Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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
        • I agree
      • 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

CTAXt and Swift Credit Services Bailiff - said CAN and will force entry if we dont cough up - paid them


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2563 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

You definitely MUST apply for Council Tax Relief.

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

Thanks Uncle Bulgaria,

 

My MP has written to the council and Swift regarding they conduct and has also raised a complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman as Sift were working under instruction fro the Council. Have forwarded the letter received yesterday, it's just that they expect £1334 in one month from myself and my husband knowing that I am the only person working and that my income is circa £1400 per month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Uncle Bulgaria,

 

My MP has written to the council and Swift regarding they conduct and has also raised a complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman as Sift were working under instruction fro the Council. Have forwarded the letter received yesterday, it's just that they expect £1334 in one month from myself and my husband knowing that I am the only person working and that my income is circa £1400 per month.

Which is why with a realistic I & E and proof of income, you could well qualify for Council tax Relief to reduce the ongoing bill.

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

Thanks brassnecked,

 

Am going to the Council Offices on Wednedsya to discuss and apply for Council Tax Reduction,

 

however I think my income will go against me as I earn £23.5k per year and my husband is only entitled to the National Insurance Credit of ESA and no payment.

 

All the online calculators come back with no entitlement other than applying for PIP which we both have done and are awaiting assessment with CAPITAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update ....

 

Yesterday received a Default warning from Swansea Council regarding this years council tax (2017-2018). They are demanding £124 payment (1st payment within 7 days) or they will pursue court proceedings in respect of this years liability.

 

How can they act in such a way that is causing more harm to myself and my husband?! They got £1210 by force at the beginning of the month, I have had to rely on a food bank just to feed us this month as they have left me with no money to pay other essential bills and now they are threatening to take this years liability to court when it's not even the end of the month?! Am going to go and see them on Wednesday but any advice on how I deal with this would be much appreciated.

 

The letter that you received was perfectly correct and one that probably many thousands of people have received since 1st April when the 2017/18 council tax became due. The following is taken from the Local Government Ombudsman's website:

 

 

Councils usually issue the annual council tax bills in March, offering those liable the opportunity to pay over 10 instalments, beginning in April. If an instalment is not paid on the date it is due, the Council must issue a reminder, asking for payment within seven days. If the liable person fails to pay within this period, they lose the right to pay by instalments and a full year's council tax becomes payable.

 

If this is not paid within the next seven days, the Council can ask the magistrates’ court to issue a liability order. A liability order allows the Council to direct bailiffs to try to recover the debt, if necessary by seizing goods to the value of the amount owed.

 

PS: You did say that you were going to visit the council on Wednesday. Were they helpful?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Guys,

 

went to the council offices yesterday to sort out this years liability,

have extended the payments over 11 months.

 

 

They confirmed that my payment date is the 28th,

I queried why I had received the 7 Day notice early?!

 

 

They advised that the letters are automated and will look into the matter as they agree,

letter should not have been received before due date.

 

With regard to the ongoing complaint

they have written in response to my MP letter and confirmed that SCS have denied any misconduct and state that SCS Bailiff never threaten 'forced entry' and I called the EA to make payment.

 

 

Have given them all the evidence showing that Bailiff called me whilst at work,

stated dates and times (47 calls in the space of 1 hour from EA to my mobile),

included printoff of the threatening texts.

 

 

stated call times to SCS offices and asked them to listen to the call recording where SCS operator also said they had a warrant to force entry and call time to Police with authorisation to access the 999 recording of my call or transcript

 

 

She advised that the council has taken the position that SCS acted as instructed and at no time were they aware of the vulnerability of the customer and SCS are trained to ascertain this.

 

 

My employers and GP have also submitted statements to the council.

Was told that this is above the advisers pay grade and to continue to discuss through my MP.

 

Asked that they check the notes on my husband and my file which clearly state my husbands condition, she confirmed that my husbands condition is detailed but is not classed as a vulnerable adult.

 

 

What constitutes as a vulnerable adult?

Council adviser said the she is no qualified to make that determination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes as a vulnerable adult?

Vulnerability is subjective and relative.

 

The National Standards (not legally binding but to which enforcement agents are expected to follow) does give some guidance - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/353396/taking-control-of-goods-national-standards.pdf

 

Yes went to the council offices yesterday to sort out this years liability, and have extended the payments over 11 months. They confirmed that my payment date is the 28th, and I queried why I had received the 7 Day notice early?! They advised that the letters are automated and will look into the matter as they agree, letter should not have been received before due date.

What did your council tax demand for 17/18 say and what was the first instalment due ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...