Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • nope  and  neither dx
    • Ok Thank you DX will do just that . will keep you up dated.
    • dispute it with whichever cra provider is now showing it. simply state the a/c is from 2015 and was defaulted (date) and should not have re appeared. probably getting ready to sell it on. dx
    • Hi Caught Shoplifting at John Lewis - Retail loss Prevention/Other shoplifting allegations. - Consumer Action Group Thanks a lot for commenting this experience of yours. I do understand this might be something that you are not willing to talk about anymore but the same exact scenario happened with me today at John Lewis. They took my name/ address/ a picture of me holding a signed banned letter. the only questions I've got are... will I be contacted by the police will this be recorded as police caution or criminal record?  I would really really appreciate if you could let me know how it went.  I am so so so ashamed of myself and am really making changes in my life I feel like I've lost myself for a period of my life but anyways it would be really great to hear back. Thanks 
    • I thought Delinquent ment "missing payments" its active so assumimg it can be seen ? also this is the only thing change on my credit file and that in its self being re added has dropped my credit score . the debt is SB and did drop off my credit file so how have or how can they re add it again ?
  • 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 
        • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2218 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

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes

Link to post
Share on other sites

private parking speculative invoices are

but if the council PCN has now turned into fine from a court no they are not!

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

private parking speculative invoices are

but if the council PCN has now turned into fine from a court no they are not!

 

A PCN cannot turn into a fine from a court. The whole thing about council PCNs is that the system is decriminalised. There are no courts or fines just penalty charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but if the council PCN has now turned into fine from a court no they are not!

 

Following through from jamberson, what do you mean by "fine"? "Court" people don't go to magistrates court for non payment of a parking penalty & as far as I know it is only criminal courts which can impose "fines" for criminal offences only............non payment of a council parking ticket is not a criminal offence, neither is it criminal offense to breach parking regulations, first I ever heard of such a thing, >>>can you please direct me (& others who might be interested) to the relevant statute?

 

When I asked for the info I wanted accurate info only. Thanks Jamberson

Edited by Caz16
Link to post
Share on other sites

just my brain..so a council PCN..does it every time expire...?

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

predictive text..so does a council pcn time expire

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer, but this is what I think is the case.

 

Statute Barred law applies to recovering debts through courts. When a debt becomes a debt, the party who is owed has six years to initiate proceedings. I think this is based on contract law. After the six years, court action is no longer possible, although the debt itself lasts indefinitely - they just can't use the court process, so in effect can't force payment any longer.

 

How does this work with PCNs? Well fistly, there's no court process applicable, so the fact that this course of action may be closed off after six years doesn't matter. But there's no contract law in play either, so presumably the Statute Barred law doesn't apply anyway. The debt still exists, but the question then becomes whether a new warrant can be granted (a warrant is actionable for 12 months, but another could be granted later on).

 

Maybe post on the bailiff section of this site, as the process is really about bailiff powers of enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive popped it in the bailiff discussion forum.

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

that came out total irish due to predictive text...

 

 

removed

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this will clarify matters as it is taken from the London Tribunals site. http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Davis41.pdf

When Councils have run out of options to collect a PCN they can go back to Northampton if that increased charge is not paid within 14 days, then the authority may apply to the Parking Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court for the recovery of the increased charge as if it were payable under a County Court order Page 4 .

 

Between page 4 and 5 the Tribunal goes on to say

By Order 48B Rule 5(1) (which applies the provisions of Order 26 Rule 5

to the recovery of parking penalties under County Court order), a warrant of execution cannot

be issued without the leave of the Court where six years or more have elapsed since the date of

the relevant order upon which the warrant is to be based. Section 24 of the Limitation Act 1980

equally applies from that date: so that no action on the order can be taken more than six years

after the date of the order (although rarely would an action based on the order - as opposed to

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I was going to put that link up myself LFI, you beat me to it.

 

The above should be read carefully. The Rule does not say that enforcment after six years is statute barred under section 24, it is not SB.

 

The period of enforcing a judgment is limited by the rule only, and can be lifted by an application to the court. If it were SB no further application would be possible.

 

Section 24 refers to an action on a judgment, this would be a new action based on the judgment, as opposed to just enforcing a judgment already made.

 

See Lowsley vs Forbes (HL)

 

So yes the creditor would have to make an application to the sentencing court and no, it is not because the order is statute barred.

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

  • 11 months later...

By PCN do you mean a Parking Charge Notice issued by a private parking company (ie not by a local council)? If so my understanding is that they are claimed as contractual debts and so the Limitation Act applies and action cannot be taken to recover the debt after 6 years. There's a specific definition of when the 6 years starts though that you'd need to check.

 

If you are asking about a Penalty Charge Notice issued by a local council I'm afraid I don't know the answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

old and new threads merged

you've already asked this question

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

BazzasS, The pcn's are council.

 

It was not because ''I did not like the answer's'', the answer I was expecting was a ''Yes'' or ''no'', but, I could't work out from all that's written above what the correct answer is, ie Yes or No.

 

I came back to check this thread but could not find it, having gone through it again I am still uncertain if PCNS are statute bared or not!

 

Sorry you thought ''I did not like the answer'' I simply could not understand, and still cannot, if PCN's are statute barred or not, maybe you can help with a ''Yes'' or ''No''....please consider that a question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer isn’t as simple as “yes” or “no”, for the reasons set out in LFI and Dodgeball’s posts.

 

So, what actions have the council(s) taken?

Depending on if they issued NtO’s (and when), and then any subsequent order(s), they might be able to go back to a Court and ask for a fresh warrant of execution.

 

If a court might be minded to issue such a warrant will likely depend on why they have allowed 6 (or is it now 7!) years to elapse. Do you know why? (For example if they had no knowledge of your current address to pursue you & have only now come into such information it is more likely ‘just and fair’ for them to do so than if they had had your address, you’d had assets, and they’d just not bothered).

 

If you didn’t understand a year ago, why didn’t you ask for clarification then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice to Owner. If you had more than one ticket, Notices to Owner.

As per MB’s reply.

 

Why not detail what has happened, what you’ve received and when, and you might get focused, reliable advice based on the facts of the situation, rather than you and respondents playing guesswork?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seconded. In general though, even if the limitation act did potentially apply, I'm not sure when in practice things would ever take so long but ultimately still result in enforcement that it would even become a question.

 

Even the least competent LA (for which there are many competitors) with the smallest parking department and the longest delays is going to 'press the button' which issues an NTO before the 6 month period for doing so expires. And after that if you don't intervene it's all automatic and things will very quickly escalate to the Order for Recovery stage which in turn will very quickly escalate to the bailiffs.

 

I've only ever had 1 PCN which the LA didn't try to pursue. In that case I got a ticket on my (very obviously crash-damaged and written off) car the day before I scrapped it, and I never heard anything more about it.

 

Likely when they tried to use the registration number to trace the registered keeper and send the NTO all they got was that the vehicle didn't exist and so the ticket went nowhere. That was 10 years ago.

 

And I suspect if I was ever going to hear anything more about it then I would have done a long time ago and so in practice it remains the case that it will never come down to needing to consider the limitation act.

 

What is happening in your case that thinks you might need it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is happening in your case that thinks you might need it?

 

I am ready to start a claim against a council, there were PCNs but they are over 6 years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...