Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please answer the following questions.   1 Date of the infringement 03rd March 2024   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] I did not received a NTK    [scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'s   3 Date received Give answer here   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Give answer here   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Give answer here   6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Give answer here   Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Give answer here   7 Who is the parking company? MET Parking Services   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] (346) Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY   For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IAS - POPLA   There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, please check HERE   If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here I received a parking charge Final Reminder today 15th April 2024  Copy the windscreen or ANPR section to your thread and answer the questions... …….... In either case scan up bothsides of any letters/tickets in or appeals made out to ONE MULTIPAGE PDF ONLY MET Parking Services Scanned Doc.pdf
    • I am getting conflicting advice from friends about this issue. I am hoping somebody can end my confusion. A couple of weeks ago I took my Mum out for her birthday. Another driver scratched the front passenger side near the bumper of my car as it was parked up. There are no dents just quite severe paint work damage. He scraped his car against mine. The other driver drove off. Luckily there was 2 witnesses who got the other drivers reg number. Cut a log story short the other driver said he didn’t realise he damaged the paintwork on my car. He has however admitted liability. His insurance is paying out. Last Thursday my car was taken away to have the paintwork done. Today I been told my car has been put down as a total loss (not a write off).  As it is only paintwork damage and not body work or mechanical damage, I don't understand why it has been put down as a total loss. I have been told by the insurers I can either write the car off and receive payment to the value of the car or I can take a lower payment and get the car repaired myself.   I am getting conflicting advice from friends. Some are saying if I keep my car and get the repairs done myself the car will then be classed as a category S or category M and I will no longer be able get insurance on the car as it will be classed as written off. As it is only paintwork damage and not body work or mechanical damage, I don't understand that. My questions are  If I take the payment to get the paintwork repair done myself will I still be able to insure my car when the insurance is up for renewal? If I take the payment to get the paintwork repair done myself will my current insurance policy be voided? If my car does get classed as category M or S will the stop me from selling it on the future? Thanks
    • Yes, it is just for Tesco. But as that manager explained, those two spaces on that ground are now rented by the electric company. "What appeal?  Private parking companies never, ever, ever accept appeals - ever." What is my next move then, please? Just wait for them to issue me with whatever it is they issue, and then what? 
    • so how are you doing OP?  Letter of claim ready?
    • @fusionrox please create your own thread by clicking the button at the top of the website
  • 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

Has your car been taken by a bailiff for somebody else’s debt?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2738 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

In the first instance, don’t delay…but whatever you do….don’t rush into issuing an injunction (more on this in my second post).


Why has my car been taken?


In most cases, the vehicle would have been taken because it had been identified by a bailiff using ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) in relation to unpaid penalty charge notices owed by the previous owner. Why this happens is because the warrant carries upon it the vehicle registration number of the vehicle involved in the parking contravention.


Will the bailiff company give me my car back?


Unfortunately, without documentary evidence being provided to support the sale, the vehicle will be unlikely to be released.


Why is this?


Bailiff companies frequently come across cases where a vehicle has ‘allegedly' been 'sold’ in order to assist the ‘real owner’ evade payment of their parking debts. In other words, it can be fairly common for 'sales’ to be ‘bogus’.


It is vehicle owners such as these, that are to blame for genuine purchasers being required to provide so much documentary evidence.


What do I need to do?


In the first instance,
ask a question on the bailiff section of the forum.


If your car has been taken, you will need to contact the enforcement company as soon as possible to make a
Part 85 Claim
. This claim must be submitted
within 7 days
. Almost all companies will ask you to provide the following five items as evidence. Most of the larger companies have their own set Questionnaires.


V5c Log Book


If the purchase was a recent one, this document can be difficult to provide as it can take up to 4 weeks for the new V5c to be processed by DVLA. If this document is not available, you should provide the tear off New Keeper supplement from the Log Book.


Proof of Purchase.


If payment for the vehicle purchase had been made by bank transfer, this is ideal. If payment had been made by cash….this can be problematic. Most enforcement companies will request evidence by way of a bank statement showing cash being withdrawn a few days before the purchase.


You will also be required to provide
a copy of the sales receipt.


How the purchase came about.


If the car was purchased via eBay, Gumtree, Auto Trader or a garage etc, then a copy of the advert and receipt will be required. If the purchase has been via a friend or relative, this can be problematical. Once again, please post a question on the forum.


Copy of vehicle insurance.


This will be one of the most important documents. It is a criminal offence to keep a vehicle on a public highway without insurance and all enforcement companies will require some evidence that the new owner has obtained insurance within a day or so of the purchase. If the vehicle is not kept on a highway, evidence of SORN registration should be provided.


Evidence that road fund licence has been purchased.


Most new vehicle owners will tax their vehicle online with DVLA and will either make a one off payment or monthly instalments. A copy of the bank statement evidencing that road fund licence was obtained around the time of the purchase will need to be provided.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What will happen after the evidence has been provided.


The rules governing this are outlined under Part 85.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and put simply, the following steps must be taken:


Within 3 days of the Part 85 Claim (and supporting evidence) being submitted to the enforcement company, the company must then serve a copy on the creditor (usually the local authority). It is the creditor...and not the enforcement company that decides the Claim.


The creditor, has just 7 days to consider the Part 85 Claim and they must give their decision in writing to the enforcement company within this time period of time and no later.


Within 3 days of receiving the creditors decision, the enforcement company must write to the Claimant to advise them whether the claim is accepted or rejected.


If the creditor accepts the claim, they will not be liable to the enforcement agent for any fees or expenses incurred by the enforcement agent after receipt of that notice by the enforcement agent.


If the creditor (usually the local authority) accept the Part 85 Claim, the warrant ceases to be exercisable and the enforcement company must make the vehicle available for collection. The rules do not provide for the vehicle to be delivered back to the Claimant.


If the creditor (local authority) rejects the Part 85 Claim, the claim would need to be decided by the court. However, I have assisted with these claims for many years (a similar procedure was in place for debts enforced by High Court Enforcement Agents prior to 2014) and it is almost always the case that as long as the Part 85 Claim is properly put together with the supporting documentary evidence to support the sale....the vehicle will be released.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last Monday, the importance of providing evidence to the enforcement company was highlighted in court. A litigant in person issued an injunction after his vehicle was seized in relation to the previous owners debts. The correct course as detailed in my above post, should have been to submit a 'Third Party Claim' under Part 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules.*


In actual fact, at the hearing last Monday, (six weeks after the vehicle had been seized) the Judge agreed that the claimant had acquired the vehicle in good faith and the evidence that he eventually provided (at the hearing) was sufficient proof. He provided copies of his bank statement showing the 'flow of funds' and the updated V5c and evidence of insurance.


Nonetheless, he was harshly criticised by the Judge for using the wrong procedure and he was ordered to pay the Counsel's costs, and a proportion of the solicitors fees.



Background to the claim.



The Claimant’s position is that he purchased the vehicle on
1st September 2016
. It should maybe be mentioned that the vehicle had been clamped 5 months earlier. The clamp appeared to have gone missing.


Following the seizure, the ‘new owner’ contacted the enforcement company to make enquiries. They emailed him on the
8th September
asking for documentary evidence to be provided (such as outlined in my initial post). He was given a deadline of 20th September to respond. Without this evidence, his claim could not be forwarded to the creditor for their consideration.


The Claimant provided very little. All that he provided was a copy of the ‘new keeper supplement’ and with regards to the vehicle insurance, he merely provided an insurance document showing him to be a named driver on somebody else’s policy.


Before the deadline date of 20th September (and most importantly, before the creditor could consider the claim), the Claimant decided to issue an injunction. This was a
foolish decision
and a costly one.



At the Hearing



At the hearing, (6 weeks after the seizure) the Judge informed the Claimant that the hearing was to consider the application for an injunction and that if the defendant wished to challenge the Claimant’s title to the goods, the case would have to be set down for a 90 minute hearing at a future date in the New Year. This would mean the car remaining in storage for a considerable period of time.


In court, the Claimant agreed that that he had not done all that he reasonably could to ensure that the matter was resolved without taking up valuable court time and putting the enforcement company and creditor to unnecessary expenditure.


It was stated that he failed totally to engage with the enforcement company. He provided no explanation as to how he became aware that the vehicle was for sale. However, in court, he did provide a copy of his bank statements showing a withdrawal of over £4,000 a few days before the purchase. He also provided the V5c from DVLA (which showed its processing date to be
the expiry period given by the enforcement company (of 20th September 2016).


The Judge stated that he could well understand why the company requested a copy of a bank statement stating that 'sometimes, people are disingenuous and attempt to avoid paying by giving their vehicle to someone else' and that it would be obvious that if a person could show how they paid for the vehicle, that this would go a long way to showing who the owner really was.


He stated that the V5 and the bank statement were
‘vital documents’
and that the moment they came available, they should have been presented to the enforcement company.


The Clamant was a litigant in person but the Judge was not sympathetic to this. He stated that if litigation is to be approached, then at the very least, documents should have been disclosed to the enforcement company because doing so, would have likely lead to the case not being necessary at all.


In relation to the V5 and bank statement, the Judge informed the Claimant that it was 'common sense' to provide theses documents to the enforcement company as soon as they became available. In regards to the bank statement, he stated that this document was
‘especially important’
to show whether the dates
‘matched up’.


Most importantly, he informed the Claimant that he had made
the incorrect application.



Comments from the Judgment:



'The Defendant wrote to the Claimant on Thursday 8 September 2016 with a list of things it wanted to decide whether to contest the claim. This is not a statutory list. But nevertheless it stands to reason that if all relevant information is provided, then going to court is less likely'.


'The Defendant had reasonably asked for evidence of the flow of money'.



In regards to the subject of costs:



The Claimant requested a refund of his issue fee (of £308). The Judge refused this stating that the application for an inunction was taken out
the date given by the enforcement company for the Claimant to provide documentary evidence (20th September).


He concluded by advising the Claimant that he had not done enough to avoid the case having to come to court and the defendant was therefore unfairly put in a position of having to pay to defend the injunction.


The Claimant was ordered to pay the Counsel fees and a contribution towards the solicitors fees. He was given 21 days to make payment. He indicated that he could not afford to make such a payment and would not be paying. On hearing this, the judge reduced the period to the standard 14 days.


An order was given for the Claimant to collect his car from the enforcement companies storage pound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Has your car been taken by a bailiff for somebody else’s debt?
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2738 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...