Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

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

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

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

I really am confused by your many references to legislation and in particular, whether it even applies to you (which it mostly doesn't).

For example, in relation to Para 60 of the National Standards, (Power to entry by force), this has no relevance in your particular case. 

Your reference to Regulation 9 is misleading as it appears to give the impression that a bailiff cannot take control of goods after a period of 12 moths beginning with the date of the Notice  of Enforcement. A warrant may be extended for a FURTHER 12 month period. 

Your reference to Part 75.7 (10) would also not apply in your case.

Most importantly, can you please provide a link to the Enforcement Services Agreement that you say originates from the Local Government Association.

Once again, you are referring to legislation that is not relevant to your particular circumstances. 

In conducting your 'research', you appear to be confusing the enforcement of Magistrate Court FINES with the enforcement of a debt for an unpaid Transport for London contravention. To clarify, none of the above references apply to your case. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...