Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The reason for the photos is to show you weren't displaying a permit.  They are supposed to check that the permit hadn't fallen off the dashboard. There is no point in appealing to PPM.  The very people who deliberately set up the site with rubbish signage to catch motorists out are highly unlikely to find against themselves. You've said several times that you think the company who you met with called PPM in so these are the people you need to contact in writing to request they call PPM off.  Until you do so we're going round in circles. If you don't want them to have your e-mail address simply set up a secondary e-address.  
    • Please see attached redacted judgment for further infoVWFS (UK) LTD - Salisbury CC - Judgment - 20240507 V Final _copy redacted.pdf
    • Make sure the WS is sent 14 days before the hearing. You can e-mail the court theirs.  In the subject line put the case number, the names of the parties and "Witness Statement".  Obviously click on "Return Receipt". Send Simple Simon his by 2nd class post - all VCS are worth - and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.
    • The outlet is in Camden Town and was set up in 2006, a year after my husband established the business, in addition to selling at exhibitions, online, shows, events, and having licensing agreements in some places overseas.  The only thing I have stopped doing since I got ill is the physical stuff, which I’m working on. The business has not changed name or anything like that either. I’m not sure where the original contract with Camden is but the management must still have it. My husband died in Jan 2017, and until Sept 2018, I would take the stock in every week; after that I was sending it in by post. I went in now and then when possible to re-do the display but that was about it. No one had access to any files until 2020. Moved house in 2020 thought would have to pull it all, Covid had just hit as well. The person in question said he would be interested in taking over and paying the rent etc. so I said I would let him sell the pictures for nothing as long as he would ‘keep it warm’ for me.  Obviously, everywhere was closed for lockdown. During this time I was working out how to go forward.  In May 2022 I told him I couldn’t  give anything away for free anymore, and put in place the wholesale agreement.  I’ve disregarded any discrepancies from before this date. I sent over the jpgs electronically, so I’ve still got them too. He hasn’t got any original files like .psds negatives or memory cards etc, I’ve got proof of all ownership/copyright. A co-op is whereby a small number of neighbours work on a rotational basis so they each of them can have time off, that way everyone doesn’t need to be there at the same time, he had never been an employee of mine.  The only reason I allowed him to have the files in the first place as I didn’t want to lose that side of the business.  It’s a good, constant source of income. However, the rent was becoming crippling as I believed there was something fishy going on well before this as there’s so much cash dealt with there, and I couldn’t go in regularly in person, and I’m sure sales weren’t being recorded properly and cash was being pocketed. My husband was too busy to be doing any stock control properly, he wasn't really into paperwork, and the guy who was ‘helping’ me after my husband's death, was making things very difficult for me to implement a solid stock control system by refusing to co-operate on simple things like using email etc. which I thought was a smokescreen, so I severed ties with him just before I made the agreement in question. I sent about 100 images, jpg files, sent via We Transfer. I’ve got the confirmation of which files were sent with dates. I will have to go through closed bank accounts and previous tax returns to get a proper estimate.   Before I made this agreement, I was selling retail there, this is a wholesale agreement so I’ll have to do some calculations but it is definitely in the thousands.  I haven’t got his his home address, and I don't think he's got any sizeable assets. I’m also worried that he might send the files overseas and start selling them there. I know he’s not stupid enough to sell them online. He knows for sure how serious this is, but he’s been chancing it and thinks I’m stupid, if not soft and stupid. I don’t know if this would work but I am thinking that when he does contact me, I tell him we need to talk, tell him I know what he’s been up to, and strongly urge him not to order any more prints from wherever he is having them printed because it will make things much worse for him if he does. Then when I do tell him about the gravity of the situation, maybe a few days later, I think it will scare him into complying because the consequences definitely trump the few quid he thinks he is saving by getting his own printing done. Tell him an amount that I want back for lost revenue, and make it clear that if he doesn’t destroy the files and if I find out he is still doing it at any point down the line, I will seek prosecution for copyright infringement and fraud, which I will. I don’t know how I can enforce any of this without involving the courts though. I will be able to tell, though, and he will know this. And the only reason I am doing this now rather than before, is that I couldn’t prove anything until now.  It was screamingly obvious from the beginning though, as he wasn’t ordering enough from me to pay the rent, let alone make a profit. If I decided to come down like him lie a ton of bricks straight away, how would I go about a cease and desist, would I have to get one from the court? And what do I do about the stock he currently holds? It has also occurred to me that he might file for bankruptcy or similar if things get heavy, where would that leave me? I could put the feelers out for a brand-new person to take it on, obviously without giving them access to files, that is an option. But that comes with its own set of issues. Also, would there be any implications for me, if I kept quiet for now? Let him order again from me as if nothing has happened, as it will be any day and I want to get all my ducks in a row first ideally….   Thanks again
    • I’ve also just realised their online website they’ve got 12 photographs of my vehicle, including close ups of the inside?? Not sure why that’s relevant.  The time stamp on the first photo is 13:57, the PCN incident time is 14:12. 
  • 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 204 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 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

i was merely pointing out, a debt registered with the TEC will be enforced by “enforcement agents” not County Court bailiffs or High Court enforcement officers.

I only referred to para 60 as an example, to the fact that only County Court bailiffs or High Court enforcement officers have a power to use reasonable force.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

I know it has no relevance to my case, that’s the point I was making - taking forced entry out of the equation.

 In regards to regulation 9, I don’t believe what I wrote to be misleading at all, it clearly states - 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.

If there is no extension then this paragraph stands.  

para (2) is not relevant

Para (3) & (4) an extension will only be granted if - (a), on application by the enforcement agent or the creditor (b), on one occasion; and – (c) if the court is satisfied that the applicant has reasonable grounds for not taking control of goods of the debtor during the period referred to under paragraph (1).  

So not misleading, the notice of enforcement will expire if no application is made or granted.

 Part 75.7 (10) I will take a closer look (thankyou).

I know, I only brought the matter up to debunk dx100uk statements.

I can assure you its not me confusing  enforcement of Magistrate Court FINES with the enforcement of a debt for an unpaid Transport for London contravention, It was dx100uk. 

I was replying to dx100uk in regards to the statement he made in post (#4) and later (#6)

 Quote:   The next step is the council could apply to a magistrates court to grant forced entry,  post #4

the bailiff does not apply for it?

Quote:   The Issuing Authority can take the case to magistrates for further enforcement        post #6

    So you can clearly see I’m not the one confused.

 But I must disagree with you on the following….

Paragraph 18a of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 is relevant to my case.

It Cleary states in…

Schedule 12- Section 17 - General powers to use reasonable forcewhere 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/11/2022 at 18:01, DTP77 said:

once the notice of enforcement has expired the bailiff fees no longer stand.

yes they do, where does anything say they are removed after the NOA expires or any 12mts extension applied for expires?

ok i might not be a master on every nuance esp re complicated bailiffs issues that are very rare here, but at some point in the legal process, simply ignoring a bailiff and their fees just doesn't make the issue go away and things get magically reset to a lower figure?

surely that's not good idea and there must be further actions TfL/Bailiff can take. it can't end good.

 

  • 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

The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

Recovery of fees for enforcement-related services from the debtor

4.—(1) — The enforcement agent may recover from the debtor the fees indicated in the Schedule in accordance with this regulation and regulations 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17, by reference to the stage, or stages, of enforcement for which enforcement-related services have been supplied.

 Fees and disbursements not recoverable where enforcement process ceases

17.—(1) The enforcement agent may not recover fees or disbursements from the debtor in relation to any stage of enforcement undertaken at a time when the relevant enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable.

Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

Regulation 9(1), 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the FOI, I have requested a copy of The Enforcement Services Agreement that outlines terms to which TFL expect their appointed enforcement company/agent to follow when collecting debts on their behalf.  

But let’s be honest,  90-days  180-days does not really matter as I've already pointed out (with the legislation) the enforcement power and bailiff fees expire 12-months from the date the Notice of Enforcement is issued if no application is made to a court (not the TEC) for a further 12-month extension. 

And as the legislation’s states, any 12-month extension can only be applied for and granted on one occasion only and the court has to be satisfied (see the legislation) before granting such an application.   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

open

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

 

Update.

After a number of visits from the enforcement agents. I stood my ground and ignored their threats. I received this letter from Marston’s. They intend to return the warrant to their client (TFL).

So, looks like I was right after all @Bailiff Advice.  Lets see what happens next?

Either way the bailiff fees are no longer enforceable!

 

2023-10-04 Marstons returning warrant to TfL.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...