Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
  • 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

Unpaid TFL PCN, Potential enforcement action. Ready for the fight.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 148 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

I received a PCN from TFL sometime back, went through the appeals process (unsuccessfully).

Without going into all the details surrounding the PCN, other then I strongly believe I should not have to pay it due to circumstances beyond my control, but we are where we are.

Currently I have 28 days to pay £240 or a Charge Certificate will be issued.

I’ve been doing some research regarding the enforcement process and the regulations to which enforcement agents are required to follow.            

There seems to be a lot of misleading info out there in particular “Youtube” with wet ink signature, freeman of the land and other none sensical nonsense.

I’ve been reading through the following legislation, The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007- Schedule 12 and Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014. If I’m understanding and reading this correctly then the enforcement agent doesn’t have many options available to them (in regards to my situation).

TfL will register the PCN as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court Business Centre (CCBC). The TEC then authorises and then issues TFL with a warrant of control.

So as this is not a County Court debt (CCJ) then only a “Certificated Enforcement Agent” will be trying to collect the debt, Not County Court bailiffs or High Court enforcement officers.

Certificated Enforcement Agents are limited when it comes to entry. As per - Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 Para 60. A power to enter premises by force exists for the execution of High Court and County Court debts at business premises or at any premises where an enforcement agent is enforcing criminal penalties.

Certificated Enforcement Agents can only enter the relevant premises as set out within the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 Schedule 12 (paragraph 14). Entry without warrant.  

So, when the enforcement agent is executing a Warrant of Control for a PCN debt. He can only achieve entry by “Peaceful entry”, walking through an open or unlocked door, or if invited in by a competent person over the age of 16.

Regulation 9(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 says:  Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the enforcement agent may not take control of goods of the debtor after the expiry of a period of 12 months beginning with the date of notice of enforcement.

The Enforcement Services Agreement that originates from the Local Government Association. Outsourced bailiff companies must return an unsatisfied debt within 90 days of being instructed.
The company can request an extension to 180 days if there is a prospect of a successful recovery.

Civil Procedure Rules, Part 75.7(10) A reissued warrant will only be valid for the remainder of the 12-month period beginning with the date it was originally issued.

Also, the contravention vehicle is a leased vehicle through Motability. I own no other vehicle. So, Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states; an enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor.  Plus, under regulation 4, goods of the debtor are exempt if a vehicle on which a valid disabled person’s badge is displayed because it is used for, or in relation to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for, the carriage of a disabled person.

 So, again if I am understanding this correctly, if I decide not to pay £240 to TFL, which I really do not want to. But when TFL instruct a private enforcement company and send agents around to collect the debt as long as I refuse entry and keep the doors locked at all times then honestly what can they do? other than come around between 06:00 – 21:00, knock on the door and ask for payment or access.

 I know they don’t play by the rules I will have to be careful plus video record everything.

I also am aware the Police can be problematic but again if I keep the door locked and don’t cause a breach of the peace.

Then after a while they have to hand the debt back to TFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes dont pay attention to fMoTl twaddle.

 

what was the PCN for?

and why did your appeal fail, what was your appeal and did you use the correct forms?

 

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 PCN was for: Code 46 - Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway)

Without going into too much personal detail, I parked my vehicle in the early hours of the morning within a 1-hour parking bay on a red route. I presented myself at my local Hospitals A&E Department.                                          

I parked the vehicle with reasonable belief that I would have returned to the vehicle before the parking restrictions came into force (07:00 -19:00).                                                                                                                                                

Whilst I was waiting in A&E I became very unwell which resulted in me being admitted into hospital for a number of days. 

Later the same day, when I was well enough I arranged to have the car moved by a person who was licenced and insured to do so, which they did.

I received a PCN in the post a few weeks later

I submitted my representation within the required timeframe, but it was rejected on the grounds that the PCN was not issued in error and the signage on display clearly laid out the restricted parking times.

I appealed to the independent adjudicator (London tribunals). The adjudicator stated that whilst she sympathises with the unfortunate events that led to the PCN, she could only overturn the PCN if a legal impropriety had happened. She stated she has no power to force TFL in this matter, I was told to pay the PCN within the next 28 days.

 

Edited by DTP77
Link to post
Share on other sites

that make things clearer. shame they have no empathy.

 

your resume upon bailiffs is a wee bit flawed and smacks of unfortunately subconsciously? mixing some fMoTl twaddle in with reality... easy done.

 

they are not 'private bailiffs' , they are bona fidi bailiffs, they dont have to be assigned by any court, as parking tickets were decriminalised years ago, meaning authorities issuing a Penalty Charge Notice don't have to use a court to enforce payment, but can go directly to bailiff use.

 

the option of ignoring bailiffs, even though you quite correctly conclude, at this stage, they have no right of forced entry, their fees are automictically added and now stand. the next step is the council could apply to a magistrates court to grant forced entry, which although is rare, does happen.

 

going by most threads here containing advice from better experts than me, they always sadly advise to contact the bailiff and make a payment arrangement.  

 

just incase you've not read it, there is little shrift in contacting or trying to pay the council directly, the bailiff fees still stand eitherway.

 

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

Thank you for your input,

 

I completely agree that an enforcement agent working for Marstons, Rossendales, J.B.W etc are real “bailiffs” and that they have to be Certificated by the county court, and that gives them their authority within England and wales.

 

I also agree a warrant of control issued from the TEC is a legitimate instrument with no need for court involvement.

 

I was merely pointing out that Court bailiffs/officers have more power to enter from what I understand reading through the legislation.

 

In regards to TFL or the Enforcement agent making an application to a Magistrates Court for a forced entry warrant  under Paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Which I know you stated is “rare” but reading through the legislation I can only see this happening when…

 

A power for re-entering by force exists where a regulation 15 controlled goods agreement is in place and the goods remain on residential premises but the debtor has failed to comply with the repayment terms of the controlled goods agreement. This power should only be used to the extent that it is reasonably required and only after the debtor has been given notice of the enforcement agent’s intention to re-enter.

 

Or under rule 10(c) of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015,  Where a bailiff carrying a valid warrant to recover unpaid magistrate’s court fines can enter by force ONLY if the debtor is wilfully refusing to cooperate.

 

Nowhere in any of the current legislation or case law can I see a prescribed court procedure for a bailiff to have an audience at a magistrates court to make the application to force entry to residential premises because peaceful entry has not been achieved.

 

Furthermore, Paragraph 20 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 a bailiffs cannot falsely imply that a debtor refusing entry to a property is classed as an offence.

 

I don’t want to come across as being argumentative I’m looking to see if anyone has experienced this or if you can point me to any legislation that contradicts what I have written then please show me.    

 

 

Regarding a forced entry warrant

 

I found the following, bailiffs cannot make an application to the court to force entry when collecting traffic debts (PCNs)

 

Paragraph 18a of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 prevents bailiffs from using force to enter homes for recovering traffic debts.

The actual legislation is as follows…

 

17 Where paragraph 18 [ F3, 18A, 19 or 19A] applies, an enforcement agent may if necessary use reasonable force to enter premises or to do anything for which the entry is authorised. 

 

18A(1) This paragraph applies if these conditions are met— (d) the sum so payable is not a traffic contravention debt.                 

                                                                                                                                 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the bailiff does not apply for it?

The Issuing Authority can take the case to magistrates for further enforcement. but it's very rare.

 

your call what you do.

but eitherway, all the fees stand no matter who or when you pay it or not.

 

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

I’m sorry but I have to completely disagree with you, and frankly you have not provided one bit of evidence to support such a statement.

 

It clearly states within - The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007- Schedule 12 that it is the enforcement agent that makes the application.

 

Even if the appointed enforcement agent was unable to secure the debt within the framework and time allocated as set out within the above mention legislation. The Issuing Authority lacks standing to bring such a claim to the magistrate court for traffic contravention debts. The "debtors" actions have not in any way breached any part of the legislation.

 

You also state with such certainty that bailiff fee’s “stand no matter what,” in complete contradiction to what is written in the legislation, the warrant of control becomes nullified after 12-months from the date of the Notice of Enforcement, this in turn renders the debt and any associated fee’s legally unenforceable. Unless it is extended by 12 months, on one occasion and the court is satisfied that the applicant has reasonable grounds.

 

But to be fair let’s put your theory to the test.  Somehow by some miracle the issuing authority manages to obtain a force entry warrant. But remembering you previously pointed out that parking tickets were decriminalised years ago, so this is not a magistrate fine. So, no power to force entry.

 

The Issuing authority still needs to appoint an enforcement agent to collect the debt, this is where the flaw lies in your argument. The enforcement agent will still be governed by the rules and regulations such as - Paragraph 18a of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 prevents bailiffs from using force to enter homes for recovering traffic debts.

 

So, no court will issue a warrant to force entry on Residential Premises  no mater how applies for it , because its in contradiction to Paragraph 18a of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

 

Edited by DTP77
Link to post
Share on other sites

ok well off you go then.....

 

But please comeback at tell us the outcome ....

 

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

They of course could clamp any car the OP has if they know its VRM, and its on a public highway.

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

Just make sure a Blue Badge isa on display as they are not supposed to clamp vehicles on Motability or displaying a Blue bagde but they have been known to and are not happy when they have to take the clamp back off without getting any money.

  • 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

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 have a disabled bay outside my house, also regulation 4, states an enforcement agent should not take control of goods if there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for, the carriage of a disabled person.   So, a vehicle parked in a disabled bay clearly qualifies.

Even if my vehicle is clamped and the bailiff refuses to remove the clamp, I will contact the issuing authority to inform them that the enforcement agent they appointed has  breached a provision of the taking control of goods act 2013 , namely regulation 4, and that Schedule 12 of The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 section 66   leaves both the bailiff and the issuing authority liable.

The longer the clamp remains on the vehicle the more damages can be claimed.  

I would like to correct an error I made in regards to Forced Entry.

Section 15(1) is nothing about forced entry. It allows bailiffs to apply to the court for authority to enter and search for the debtor's goods on premises not specified in the enforcement power. It applies if the debtor keeps goods at another address not specified on the warrant or writ.,     

Section 20 – 22, of The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007- Schedule 12, Application for power to use reasonable force. Is the correct statute to which a bailiff has authority if granted by the court.

But this is irrelevant as...

 Schedule 12- Section 17 - General powers to use reasonable force, where paragraph 18 [ F3, 18A, 19 or 19A] applies, an enforcement agent may if necessary use reasonable force to enter premises or to do anything for which the entry is authorised.

Schedule 12 – Section 18A(1) - This paragraph applies if these conditions are met— (d) the sum so payable is not a traffic contravention debt.

There is no power for the bailiff to enter any domestic premises using force for traffic contravention debts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The internet can be a great place for information...however, it can also be a place where people seeking advice about bailiff enforcement can be seriously mislead. 

The fact of the matter is this....you appealed a PCN within the right time frame and lost. You then took the matter to London Tribunals who agreed that that the ticket had been issued  correctly and they ordered you to make payment. How much did the Tribunal state that you had to pay?

I am confused by your post when you state that you have to make payment of £240 otherwise, a Charge Certificate will be issued. With a TfL penalty, the amount required at Charge Certificate stage would be £240. As no Charge Certificate has yet been issued, the amount should not be £240.

At this moment in time, the PCN is still with Transport for London. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for you to be concerned about bailiff enforcement. 

If you fail to pay TfL, then following the Charge Certificate, an Order for Recovery will be issued and the amount due increases to £249. You will have a period of 21 days to make payment. If no payment is made, a warrant of control can be issued. At this stage, the account can be sent to bailiffs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Bailiff Advice

 

Yes, you are correct, my mistake the PCN currently stands at £160, if it’s paid within the 28-day limit or the amount will increase to £240 with the Charge Certificate.                                                                                            

I miss quoted the IA, it is £160.

 

I think where I am really reluctant to Pay TFL knowing that the next stage is an increase to £240 that just stuck in my mind.   

 

I started this topic because I really do not want to pay TFL for reasons already stated.

 

Yes, you are correct there is a lot of misinformation out there which lead me to study the legislation I have mentioned.

 

I posted here to see if anyone with knowledge in this area or experienced this situation in regards to the enforcement action.

I wanted to make sure that my understanding of the legislation was correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only issue is that in the end you will have to pay.

  • 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

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

@brassnecked

Could you please tell me through what process?

 

I am genuinely interested if you can provide proof that this has happened in regards to an unsettled traffic contravention debt, once the enforcement process has been spent.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand your reluctance to pay. However, not only has your appeal been considered by TfL, but the rejection to your appeal has also been considered by London Tribunals. If you don't wish to pay, then that must be your choice. However, you may wish to bear in mind that if a bailiff is to visit, the debt increases to £559. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bailiff Advice

Yes, I am aware of the considerable cost that the bailiffs add throughout the enforcement stage.

 

My main question was…

 

If the enforcement agent is unable to settle the debt within the timeframe of the Notice of Enforcement.

 

A power to use reasonable force as per- Schedule 12 – Section 18A(1) - This paragraph applies if these conditions are met— (d) the sum so payable is not a traffic contravention debt.

 

The unlikelihood of a further 12-month extension being granted.

 

I have not seen any proof let alone any procedure for an authority to apply to the County Court for a judgment for an unpaid traffic contravention debt.

 

With all of the above in mind , why should I pay TFL let alone any Bailiff.

 

Again, if anyone can provide proof to the contrary, I’m open and willing to look at it.

Edited by DTP77
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reasoning doesn't include that a bailiff can and will clamp any motor vehicle he sees outside your property if he thinks its yours, unless its Motability or displayinga Blue Badge,  he has o need to force entry if there is a car or some expensibe garden furniture available to take control of.

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

i'd much rather get on and pay £160 in small instalments, which could have started weeks and weeks ago than waste my time arguing, when i know eventually i'd have to pay +£559 sometime in the future... @£10PCW it could have all been paid off by now :crazy:

  • 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

20 hours ago, DTP77 said:

I have not seen any proof let alone any procedure for an authority to apply to the County Court for a judgment for an unpaid traffic contravention debt.

county court?  civil?:crazy:

  • 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

@dx100uk

I am well aware County Courts are civil; your point being? 

Again, I was pointing out the  FACT

There is no procedure for an authority to apply for a judgment for an unpaid traffic contravention debt.  Regardless of it being county or magistrate.

1.    It would not be financially tenable for a local authority to carry on pursuing it.

2.    The process already exists, TEC.   

3.    There are no public record or president of this ever happening.

@Bailiff Advice

At no point have I asked anyone on this forum to assist me or “to outline ways in which a person can get out of paying for a PCN”.    

Neither am I looking for approval or criticism from anyone here, it is solely my decision if I pay or not.

I only posted here to ask the question -  is my understanding of the legislation correct in regards to the enforcement process and the regulations, in relation to the issues I have raised, that’s all.

If not, could anyone here show me within the legislation and point out the parts I have misunderstood.

I then merely went through a possible scenario of events if a bailiff attended my home.   

Then a “Site Team” member made a number of false statements in regards to force entry, applications to the court and bailiff fees, then when confronted with proof (the actual legislation), Instead of acknowledging the mistake he doubles down with short blunt remarks and emojis implying I’m crazy.

Considering this person has been a member since 2006 and has been involved in hundreds of threads advising people with their bailiff issues you would have thought he would have known there is no power to use reasonable force when collecting a traffic contravention debt. That no other person then the enforcement agent can make an application to the court for further enforcement, and once the notice of enforcement as expired the bailiff fees no longer stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:wave:

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...