Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all! I've now had a "final notification letter" through from ECP. I assume I should continue to ignore this, but is there likely any action I need to take? Do you need to see a copy of the letter? Thanks
    • Please will you upload the defence in a PDF format document
    • Afternoon All - after 3 weeks of silence, this morning I received an email from HMCTS advising that P2G have rejected my claim. Decide whether to proceed Parcel2Go.com has rejected your claim. You need to decide whether to proceed with the claim. You need to respond before 4pm on 25 June 2024. Your claim won’t continue if you don’t respond by then. This is their ‘defence’ Their defence Why they disagree with the claim When choosing a service on the Defendants website, the Claimant chose to book their order with Evri and selected to take out £20 parcel protection which comes with the service. On the first page of the booking process, the Claimant entered the value of £265 for the contents and was offered parcel protection for loss or damages against their goods for £13.99 + VAT. The Claimant selected no, which then produced a pop up which explained 'We strongly recommend that you protect the full value of your item(s).' however, the Claimant still did not take this protection out and instead continued with the booking process. At the end of the booking process, the Claimant was offered this again which was refused and the Claimant continued with the booking by accepting the terms and conditions which re-iterates the information provided in the booking process. The parcel was sent, however, seems to be delayed in transit. The parcel finally started to track again, however, when delivered the parcel was empty with no contents. As such, the claim was re-opened and attempted to be settled for the £20 protection taken out in the booking process. This was refused by the Claimant as they felt they should be paid the full amount of the value entered when booking. Unfortunately, due to the refusal of the parcel protection in the booking process the Defendant is not liable to settle the claim to the value and only to the parcel protection taken out. The Defendant shall rely on the Terms and Conditions of carriage in particular section 9. The Defendant understands that the contents have not be handled with due care and attention, which is not being disputed, however, they are disputing the amount they are liable to. They have requested mediation, I’m sure not least to drag the case out even longer, but I can see no benefit to me in this and so shall reject it. As ever, I’d welcome your thoughts guys. g59   
    • I doubt HMCTS holds any data on whether arrests by AEAs required police assistance.  They couldn't or wouldn't provide data on how many of warrants issued were successfully executed - just the number issued!  In my experience, arrest warrants whether with or without bail are [surprisingly] carried out with little or no fuss.  I think it's about how you treat people - a little respect and courtesy goes a long way. If you treat people badly they will react the same way. Occasions when police are called to assist are not common and, having undertaken or managed many thousands of these over the years, I can only recall a handful of occasions when police assistance was necessary. On one occasion, many years ago, I arrested and transported a man from Hampshire to Bristol prison on a committal warrant. It was just me and he was no problem. I didn't know the Bristol area (pre Sat Nav) and he was kind enough to provide directions - seems he knew the prison.  One young chap on another committal warrant jumped out of his back window and I had to chase him across several garden fences.  When he gave up (we were both knackered) I agreed to drive by his girlfriend's house to say farewell for a while.  I gave them a few moments and he was fine. The most difficult are breach warrants but mainly in locating the defendant as they don't want to go back to prison - can't blame them.  These were always dealt with by the police until the Access to Justice Act transferred responsibility from them to the magistrates' courts. The fact was the police did not actively pursue them and generally only executed them when they arrested someone for something else and found they had a breach warrant outstanding.  Hence the transfer of responsibility.
    • thats down to mcol making that option available for you to select, you cant force it. typically if there are known processing delays at northants bulk it will be atleast 14 days later if not more.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1338 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 - thanks for your help!
 

I had a  parking ticket that went to Marstons to be settled by the 7th November,

I thought it was the 17th

 

I went online to pay it yesterday (so 1 working day later) and they had added the further £235 Enforcement fee?

There had been no visits or letters from them

- is this charge legal without them actually doing anything further?

 

Thanks,


Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you had the first Compliance letter, where £75 would be added?

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

Yes, i received the letter and £75 compliance in the post.

That gave me until the 8th to sort out an arrangement.

I didnt as was away for the weekend.

I got a text from the enforcement agent to say i really need to get this sorted, and I paid yesterday.

Today I received a note from him through the door to say the enforcement fee is outstanding. 

His text says

' On the 8/11 the case passed to an enforcement stage and the statutory fee of £235 was added making the balance £513 as of Friday 8/11. I've contacted you yesterday in order to avoid getting the car clamped etc...:

He text me as i've had some dealings with him years ago,  i guess he was helping me out (although only to make sure he got paid..) 

Their office seem to imply their is satellite confirmation that he came to my property, but 100% no letter received through the door.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

who did you pay?

and did you include the £75 in that figure?

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 paid Marston directly online,  I have a receipt for that, and yes, included the £75 in that figure. 

I've now received a response from the bailiff when I questioned if he visited - 

"There is an enforcement fee charged and logged with a visit on the 08/11/2019 at 06:20 hrs.

I don't know if a letter was left or not.

A second visit was logged yesterday morning at 06:31 when your vehicle was spotted parked a cross the road from your address.

You can access the full log of all these visits with GPS coordinates from Marston Group.

In order to get access to this you have to file a Data Subject Access Request with Marston Group.

I will be on XXXXXXX around 09:30 am tomorrow and I can show you what it is recorded on the system.

Regards,

Marstons" 

I really dont want to pay and then have to claim back with a small claims court if necessary (although have done that and received £1000 in compensation) 

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

all seems in order for them

they have proof of visits

what time yesterday did you pay?

if this was after 06:31 AM ...you owe the £235 fee.?

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

One issue would be Cleared Funds, as in pay online and it may be 3 days before the payment is showing in their bank

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 Brass, no - that definitely wasnt the issue as they admitted to amount was only missing the £235. 

 

I'm just confused - if they didnt leave a note, then what proof do i have they had come to my property?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Marstons bailiff - do i owe £235 visit fee when no note left of proof?

not that I am aware of

though you'd think they would leave something.

 

you'll have to SAR them.

id do that rather than ring.

 

though we all know GPS data can be faked but would someone do that? IMHO no.

 

 

 

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

Unfortunately there is no statutory requirement to leave a notice, although most do.

Were you in at the times they said they called?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Marstons and PCN - do i owe £235 visit fee when no note left of proof?
  • 8 months later...

Hi - I had a visit from Marston on Bank Holiday (when I say visit, they say they came, I've received no letters, so awaiting the camera footage) - but I was out all day with my family. They of course counted this as a first visit, and increased my charge by £235.

 

It's for a parking charge - can they come on a Bank Holiday? I thought Sundays & Bank holidays were sacred.

 

Please advise

Jude

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 2014, legislation provides for enforcement agents being able to make a personal  visits on both Sundays and Bank holidays. 

An enforcement fee of £235 is the correct charge.

If the bailiff returns a 2nd time, he cannot make another charge.

The fee of £235 can only be charged once. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you give a bit more background please, were you aware of any PCN? also might be better to park car away from your property, as if they do come back marstons are clamp happy so might well clamp your car.

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

Is this you old marston pcn again from last year? Or another one?

 

 

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

so the £235 enforcement fee is still what is outstanding ?

 

 

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

Not anymore, car got clamped this morning, so had to pay it all. I'd been fighting this, it went to TEC, cancelled, but doesnt look like the council updated Marston in time.

 

Plus - a supposed visit happened on Monday bank holiday, for which I've asked for video evidence. Either way, it's now a case of clawing it all back through the courts if necessary, which i've had to do previously. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 do you mean the old visit was on a bank holiday or you had another visit this BHM (with no more fees i hope?) and now this one today has resulted in clamping and paying?

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

Sorry - fresh visit on Bank Holiday, resulting in the (correct) additional £235 fees. But no evidence of that visit.

Car clamped this morning, no extra fees for the clamp.

But as I said, fighting the whole thing as it seems TEC didnt get the message back to the Council. 

My beef is with a visit on bank holiday, and charging fees for that. (and then nothing left at the visit)

Link to post
Share on other sites

but why did they visit?

 

i thought you paid the old PCN sum + £75 compliance/Enforcement fee, so the old £235 which was disputed then was bogus?

 

so what debt did they visit for now??

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

No - I didnt? I didn't pay it. It's been on hold and fighting with the council over lack of responses - went to Marston, filed with TEC, Marston came today, clamped the car, said a visit had happened on Monday!

Link to post
Share on other sites

oppss!

 

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...