Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have no intention of providing them any comfort trust me. As you have helped alot of people in respect to DFS may I assume that some of that is in relation to this 'peeling of leather' issue. If so do you think that they are aware it is a manufacturing fault but 'wing it' so to speak for as long as possible? 
    • Morning,  phoned the court this morning. The claim was put back In front if the judge yesterday.  He has ordered a direction's hearing for May 4th via telephone.
    • You can only do your best, tnook. We'll support you no matter what.   The people on the other end of the line are only human beings and you're worth as much as they are. Just go through your arguments and don't be intimidated.     HB
    • I’m wondering how and why this person has got involved? She states that she works for West Midlands police in the cyber bullying/online fraud department. How would this have come to her attention?   The only picture that I have seen of someone on here was posted on Facebook 6 years ago - maybe 17 at the time but would be 24 now. No one is physically threatening this person or has anyone contacted him through Facebook (have they?) We, as victims, are merely conducting our own research, as it does not seem to be of interest to the police - more a civil matter.   My son in law holds the same position as the author with Staffordshire Police and he told me that he would be dismissed if he provided this information online. In fact, any official contact from the police must be made through the appropriate channels, including the officer’s full professional details. This is not an official police warning.  Knowing what I do about this slippery car dealer and the fact that HE follows these threads, I would be more likely to believe that this has something to do with him.
    • We believe this firm has been providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation. Find out why to be especially wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm and how to protect yourself from scammers. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Islington Council 2019 PCN Code 38JL - Keep left - Englefield Road - Now Equita Bailiffs saying Warrant of Control has been issued - is this out of time?


Recommended Posts

On 02/09/2020 at 01:41, dx100uk said:

 

there is nothing in the legislation that says 'tough luck' you didn't update your V5C cough up!!

 

 

 

I thought when making an out of time application (which I presume the OP needs to do here) the enforcing authority can object and I would have thought that it would certainly be a valid objection if the reason the applicant never received any documentation was because* they hadn't updated their V5C address with DVLA?  The reason they never received a PCN etc being entirely their own fault.  This being one of the reasons you need to keep your V5C address up to date.

 

Have I got that completely wrong?  (Not unknown!)

 

*I know it doesn't apply here because the OP says the address is correct and there were no changes around the time the PCN would have gone out, but I'd like to know the answer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've not seen the experts here state that it's tough luck you didn't get it because it was your fault, ....

 

that's a bit like the Private Parking Companies and their speculative parking invoices that result in a backdoor CCJ because since the ticket was issued your details to the DVLA have changed

 

and

like consumer debt buyers sending everything to an old address because you didn't tell your debt owners you'd moved.. 

both are a part of a valid reason to set aside any backdoor CCJ ...

 

i'm sure there are threads here whereby this situations exists...don't forget , it's not necessarily the OP trying to get out of the PCN, though it allows that process to be opened if there is one, but, it resets things to the discount period that can save money and remove bailiff involvement too .

 

dx

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

The out of time is for anyone who didn’t receive the PCN, for any reason.

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 04/09/2020 at 06:41, London1971 said:

The out of time is for anyone who didn’t receive the PCN, for any reason.

 

But an out of time application does not have to be automatically accepted by the Traffic Enforcement Centre, does it?

 

My understanding was (and I may be entirely wrong) that when an out of time application is made, the enforcing authority is given the opportunity to object to it by the TEC, and that the enforcing authority will do so as a matter of course if they have used the address supplied to them by the DVLA. 

 

Now the OOT process may be designed to accommodate "normal" delays when moving address or selling/buying a car, but if the DVLA have provided the wrong address to the enforcing authority because the Registered Keeper has either failed to notify them of a change of address or has delayed unreasonably informing the DVLA of a change, then I would expect the out of time application to be rejected by the TEC.

 

(I know this point shouldn't apply in this thread because the OP is certain there are no question marks about the accuracy of the RK's address details on their V5C, but I'm curious to know if others think I've got this right or think I've got it wrong. 

 

My point is that it can't just be assumed that an out of time application will be successful if the RK has contributed to the problem by not updating their address with DVLA in a timely fashion.  But I could easily be very wrong!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite correct.

 

OOT applications are almost universally opposed by authorities because they take the view, rightly or wrongly, that if the matter has reached that far it is almost certainly due to the RK/Owner's own actions, either by not updating their details at the DVLA in a timely fashion or simply ignoring correspondence from earlier stages in the process.

 

This can of course be challenged before a district judge, either in person or on the papers, but it will cost a (normally) non-refundable fee to do this.

  • Thanks 1
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...