Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have one more question. When the default judgement was entered against the defendant and the CCJ was issued I upgraded it to High court enforcement. Now the HCEOs did not seize any vehicle from them as the defendant applied for N244 application in their 2nd visit, the fees have piled up over 1500. They say if the judgement is set aside I will be liable for the fees but as far as I know only have to pay compliance fees of 75 quid if they were unsuccessful. They want to charge 150 quid for a witness statement and details of enforcement stage so far. Do you think I require witness statement yet? Is the bill from them enough to prove that I had indeed sent HCEO to seize their goods?
    • Parcelforce is simply a trading name of the post office. If you hadn't accepted the mediation then you could have had the matter properly tested in court against the retailer – although it is highly likely that the retailer would have put their hands up. They are responsible for the faulty item and for all delivery charges and liabilities related to its return to them and its subsequent safe return to you. Can you please post up the document which says that if you didn't accept mediation it would go against you in court. If you really are worried about the confidentiality of your settlement agreement then please email a copy of it to me at our admin email address.
    • Randle Brooks,He Is well registered loan lender that is permitted to give out Guarantee loan to individuals and Business firm and also to anybody that needs financial help for more contact:Email: randlebrooks2000@gmail.com  WhatsApp Only:  +12676685789
    • Dear BankFodder, thank you.  I have to say that I did also fall into the category of "if we didn't accept mediation it would go against us in court" and to be honest I was happy with what we were awarded despite the fact that at the moment there is a serious doubt as to whether we will actually receive the awarded sum as we are unable to return the faulty item??   Please accept my ignorance but I am confused as to why this is anything to do with the Post Office as the claim is again Parcel Force, based on their T&C's when the contract was taken out with them.   With relation to the settlement agreement it clearly states on there that " the parties will keep the information contained in this agreement confidential and not use it for any other purposes"??   Thank you      
    • I have tidied and formatted the layout ...and a few typos.The content is really your own words and evidence in support of your initial defence and therefore is not nessessary to add any further.   regards   Andy
  • Our picks

    • My personal experiences of Future Comms 
       
      Don't touch them owe me £500 since January 2019 make excuse after excuse. Seem they always have software problems sending money out. Keep saying they will call back or email nothing been chasing it now for 6 mths the phone staff always have the same banter we will chase it up and get back to you then nothing!
      • 0 replies
    • Future Comms is a Big Con. How to get out of it. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417058-future-comms-is-a-big-con-how-to-get-out-of-it/
        • Like
      • 4 replies
    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 5 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

Seems to be never ending witn these people.

 

Yesterday I was at home and a bailiff from Martons knocked on my door and wanted to collect money for a PCN. 

The paperwork was in the name of my old company but also had my name on it as a contact.

 

I was totally unaware of this PCN and I explained that the vehicle was registered in the company name and was used by about 4 workers including myself.  Also that whilst the company was registered at my home address it was closed down and dissolved in august 2018.

 

He went on to say that as my name was given by the DVLA as a contact allthough the vehicle was registered in the company name I am liable for the debt and it makes no difference that the company was dissolved nearly a year ago.

 

I called the transport for london who advised justto pay it, then they went on to say to complete an Out of Time statutory declaration and sent it in to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

Needless to say the bailiif did leave eventuelly after leaving a letter which he has now put my name only on it and said he will be back.

 

Any thoights?

 

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mention that the paperwork provided by the bailiff was in the name of your 'old company'. and that the vehicle was registered in the 'company name' and lastly, that 'the company' was closed down and dissolved in August 2018.  This is all very confusing indeed. 

 

Can we just be clear....was the company registered as a Limited Company?

 

At the time of the contravention, was the vehicle registered on the V5C (Log Book) in the name of the Limited Company?

 

Since the 'company' was dissolved in August 2018, what has happened to the vehicle? Is it still registered in the name of the Limited Company?  Has it been sold?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will depend on what name was on the V5 at DVLA at the time of the issue of the PCN, if you could respond to BA we can advise further.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

The bailiff claimed that the paperwork he had was in the company name which was a limited company.  He said it was for a PCN that was unpaid.  However he also said that the information that the DVLA gave showed me as a contact.

 

I explained that I didn't know anything about the PCN and that the limited company is dissolved.  The vehicle in question was a van which was in the company name was sold when the company ceased.

 

The bailiff has then said that as my name has been given by the dvla that I am now liable for the debt?

 

The V5 was in the company name. but they have my name as a contact? according to the bailiff.

Also the date of the PCN was before the company was dissolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite possibly then the nailiff cannot collect, I would hide any motors for now, perhaps BA, or one of the regulars  will pop in to confirm, that as vehicle was registered with the Company it would be liable.  Do you still have the vehicle?


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the van was sold last year when the company was dissolved.

 

I saw the Bailiff parked behind my car before he came and knocked on my door.  Not sure if he did a DVLA check on my car but he never mentioned my car when he was talking.  Once I told him that the company was closed last year he just wrote a letter and gave it to me, however like I mentioned in my first post the letter is addressed to me only and does not have the company name on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think he can take your goods for a defunct Company debt, but he will want the money so might just carry on Enforcement hoping you pay up, as in keep calling but do nothing that might give him grief later like clamping your car.  The regulars will probably give some salient advice soon.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggest that you complete the out of time statutory declaration with all of the details.

 

I would guess that if you were the director of this limited company that was dissolved, that you could still be liable. Doubt the Government would leave any loophole for companies with vehicles to escape PCN's after dissolution.  There will be a responsible director with on-going liability and as your name is on the DVLA records, it appears to be you.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a definite possibility, that OOT is a good idea, if accepted it will reset the debt to the original sum to pay or dispute and remove the bailiff fees.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I will fill in the out of time statutory declaration.  My understanding is that the clock gets reset to when the PCN was originally issued?  If so then what do I do then as the company lo longer exists, I don't know who was driving the van on the day of the PCN so not much help 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of time statutory declaration is just stating reasons for wanting the clock to be wound back to when Transport for London first sent out letter demanding the PCN be paid.

 

Reason: vehicle Registration xxxxxxxxxx was a company vehicle registered to xxxxx ltd company and the vehicle was used by x number of employees of this company. The company was dissolved on xx date and the vehicle was sold on xx date. My name xxxxxxxx was noted as a contact name on the V5 registration document, but I have never received any correspondence from Transport for London and I was not aware of any PCN being issued at the time of any contravention. The first time I was made aware of the PCN was on xxxxx date, when an Enforcement Officer from Marstons visited my private address.

 

Not an expert in this and hopefully Bailiff Advice or others will be around at some point to confirm whether this would be correct or not.

 

 


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could an out of time statement create a liability?

 

Surely at the moment they are pursuing the OP as director of the now dissolved company and they can only go after company assets.

if the company is gone, the OP isn’t a director: so in what capacity do they plan to make an OOT statement? They aren’t a director anymore.

 

Would it be better to not make the OOT, and say “the company has gone, there are no assets remaining to enforce against, and any personal assets I have aren’t subject to any warrant of control you may have for company assets”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The company is gone,so like a deceased person who has capacity for OOT?


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the out of time statutory declaration creates any liability. It is just stating that the liable party at the time of contravention may no longer exist or is open to debate, whether the director stated on the vehicle registration is still the liable party. The OOTSD could also state that the dissolved company has zero assets remaining.

 

Transport for London according to the first post in thread asked for the OOTSD. So obviously they won't call off Marstons and Marstons will just continue trying to collect. So if the OOTSD is not completed, then I cannot see how this matter will be resolved.

 

 


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot see how this matter will be resolved.

How about if this were instead for a parking ticket for an individual, not a dissolved company.

 

An individual who has died, and the OP was an executor for the estate. The estate has been through probate, the executor of the estate behaved correctly in its administration and discharged their fiduciary duties properly, (including issuing a notice inviting any claims against the estate).

Are you saying that the executor should;

a) File an OOT, or

b) Say to TfL / the enforcement agent : The estate has been settled and has gone. There is nothing left to enforce against - in that respect you are indeed “out of time”.

 

i think the 2 scenarios are analogous. The company has died (been dissolved), and (provided the OP behaved correctly as a director), the OP has no more liability than if they behaved correctly as an executor for an individual who died, once the estate has been lawfully distributed, if all was done correctly: no personal liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, rattlywelshboy said:

ok I will fill in the out of time statutory declaration.  

 

Let me be clear here.....the vehicle was registered in the name of a LIMITED COMPANY and as such; was owned by  the Limited Company that is now dissolved. End of the matter. The debt cannot be enforced. 

 

If it is the case that the registration document also records the name of Mr Rattlywelshboy then it would be clear to me that this would merely refer to you as being the DIRECTOR of the limited company . It cannot in any way turn a limited company debt (or asset) into a personal one. 

 

I would suggest that you call the Traffic Enforcement Centre when they open on Tuesday and ask them to confirm the precise name and address on the warrant. You might want to ask them whether a request to reissue the warrant had been made. 

Edited by Bailiff Advice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, rattlywelshboy said:

ok I will fill in the out of time statutory declaration.  

My understanding is that the clock gets reset to when the PCN was originally issued?  If so then what do I do then as the company lo longer exists, I don't know who was driving the van on the day of the PCN so not much help 

 

There is a huge amount of  misunderstanding about an Out of Time statutory declaration (or witness statement). In simple terms, it is a formal request to ask that the debt registration (and bailiff fees) be cancelled, and a new penalty charge notice  issued because there had been a MISTAKE at an earlier stage in the PCN process (most usually; that all previous correspondence had been sent to a previous address etc).

 

Despite the fact that these are court documents, it is unfortunately the case that  motorists draft these forms for the same reason that you have outlined above (believing that the clock will be reset back to when the PCN was originally issued). Let me be clear...this is NOT the case at all. Only if the local authority are willing to give their permission allowing you to file a witness statement LATE will the debt be cancelled and a new PCN issued. And unfortunately, in excess of  65% of these applications are REJECTED. The reason is almost always because of poorly drafted forms. Anyone considering submitting an Out of Time witness statement should take ADVICE beforehand. 

 

One point that I should make is that is would not matter who was driving the car on the date of contravention. Liability rests with the registered KEEPER (which would be the LIMITED COMPANY)  and not the driver. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, brassnecked said:

The company is gone,so like a deceased person who has capacity for OOT?

 

My point entirely. 

The Limited Company no longer exists. It's bank account has been closed and it cannot pay it's debts.  There is NO Director. Therefore, neither Mr Rattlywelshboy or anyone else has the legal authority to sign an Out of Time statutory declaration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could go round in circles, the bailiff wants his fees so might carry on until TFL call him off, might be an issue if he clamps Rattlywelshboy's car for the deceased companies debt, and it ends up as a Third party claim that might even escalate to Interpleader if the bailiff removed the vehicle.  Needs clarification, as TFL and Marstons aren't going  to give up on their payday  without a fight, even though on the face of it the debtor is as dead as the Norwegian Blue in the Python sketch, and the debt is technically irrecoverable..


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that before going any further that the OP waits until Tuesday to speak with the Traffic Enforcement Centre for clarification on the exact name and address on the warrant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to be best plan for now, then he can come back with what TFL say 


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone, I will call them on Tuesday to see what they have to say then I'll update you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

ok so I called the TEC (Traffic Enforcement Centre) and asked them about the Warrant.  They advised that the PCN info they received from congestion charge/transport for London was in the company name but also had my name on it as well.  They advised me to complete the OOT declaration and also to contact the congestion charge people.  I called the congestion charge who advise that the vehicle is both mine and the company name so either would be liable.

 

I said that it can't be registered to 2 entities at the same time and that in what capacity would I complete it and get it witnessed as I am no longer a director of the dissolved company.  They said that the info they received from the DVLA showed the company name as well as mine.

 

I spoke to the DVLA and they conformed that the vehicle was in the company name with my name as the contact as per the V5 when it was completed. 

 

I called the TEC back and they continued to say that I should complete the OOT and put that the company is dissolved and to provide proof from companies house and to state that I am completing the form as a 3rd party no longer connected with the company?

 

All a bit confusing but maybe I should fill it in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...