Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
  • 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

Many Blackpool council PCN's void because their bays are too small


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2807 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

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks, that's a help. I'm actually going away on holiday next week so I'm basically trying to avoid the car being removed between now and then and not have to pay the £473 fee, plus whatever else they add on for towing it.

 

Yes, this is the first I've heard - at this stage I have no idea what the ticket was for, I haven't seen one and although I have older unpaid tickets (different car which the bailiffs wouldn't be looking for), this one appears to be for this car (PCN number and vehicle reg it relates to is on the "Notice of seizure" letter). I have (or thought I had) been extremely careful not to get any PCN's on this car.

 

Incidentally the reverse of the letter includes a "Form of Walking Possession Agreement (Agreement not to remove goods)" which of course I haven't signed, what does this mean? Does this invalidate the Notice of Seizure because I haven't signed it?

 

Re. the second and third points, I'm sure I've read somewhere that there is a limit to what they can charge?

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable - I have just read that from 1st October it will cost £35 to file an out-of-time statutory declaration, effectively costing you more than the original £30 fine (in my area).

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable - I have just read that from 1st October it will cost £35 to file an out-of-time statutory declaration, effectively costing you more than the original £30 fine (in my area).

Well, quite, but that won't affect you cos you need to act immediately.

 

Have you phoned TEC to find out where their previous documents were sent?

 

Enquired with the Council about previous missing documents? which Council BTW?

 

Get to work quick mate.

-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have tried to phone the TEC in what little spare time I had today (my last day for getting urgent parcels sent out in connection with my business before I go away) and couldn't get through.

 

The council (Blackpool) said on the phone that the PCN was issued outside my home on 16/01/08 for contravention 15 - "Parked in a residents parking space without clearly displaying a valid residents permit". I've no idea why, as my permit is clearly visible, wardens are up and down the road 3-4 times a week and I would have had many more tickets if my permit, which has never been moved, had not been clearly visible.

 

As for time, I can't get the Statutory Declaration in until I get home again which will be on 1st October. There's nothing I can do about that.

 

For the moment I have written to the bailiffs, Phoenix, and told them that I intend to file a Stat Dec and have informed them of my need for the vehicle as i am self-employed, stating that Citizens Advice have informed me that I am entitled to retain the vehicle. I've sent this by Special Delivery, the purpose being that they can not now subsequently claim that they didn't know I was self employed if they do take it which - in theory anyway - should allow me to launch a claim against them if they do. Hopefully of course it will be enough to stop them removing the car in the first place in the future. It won't be at my home address anyway until I return from my holidays, I just need to find somewhere to leave it over the weekend.

 

For the moment I'm more concerned about the validity of the "Notice of seizure", which also describes the (metallic blue) car as "grey"

 

Incidentally the "location" on the council's parking tickets usually only show the road, not the town itself - is this acceptable?

 

 

I would actually like to find the exact bit of legislation that states the bailiffs can't take the car because I'm self-employed, I've been here before in slightly different circumstances when Welcome finance repossessed a car without a court order and the collection agents (not bailiffs) called the police when I refused to get out of the car, and the police let them take it! (I did win compensation in the end from Welcome)

Edited by seylectric

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would actually like to find the exact bit of legislation that states the bailiffs can't take the car because I'm self-employed,

 

Me too.

 

Sorry but I just heard that it's prudent to doubt CAB on some aspects of legal advice. I just can't help thinking that if that were true then all self employed people needing a vehicle for business could just forget all finance payments and parking penalties - er yeah - for how long? - did they say?

 

You really need to concentrate on not losing the vehicle. I believe there may be extra costs imposed for that as well.

No time to be saying 'can't'. I don't know your situation but are there no days you can get to a CC and a fax before you leave. Get it sorted and in progress and enjoy some piece of mind.

 

You can argue about 'colour' and 'town' later but neither argument has any validity. The fact that you hold a permit may well do.

-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't take this the wrong way, I fully appreciate your input but I have heard on several occasions in the past few years that bailiffs cannot remove your vehicle if you need it for work. More specifically I remember a commentator speaking for bailiffs on a radio chat show a couple of years ago during a discussion about parking tickets specifically state that "bailiffs are often reluctant to remove vehicles and only do so as a last resort because they may be removing it illegally if the owner is self-employed and needs it for his work".

 

pin1onu seems to think so too - "While you are correct about (a), Bailiffs often seize first and ask questions later. It's not how they're supposed to operate."

 

I'm out of time because I can't get the Stat. Dec sworn until I get home, there's no getting around that. I feel that I've done as much as I can for now.

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bailiffs could take the vehicle but would depend on several things.

 

If the vehicle has been specifically modified for the purpose of your trade, the bailiffs can't touch it.

 

If your trade is a "driving" trade, the vehicle would be exempt if it was the only company vehicle on the books. ie: a self employed taxi driver's car would be exempt but one of several taxi's owned by a cab firm could be seized.

 

If you use your vehicle to get to and from work and it's not critical to the job itself, the bailiffs can take it. In other words, a vehicle isn't vital for an electrician to perform his job as there are other forms of transport he could use.

 

Do you have business insurance on the car? If it came to it, it might just help you prove the vehicle is used for work purposes if you have business insurance.

Certificated Bailiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many bailiff companies will take the car and argue that you could hire a replacement. John Mc Kenna is correct when he mentions the point about taxi drivers etc.

 

There was a recent case in the High Court where the Judge WITHOUT HESITATION agreed that a vehicle owned by a builder which was heavily SIGNED was most certainly a "tool of the trade" and therefore exempt from seizure.

 

Another most important point is that the vehicle has to be: "for your use personally in the course of your business". In other words if the vehicle is used....even occasionally, by a wife/partner etc then it will NOT be exempt from seizure. Therefore BEFORE submitting a copy of your insurance documents you need to ensure that nobody else is listed as being authorised to drive the car.

 

From October 1st there is indeed a fee of £35 for filing an Out of Time...and even worse...a fee of £75 if the application is rejected and you wish to appeal !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't take this the wrong way, I fully appreciate your input but I have heard on several occasions in the past few years that bailiffs cannot remove your vehicle if you need it for work. More specifically I remember a commentator speaking for bailiffs on a radio chat show a couple of years ago during a discussion about parking tickets specifically state that "bailiffs are often reluctant to remove vehicles and only do so as a last resort because they may be removing it illegally if the owner is self-employed and needs it for his work".

 

pin1onu seems to think so too - "While you are correct about (a), Bailiffs often seize first and ask questions later. It's not how they're supposed to operate."

 

I'm out of time because I can't get the Stat. Dec sworn until I get home, there's no getting around that. I feel that I've done as much as I can for now.

 

No problem at all. I wasn't saying the info was wrong but, just as you had asked, i would like to hear of the relevant legislation. Not an area that I know about so I was only advising caution because it is easier to deal with matters first (noting you are unable) than to have to try to recover your vehicle.

 

The subsequent post, albeit from a bailliff apparently, again doesn't back up statements with any quote of legislation.

Sorry to go back to basics but if this is actually true, as I said before, then at what point is the debt recovered or can people just keep ignoring and/or cheating forever - unlikely isn't it?

 

Personally I just feel that whenever people post advice on here they should either be absolutely certain that it is backed up by statute, and preferably quote it, or use phrases like IMO, AFAIK and AIUI.

 

Be careful is all I can say.

-

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update: I got my Stat Dec sent off yesterday (30th Sept) and will await the results of that. In the meantime I got a letter back from the bailiffs, who have as expected effectively said that they will pursue it unless the council tell them otherwise. In the meantime they have been out again while I was away last week pushing the cost up to £613, and sent me a seperate letter saying I owe £670.

 

As for the issue of needing the vehicle for my job, I travel all over the country covering around 20,000 miles a year in the course of my job, often having to call in at various locations in various towns on the same day and often coming home with a bootful of items in relation to my work which I could not otherwise carry. I couldn't do this without a car, not a prayer of covering the area I need to cover by train or public transport even if I could carry the stuff, and I certainly couldn't afford to hire or buy another one. Nobody else uses the car, ever.

 

What disgusts me is the way they completely ignore the rules, pushing open letters through the door (picked up last week by the person looking after my dog while I was away), and claiming extortionate fees for what are, lets face it, minor misdemeanours (so minor that the government decided to decriminalise them!) and giving no indication of why they charge these fees. How can they charge what seems to be £80 + for pushing a note through a door? How we ever got into this state for a civil charge that isn't even classed as a fine is beyond my comprehension.

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to keep an eye out for the response from the Traffic Enforcement Centre. The local authority have 19 business days to respond.

 

If the LA reject your application then it is sent to a "Court Officer" to consider. Many people are of the view that if the LA refuse then this is simpy rubber stamped as rejected by TEC. I cannot comment !!

 

However there is good new......and bad news.

 

 

The good news is that TEC are NO LONGER charging the £35 fee for filing the Out of Time.

 

The bad news.......is that they are charging £75 for the subsequent N244 Appplication in the event that your application is rejected and you want the application reviewed !!

 

PS. This amount is PER PCN and took effect from today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, am aware of it from the link in pin's earlier post. I'm expecting a rejection to be honest, from a council that seem to automatically reject everything else, though it may buy a little time and if I can make it as difficult as possible - or rather do as much as I can to prevent becoming another victim, willing or otherwise, of what I call the national parking [problem], then I intend to do just that.

 

I have no intention of being screwed by this bunch of mercenaries if I can help it and will be reporting them in any event for posting "open" letters through the door which have been seen by a third party, as well as giving dates on those letters for their next visit which they have not kept to, which means I've sat around all day waiting for them for nothing. Well that's not going to be at my expense!

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The length of validity of a warrant for an unpaid PCN is something I've mentioned a couple of times recently - here's why:

 

It is my understanding that a warrant expires after 12 months.

I also believe that the warrant must be issued within 6 months of the date on the PCN, but I'm not sure about this.

 

So what's the possibility of a bailiff being able to legally execute a warrant on 7th September 2008,

for a PCN issued on 2nd February 2007 (over 19 months earlier)?

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Only just spotted the fact that the TEC website still refers to a PCN as an "offence"!

 

"What happens before the penalty charge is registered?

The following stages occur before the charge is registered with TEC:

 

* A penalty charge notice would have been issued. This should have been paid or appealed against as per instructions given on the notice.

* A Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice would have been sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle (not necessarily the driver at the time of the offence)."

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

can't see the 6 months from the pCN being valid. a single parking case may drag on for a year or so before resolution at the adjudicator and then there would have to a period for the default and then the warrant being issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can ascertain 14 days must have elapsed since service of the notice of the amount due, after which time they can apply for enforcement - there are other time limits they need to comply with too (see MORE INFO) but I can't find anything in relation to any maximum time. For the purposes of the thread though I'm presuming the PCN is uncontested but unpaid. It strikes me as, um, call it "suspicious" that letters issued by bailiffs never quote the date of issue of the warrant.

 

MORE INFO

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely re the 12 months lifespan for the warrant. I am sure that is so.

 

It is - quote from the govt. website in the above link -

 

"For the purposes of execution a warrant will be valid for 12 months beginning with the date of its issue."

 

I have certainly been pursued in the past for over 12 months by bailiffs, and presumably if the matter is in the hands of the bailiffs the warrant must have been issued, which surely means they are pursuing the debt illegally?

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree (though it may be different for fi-fa warrants, can;'t recall off the top of my head. Doubt very much you are talking about a fi-fa though.). if in doubt just phone your local county court or pay a visit and ask the folks behind the counter. You could also ask them what steps should be taken if a court appointed bailiff pursues a warrant beyond the end of its life. better yet if its the court that issued the warrant you are talking about.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking specifically about unpaid PCNs - the thread was initially posted on behalf of a friend of mine (who doesn't have a computer) for a PCN intially issued in December 2006, and for which she is still receiving visits from bailiffs, the first visit I know of was in November 2007 (so time yet) although I find it hard to believe that the council in question waited around a year before applying for a w for an unpaid and uncontested PCN. This isn't the same one as mentioned above - 22 month gap between issue of PCN and latest visit in this case!

 

However, having thought about this further I am sure that I personally have been pursued for over a year for the same PCN.

Edited by seylectric

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

your friend does not have a copy of the warrant ? as its a PCN it will have been issued through Northhampton. Get friend to ring the court and query outstanding warrant, especially dates - and ask for a copy. Once established warrant is out of date next time bailiffs come around call the police as they wil be acting illegally. If/when friend does get a copy of warrant post up a picture of it here - suitably washed of personal details - TEC warrants have flaws even when 'in date' :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Practice Directions for the Traffic Enforcement Centre can be found under Section 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).Just to add a bit of confusion the following is from the Code of Practice from TEC.

 

Execution and expiry of a warrant of execution

 

9.21 On receipt of an authority from the TEC for the issue of a warrant of execution, the Local Authority shall produce the warrant (PE9) within seven days from the date of authorisation (see Annex 17).

 

9.22 A copy of the warrant must be forwarded to a Certificated Bailiff for execution. The warrant must be enforced as a county court warrant. The certificated bailiff must have the warrant in his personal possession when he visits a person or premises with a view to enforcing it and he must produce it on demand to anyone who has reasonable grounds to see it.

 

9.23 As the warrant is, effectively, a county court warrant it takes its priority from the date the Local Authority applied for its issue. A warrant is valid for one year, and will not be extended. Another warrant can be applied for once the first has expired.

 

9.24 The Local Authority shall withdraw an unsatisfied warrant from the bailiff 12 months from the date of issue. The TEC will therefore consider a warrant to have ‘expired’ one year after the date of authorisation.

 

9.25 Warrants cannot be renewed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...