civil" matter. B & S could also claim the taking of the car was Obstruction and have the new owner 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
If the new owner bought whilst goods are bound, then yes the bailiff can probably have the car, and theft of the clamp if the police can be bothered to act in a "Civil" matter. B & S could also claim the taking of the car was Obstruction and have the new owner done.

 

Given that this were true , it cannot be argued at the time the goods are taken under control it must be brought up in the form of compliant to the EA after the event.

The car in any event was taken control by immobilization, it should not have been moved.

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

The correct course of action here should have been to leave the car where it was and contact the council to see if a warrant of control had been issued.

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
Given that this were true , it cannot be argued at the time the goods are taken under control it must be brought up in the form of compliant to the EA after the event.

The car in any event was taken control by immobilization, it should not have been moved.

 

The New owner sould have shown B & S the V5 slip given to new keeper and any receipt. They acted like many people who know nothing of bailiffs would, they took what they considered as their property away.

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

My response is advice or the OP and thus remain within the confines of the thread.

 

Nor are my views 'unique' as they have been upheld by Mr Justice Owen in the High Court. I have supplied details before.

Edited by honeybee13
Personal slight removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The New owner sould have shown B & S the V5 slip given to new keeper and any receipt. They acted like many people who know nothing of bailiffs would, they took what they considered as their property away.

 

Yes of course they did not notice the accompanying notice orr have any contact with the other party and the issue of the bailiff never came up.

 

In any case this "argument" would have to be brought up in any complaint as said.

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

My view were also upheld by DJ Andrew Thomas in Bromley County Court and DJ Baker in Birkenhead County Court.

 

I shall not be adding any more. Those reading this can please themselves whether they wish to believe my posts.

Edited by honeybee13
Argumentative comments removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no intention of placing this case in yet another thread again. BA copy of the judgment. You however are not looking for a balanced view just an excuse to hijack this thread and make more trouble.

 

My view were also upheld by DJ Andrew Thomas in Bromley County Court and DJ Baker in Birkenhead County Court.

 

I shall not be adding any more. Those reading this can please themselves whether they wish to believe my posts.

 

The poster of this thread (Caroline) will have no idea why you consider that there is no warrant and it was with this in mind, that the following thread was set up so that your thoughts on this important subject could be discussed/debated. I would very much like to debate the matter and I am sure that others would as well.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465256-Warrants-of-Control-(Parking)-Discussion-thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrelevant and argumentative posts removed.

 

Can we please get back to advising the OP. Your personal stuff isn't helpful, please keep it off advice threads.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...