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 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...