Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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

OBS PCN CCJ/Judgement - set aside now rehearing


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1372 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

Yes totally agree, I posted the full letter from DCBL a second ago. That deal was offered before I asked for the SAR's, I rejected it.

 

 

Brassnecked you said DCBL are being toothless bullies but as the letter says, 'This case is not subject to high court or bailiff action', I was assuming they wouldn't be allowed to visit the property anyway, and even if they did, they aren't entitled to enter or to take anything away,,, isn't that the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

forget the letter

forget dcbl DCA letter totally

 

 

 

 

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

Another thing, they say they have photographic evidence of the entry and exit times, but have not included it in the SAR. If they have photos shouldn't they provide them in the SAR?

And if they don't have them now, how can they prove anything? 

 

Should I ask OBS to produce the photos?

Edited by Dizzy blonde
further info
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore DCBL, they are not part of any solution, in fact dealing with them will be harmful to your case.

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

Hi Dx

I understand and that is why I have been waiting for the SAR from OBS, in order to give me a strong enough reason for the Set Aside

I posted images of the SAR yesterday, I will try to upload the PDF version now.

 

My concern with DCBL is not with them, it is that the judgement amount has just increased by £86 after a single letter and three more will make it £640, I was wondering if there was anything legal I could say within the fourteen days they gave me to respond, in order to prevent more daft priced letters following.

With help from you guys I hope to win the case, but as yet I don't even know if I stand a chance, that's why I've been waiting for the SAR, as a loss could cost me well over a grand and all for nothing if the CCJ is still there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cannot add anything to the Judgment as they are not bailiffs, but wonder if they are trying to artificially inflate so they can try to get a High Court enforcement running, they are dodgy, see what others think, but for Set Aside you just need something to sghow you have a chance of defending the original claim, which due to circumstances you never received.

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

About 95% of the letters we see on the forums that demand money and threaten dire consequences have no basis in law but unfortunately can scare those who don't know the law into coughing up money they don't owe.

 

The solution is to learn the law, bit by bit, and empower yourself into understanding what demands are valid and which aren't. 

 

Anyone can write letters to anyone demanding money.  I could demand you pay me £500 for the advice here because, although CAG is free, my football team's ground is bigger than Ericsbrother's football team's ground so that doesn't apply to me.  Of course my demand would be absurd and would be laughed out of court, but no more absurd than a lot of the empty threats from paper tigers that we see here.

 

The only person who can decide that a debt exists and enforce payment is a judge.  If at this point you were to give up (not suggesting that of course!) you would owe £317, what the judge decided.  Not a penny more or less.  Certainly not a grand.

 

DCBL are just trying it on.  It's not even their debt!  They have no powers to do anything whatsoever.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a superb chance of getting a set aside.  They are hardly ever refused.  If you look at some of the other "Backdoor CCJ" threads here, you'll see everyone who applied for a set aside, got it.

 

That's what you have to go for now.  Post up a draft of what you propose to write on the application form to the court.  That will have to include

   1.  the reason you didn't originally defend the claim, and

   2.  a few bullet points explaining how you would defend the claim now.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, dx100uk said:

its their std dca letter...ignore.

its here in several threads already.

 

no-one can add anything to a court judgement, only bailiffs

and as DCBL are not court court bailffs but HCEO's and the CCJ debt is not above £600 , they can't ever be involved as bailiffs here anyway

 

get the set aside running!!

 

dx

 

over 22hrs ago you were told this.^^^

why are you dwelling on it.

 

there is no post judgemental interest nor any other collection fees than can be added UNLESS court bailiffs get involved

and obs would have to return to court to action that and you'd be told by the court too that they are...

 

stop falling for the scams these companies try and pull.

they also pretend to be joe public and post horror stories on other sites too like facebook..

 

not on CAG they won't..

 

 

  • Like 1

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

Eric. DX. FTM. Brass.

Many Thanks all, for explaining that again in more detail, it occasionally appeared vague whether the debt could be added to by DCBL and when I spoke to the ICO office on Monday, the woman there gave me a lot of horror stories.

Now I feel more confident.

 

I want to upload my SAR PDF's to get your opinions, for anything I can put in the N244, but I can't find the link that says how to delete personal information on the PDF.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved house so will not have received most of the letters. 

 

Just looking at the dates it looks like they may have confused the issue date and the date of the offence etc in the last three letters they sent, but it may just be wording.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had to delete all the pages you posted.  CAG's policy is for uploads to be in PDF only (as explained in the upload guide) so only registered Caggers can see them - best to keep the OPC creeps guessing.

 

I have however converted to PDF (again, as explained in the upload guide).  I hope they're in the right order but, hey, that's the best I can do.

OPC_SAR_response.pdf

Edited by FTMDave

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 31/05/2020 at 00:32, dx100uk said:

stop worrying about bailiffs.

they would need to return to court to invoke court bailiffs use..

DCBL the TV crownies can't get involved as the 'debt' is less than £600.

 

it's all very nice sending SAR's off to uncle tom and all but those aren't really going to help you any.

 

the only thing I can see that is going to help you is sight of the signed contract with the landowner and you won't get that via an sar as it doesn't involve you in it.

 

imho I don't think you stand much of a chance.

I cant see the signs nor the paperwork being faulty after this:

 

 

 

sorry to be the bummer

but i repeat what i said more than 1 month ago.

 

unless anyone thinks diff

 

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've had a look at the SAR and indeed reread your thread from the start.  I don't think the SAR shows they've done anything particularly wrong - but hey, it was free and gave them some work to do!

 

Your reason for not receiving the court papers is easy.

 

Your reason(s) for intending to defend is that no contract was formed due to insufficient signage and OBS have abused the court procedure by adding additional costs to try to circumvent the small claims limits.

 

I think these are the reasons we can be reasonably sure of.

 

Please post up a draft of what your propose to send.  Then let EB have a look tomorrow as he has a lot of experience with set asides.

 

 

  • Like 1

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks FTM.

 

This may seem very obvious to everyone else, but I'm not overflowing with money and was under the impression that I needed to have a good chance of defence or the judge may throw it out.

 

Spending £250 to set aside if I don't stand a chance of winning the case is not appealing, as aren't the additional costs if I lose. Still I appreciate everyones help.

 

Is there an example of a successful N244 on here I can look at?

Cheers

 

One more thing, don't OBS have to produce photographic evidence of the vehicle/offence at the said times?

 

Surely without photo's how can they prove it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right about the photos but that's not a matter for now.  Unfortunately they didn't have to prove it as they won by default.

 

When you win the set aside, if OBS are stupid enough to want a rematch then at that point you can deal with the matter of the photos not existing or existing but not being in the SAR.

 

The aim now is to get a set aside and get rid of the CCJ.  I take your point about £255 not being cheap, that's why I suggested waiting for EB's opinion tomorrow as he has a lot of experience with set asides, with recent changes to the relevant court procedure, and being in court himself for set asides. 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the set aside is a given thing you'll get that just with the basic stuff above. Also make sure you sue for return of you fee.

 

But what makes me wonder i s iF the claimant does latterly continue the case to a new hearing (as the set aside resets things to as if you'd just received the claimform) if they did prove contract existed and signs were ok it could cost you bad.

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

Thanks for the comments FTM and Dx, I hope to pay the fee over the phone, then send the N244 tomorrow, Does it make any difference whether I email  the court or post it in triplicate? Email is obviously easier.

 

Is there an example N244 on here, that will give me an idea of what to say, in legalese?

 

Dx you said I should sue for return of the fee, do I do that in the N244, or after it is set aside?

 

Lastly, the N244 says you can continue on an extra sheet, are the courts sympathetic to genuine causes of distress, as I'm actually in dire straits, the CCJ is preventing me from opening a business account to start my company and no estate agents will rent me house, so out of work and soon to be evicted and a burden on the state. A satisfied  CCJ will not help at all. Can I include such things? 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a look at some of the other backdoor CCJ threads, but haven't found an example N244.

 

However, in a sense that's a good thing, write your own draft based on post 98.  It doesn't have to be in legalese,  just a quick summary of your position in normal English.

 

One of the Site Team could do it for you, but we're normally very reluctant to do so because it will be you (not us) in front of the judge (or given COVID, probably on the phone to the judge) so it's important that you understand and are confident with your arguments.

 

Wait for EB to comment on the draft tomorrow, on those other threads I see he goes on about a Supreme Court judgement re set asides and he's been in court himself in a similar situation several times. 

 

I don't know about suing for the £255, maybe dx or EB will know more. 

 

Whatever you do, there will be an element of risk due to mistakes (mistakes are no problem, been there done that, but learn for the next time).  It's not a good idea to throw away documentation when you're in a legal dispute with someone, and you should always tell them of a change of address.  Plus a case should have been built at the time against these charlatans, such as taking photos of their rubbish signs.

 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your personal circumstances are irrelevant to the court.  You've "defied" a court order - tough.  Of course we know you haven't really defied a court order as your N244 will show, and will be the start of the fightback.

  • Thanks 1

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Dizzy blonde said:

One more thing, don't OBS have to produce photographic evidence of the vehicle/offence at the said times?

 

yes they will and the contract if they request a further hearing.

 

.......................

 

n244

.......

 

i do not believe the claimant had a valid and paid for contract covering the year of the offence with the land owner or their agents.

 

i do not believe the Claimant ANPR System had the relevant council planning permission to be used or erected on poles at the site.

 

i do not believe the Claimant signs at the site neither had the required council planning permission nor suitably conveyed the legal terms of any contract the driver at the time of parking could ever be able to agree to by reading them.

 

i claim the cost of my set aside fee from the claimant should i be successful.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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 should nail the setaside, and see OBS off with other factors tha can be added if they try again.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...