Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Preliminary hearing to determine whether there is a contractual relationship between parties - according to the hearing notice.
    • I had forgotten that the fleecers had already played a lot of their cards in the WS they made opposing your set aside application (post 12 for anyone looking in) so that means we can already tighten things up.   Obviously the paragraph numbering will now take one hell of a beating, but that can be sorted out later.   Observations in blue, changes in red.     IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD    CLAIM NO: XXXX   HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT) VS XXX (DEFENDANT)   Date: 3rd May 2022   Witness Statement   1. I Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. 1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX. 1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE  This is likely to be one of your aces so will need a lot of work once you get photos.  The fleecers have also shown a plan where they claim there are signs (their WS post 12, PDF page 15 which you need to confront).   2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (the bank statement proof exhibit 1).   3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   3.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   3.1. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it was likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   4.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   4. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.     UNFAIR TERM   4.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit XXX) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   5.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   6.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    7.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   5. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.  Is this really in the PoCs? - you need to look and find out.    The rest of your section is about the use of POFA at airports which is completely irrelevant.    Adapt LFI's suggestions re POFA and keeper liability -   First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail.   The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   PROHIBITION  This deals with no stopping cases.  Yours in not no stopping so it is completely irrelevant.   LOCUS STANDI   You have quoted a different contract in a different place with a different PPC.  You need to read and try to find holes in the contract they produced (post 12, page 15 of the PDF for anyone looking in).   Adapt LFI's suggestions -   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   8. After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   LFI's suggestion -   They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS  I've cut some bits out as the CoP hadn't been published when the fleecers went after you.  Are you sure the Unicorn Food Tax in the PoCs is £60?   9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”   9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’    9.5. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    9.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   Statement of Truth    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.   I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • Can you just remind us what is meant to be happening tomorrow
    • Thanks for your reply, we returned home to find the lock tampered with and it had been broken into.   Our alarm system had gone off and we have the log of which systems within the house had been triggered showing they had been in the house.   There was a letter left from a supposed bailiff addressed to a complete different property. The letter said they had been acting on behalf of SSE energy company.   Our home and street are clearly signed, we have no idea how they have managed to mistake our home for the other property! SSE told us not to call the police and they would get back to us within 48 hours, no explanation or apology.   We contacted the police anyway and got a crime number. Thanks 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1461 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

Hi, my name is Vanessa.

Can please anyone give me some guidance regarding this problem that I'm going through?

 

Please see the full story below:

 

Last year I went to London and parked my car.

I didn't have any change with me, so used the application "Pay by Phone" to pay for the whole morning car park. 12£.

 

When I got back to the car, I had a penalty notice on the windscreen.

 

I came home and I was sure that I had paid for it, so I appealed for it online.

I thought this "paybyphone" app was something new and that the officer maybe didn't check my car plate online.

I asked if you could please check their online records because I did pay for it.

 

I'd a reply from Lambeth council saying that there was nothing on their online records and so they were rejecting my appeal.

I should then wait for a formal appeal, the Notice to Owner.

 

I checked my online records and realised that unfortunately I made a mistake on one letter of my plate, that's why they couldn't find it online. Instead of an "A", I put an "S" which is exactly the letter next to the A. My screen is broken and with the light from the sun, I didn't realise my mistake until I saw the receipt.

I was waiting the notice to the owner, but I never got it.

 

Instead, I received a letter from the Bailiffs saying that I owe them nearly 800£.

I couldn't believe...I read a lot online and phoned the Traffic Enforcement Court and was advised to fill in TE7 and TE9.

First thing they asked me was my address and I realised that they had my old address in their records.

 

I filled in the TE7 and TE9, send it to the TEC and they send that to Lambeth Council.

The court told me that the Bailiffs would be put on hold while the process was being investigated.

 

I received a letter from Lambeth Council rejecting my TE7 and TE9.

They said that I reply to them the first time, by writting, when I was appealing informally.

After that, my address was requested to the DVLA and several notices were sent to my address and I never replied to any...

 

Unfortunately when I moved I forgot to change my address, so obviously all the letters went to the wrong address.

 

I phoned Lambeth Council and asked if they keep a record of the letters that were sent to me. The confirmed it.

I asked to see a copy of the Notice to the Owner that was sent but the Council said "you have no right to see the letters, we send them to you once and that's it.

You appealed to the Court, we as a Council also have the right to appeal against it. We have to wait for the judge to decide"...

 

This weekend I've got a call from the Bailiffs asking me why I haven't paid yet.

I told them that I filled in all the forms to the court and that I was told that the Bailiffs would be on hold.

The Bailiff told me that they had no notification and that I have until Wednesday to pay everything...

She also said that not changing my address with the DVLA was an offence and so I had to pay for the full bill.

 

This started with a simple mistake made in one letter of the car plate when paying the car parking and it got so wrong and completely out of control with Bailiffs requesting me nearly 800£ to pay within days.

 

I'm sorry is such a long text.

I am so lost and stressed and I don't know where to go from here...

 

Any suggestions or anyone that has been through the same situation please?

 

Many thanks,

Vanessa

Link to post
Share on other sites

moved to the bailiffs 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

You have received a copy of Lambeth Council's rejection to your Out of Time witness statement. You need to wait for the formal response which will come from the Traffic Enforcement Council. All enforcement of the warrant should be 'on hold' until then

 

What did you write on the TE7?

What is the date of Lambeth's rejection letter?

How old is your car and is it on finance?

 

I am assuming from the amount requested by the bailiff (of around £800) that you have 2 outstanding penalty charge notices?

 

Did you do Out of Time witness statements for both tickets?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply.

 

Unfortunately, the Bailiffs are not on hold. They called me Saturday (28.04.2018) and said that they haven't been notified of anything. They wanted to arrange a payment and that I have until Wednesday (02.04.2018) to pay..

 

Should I call TEC and ask about this? I don't really know where can I ask for help...

 

- I filled in both TE7 and TE9. I put on the TE7:

"Following my informal appeal, I never received the Notice to the Owner to be able to make a formal appeal.

I only received on thursday, 05 of April 2018 a letter of "Enforcement Process Commenced" from Bristow and Suttor requiring a payment of 754£ by Wednesday, 11th of April 2018.

 

I am asking for this Enforcement Process to be put on hold and time to receive the Notice to the Owner and make a formal appeal please. FYI, I moved to X on the 14.08.2017 (Proof attached).

 

- Date of Lambeth's rejection letter: Monday, April 16, 2018.

 

- My car is from 2009 and is not on finance.

 

No, I only have one penalty charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vanessa,

 

I will be critical I'm afraid and unless I am, other viewers with similar problems seeking to make an Out of Time witness statement will be completing their applications with as little information as yours. Because of the title of your thread, it would be one that would be visible in google searches.

 

I have been drafting these applications for over 12 years and I can assure you that if one application is rejected, I take the rejection very personally indeed.

 

The first thing to remember with these applications is that they are COUNTY COURT PROCEDURES and unless a motorist has previously completed court documentation, they really should seek advice before they submit these forms.

 

Secondly....and this is something that you will NEVER be told beforehand.... is that over 60% of these applications are REJECTED.

 

Thirdly, you will also not be told beforehand that if your application is rejected, you can request that the rejection be looked at again (to have the rejection reviewed).........but that there is a fee to pay of £100....and that this fee is charged for EACH separate penalty charge notice (the fee is waived if you are in receipt of qualifying benefits). You would need to have a look at court form EX160.

 

The problem with your forms is that you were required on the TE7 to explain WHY you were sending the witness statement late (Out of Time) and on this crucial point you have merely put this....I moved to x on 14th August 2017.

 

Although we know from your initial post that you had not updated your V5C you did not mention on the form whether or not you had.

 

Did you update your driving licence? If so, it should be mentioned.

Did you have a postal divert in place....if so mention that as well.

Did you update your address details with other agencies....if so, mention that too.

 

What you need to be doing on the forms is to explain the reason WHY you had not received notices and the steps that you have taken to ensure that it doesn't happen again. For example, have you now updated your V5C?

 

I would suspect that the reason why Bristow & Sutor are pressuring you is because there is ANOTHER debt that they are enforcing (possibly another penalty charge notice). Depending on the contravention, the Lambeth ticket at warrant stage would be a maximum of £513. Bristow & Sutor are requesting £754.

 

There is definitely another account that they are enforcing and I would suspect that it is this account that they are seeking payment for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Please feel free to be critical. Thanks to you I now start to make sense of everything that has happened...

 

Unfortunately, because time was against me and TEC asked me to fill in the papers ASAP, I couldn't search for advice before.

 

When you say that I can have the application reviewed after rejected, is it referring to Lambeth Council or about TEC's decision?

 

I didn't know I had to put everything exactly like you're telling me unfortunately, because then, I could have added much more details.

I phoned the DVLA this morning

and I had my address for the direct debit correct.

Which means back in 2015 when I moved, I called them.

However, when I called them, I wasn't told that I had to post the V5C to be changed so I never did.

I ddin't know... I had send it today.

 

Unfortunately, back in 2015 I didn't know I could make arrangements with the Royal Mail to get my mail re-directed. I have always updated my address with HMRC, utilities and services, etc, unfortunately, I did not know that I had to change the DVLA (I thought that HMRC and DVLA would share data...) and when I phoned DVLA, again, they didn't tell me about the V5C.

 

I have an European Driving license so I do not need to change the address, that's what the DVLA also told me this morning..

 

I swear to you, that's what Bristow and Suttor said. I have 3 papers from them and I have to pay the total of all of them.

 

The papers say: "Notice of enforcement". Two of these letters have a total of 173£ and one of them have 408£ (for some reason?? it has the exact same numbers as all the others, Debt: 98£, Compliance Stage Fee: 75£ and a total of 408£? on the others with the same Debt and same Compliance Stage Fee the total is 173£)....

 

I spoke to TEC this morning and the lady that picked up said that they haven't heard from Lambeth yet!

I said that they sent the letter Objecting to my request on the 16th of April and I received it at home on the 20th of April (2 weeks ago).

 

The lady said to not worry about that because maybe TEC haven't processed it yet.

 

She said that I have to call Lambeth because they should have put the Bailiffs on hold.

She said they cannot just answer to you and put the Bailiffs on action again.

Something is not right...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that you call Bristow & Sutor and ask them to confirm exactly what debts they are enforcing.

The debt for £173 has increased to £408 to include the enforcement fee of £235.

That does not explain why they are requesting £754 from you.

 

I would suspect that they are enforcing TWO additional penalty charge notices.

(One penalty at £408 and TWO others at £173 each equals £754 !!!)

 

Please post back once you have spoken to B&S

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you searched the dvla database to see if the vehicle you put the reg in for actually exists?

If it doesnt then Lambeth have little to reject your assertions on as they will have received payment for somehting that doesnt exist so they know it was wrong and must apply to somene else and that was you.

 

Now the law allows for "fat finger syndrome" but your problem is the amount of time lapsed.

 

Also you say you have a european driving licence

- how long have you resided in the UK as you require a UK one if you stay here more than a certain amount of time (i think it is a year)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good tip too! I checked the plate number and it is a Bus that has that plate..

 

I didn't know about that "fat finger syndrome", thank you.

 

I've been in the UK for 5 years now. When I came, I was told that I could keep my driving license that was no problem as it was the European one. When I called the DVLA about the V5C they always ask about my driving license and it was never a problem...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an aside to the thread topic....

 

 

If you have a valid EU/EEA licence, you can drive any vehicle covered by the categories shown on your licence for the periods set out below.

 

Ordinary licences:

Until you are 70 or have lived in GB for three years, whichever is longer.

 

The phrase 'Until you are 70 or have lived in GB for three years, whichever is longer', means that you can drive in the UK any vehicle covered by the categories shown on your valid EU/EEA licence until you are 70.

 

Vocational licences:

 

If you are younger than 45, until you are 45 or have lived in Great Britain for five years, whichever is longer.

If you are over 45 but under 65, until you are 66 or have lived in Great Britain for five years, whichever is sooner.

If you are aged 65 or over, until you have lived in Great Britain for 12 months.

You must get a British driving licence to continue driving in Great Britain after these periods.

 

Andy

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 The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone... I have news. This situation is MUCH WORSE than what I was expecting.

I've been crying my eyes out since I called the Bailiffs...

 

This is the situation:

 

I phoned the Bailiffs and explained them that I couldn't understand why I had 3 letters if it was only one penalty charge from London. (other times I called them, they never denied that it was from somewhere different than London). The notice of Enforcement that I received with 3 letters inside it's not from London... It is from Bath!!

 

I went in October, Sunday to visit Bath for the first time and parked my car on Grand Parade.

As it was Sunday (10.09.2017), I checked the parking signs and I didn't have to pay for parking.

 

The Bailiff told me that the fine is related to "Pulpeney Bridge, Bath".

It couldn't be parking, because I didn't have a parking ticket in my car when I arrived.

 

I went and googled "restrictions driving on pulpeney bridge bath" and clicked on the first link, BBC Bristol news (I am not allowed to publish links, sorry).

 

I cannot believe that this is about driving on this bridge

I didn't see any signs at all and I was driving around looking for parking, probably passed there 3 times, therefor, 3 penalties!

 

I'm so so lost... I don't even know where to go form here...

 

When I received the Enforcement letters I called TEC (thinking they were about the London penalty), they told me to fill in a TE7 and TE9, relating to the Lambeth. All the info I put there is wrong!

Then Lambeth objected and so I'm waiting for TEC's decision.

 

So, what am I supposed to do now??? I'm desperate! I

 

The Bailiffs were very comprehensive, they realised I was caught by surprise and gave me one more week to deal with this... Problem is, I'm away Friday (04.05.18) and then I come back to be in the UK on the 08.05.2018 (Tuesday) and then I'm away the rest of the week!

 

How do I go about sorting this Bath problem now?

The TE7 and the TE9 I sent to TEC is all wrong!

Where is the warrant issued by Lambeth?

I never received it..

. Does this means I have 2 notices of Enforcement now?

 

Please... Help!

 

P.S.: Thanks Andy for that information

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused here.

You have received at your current address 3 Notices of Enforcement.

Two are requesting £173 each and the other one has increased to £408.

Are you saying that ALL three relate to the same offence in Bath?

 

There must have been another PCN for Lambeth as otherwise, how could you have submitted an Out of Time witness statement.

 

Where the address box is on the Notice of Enforcement it may say what the contravention relates to (which would be a CCTV) contravention and hopefully the PCN numbers (which will start with 2 digits and be followed by 8 numbers). Please don't post them on the forum...but do let us know whether the numbers have been given. Otherwise, you will need to call Bath Parking Services and ask them. Can you also ask them for the time when each contravention occurred.

 

What date are the Notice of Enforcement's dated and what is the 'cut off' time for payment to be made.
 
Roughly how old is your vehicle and is it on finance?
Link to post
Share on other sites

YEs, it is the same offence. The Bailiff yesterday told me that it was related to the Pulteney Bridge in Bath. All I can think is that I pass there 3 times (I was looking for parking and I clearly didn't see the signs).

 

The PCN for London I have the number as it was related when I parked in London (they left the parking ticket on my window screen) when I made the mistake with the plate number.

All the info I submitted for the TE9 and TE7, I applied to the London PCN basing all the info I wrote there on the enforcement letter I got from Bath (It never occurred to me I have committed a mistake in Bath, so I always thought this is all about London.. all this time..)

TEC haven't processed any of my TE7 and TE9, and I'm thinking because it doesnt make sense the info I provided?

 

I have the letters with me. They don't say what the contravention is about. (I guess it should be CCTV?) but they do provide the numbers that you say. There's 3 different numbers. Starting with 2 letters and then 8 numbers...

 

The warrant were issued in Jan 22, 2018. All of them.

The Bailiff yesterday understood that I knew nothing about this and she gave me a week to sort this!

 

My car is 9 years old and is not on finance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you call Bath Parking dept and obtain the times of the contraventions.

 

You mention that TEC haven't processed any of your TE7 and TE9 forms. Have you submitted witness statements for these offences? Please do not do any more at the moment. The forms are the wrong ones. As these contraventions are for CCTV (moving traffic), you will need forms PE2 and PE3. They are a real pain as you will need to print them off and take them to either your local county court or a solicitor to get witnessed. If you take the forms to the court there is no fee to pay. A solicitor will charge £5 each

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for taking so long, but at work I cannot get on the phone :(

 

They told me: times are for each of the 3 of them: 11:53min; 11:12min; 11:53min. How can they charge me twice for the same time?

They told me to call TEC and explain them what's happening to get the correct forms first?

 

Do you think I should ask help of a solicitor for all this??

I have the proof that when I called the DVLA back in 2015, they updated their records online for payments etc but they never told me to send the V5C. So I didn't know that it haven't been changed... all went wrong from here.

 

Can we just pop in to a county court or does it has to be booked with them in advance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

 

I filled in an OOT declaration regarding a parking ticket, last month. However, the information I put on this form was wrong (because I've mistaken the case with another PCN I had, which I also didn't know about (never received any letters from the Council at all, due to V5C address not updated)).

 

For this reason, TEC has refused my application.

In the letter TEC sent me, they say that I should look for legal advice before contacting them and that I should fill in an N244 form.

 

Can you please recommend me someone that I can contact to help me to fill in the forms that I need?

 

 

Many thanks for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so BA was right it was another PCN from the ones you already had...

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

Apologies for that.

 

I got help me to fill in all 3 OOT's, so I'm waiting for that answer from the Court.

 

However, I can't contact BA at the moment, perhaps BA is away...

 

I have 14 days to fill in my documents and 5 days have passed since they sent me the letter.

 

So I'm starting to worry about it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have 14 days from date of service (and not 14 days from the date on the letter) to submit an N244. It is really important to get a copy of the local authorities statement outlining their reason for rejection. I will draft the wording for you in the morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...