Due to promotion and consequent pressure of work, I have not been as active on this site of late as I would like to have been and have only just seen this thread upon reading the CAG Newsletter that drew attention to it. LTWFB I'm pleased to see you are challenging the outcome of your hearing on 26/9. Just from what you have posted, I believe you have grounds for appeal - whether you should or not is a matter for you to decide. I propose to say no more about it here but for the benefit of the Citi folk who I know like to read this thread too, I speak in a professional capacity. Dunno about that andrew - I posted back in May on another thread about the likelihood of the small claims court just following the OFT guidelines and that it was important to prepare your case to deal with that approach only to have an anonymous comment made on my reputation that my post was "not helping and even inaccurate in places". Hmmmm really? I don't think so. No-one should be put off pursuing these claims by LTWFB's experience. It really is past high time that the Government through its quango the OFT, sorted this mess out instead of tax payers money being wasted by banks petulantly trying to defend the indefensible.

I'm sure that's a relief for you! Get some photos of the area where you were parked and the signs showing they were obscured as indicated in your posts. Then write to the clamping company requesting a full refund or you will issue a claim against them for trespass to your car.

Have a read of this case, it may help. However, I doubt the people who clamped you will pay you back willingly so you'd have to be prepared to issue a claim for the money back. Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 (5 April 2000)

Hi angry cat, I'm not surprised you're hopping mad! I would be too. A Notice of Correction is a sop, not worth a light and makes no difference to your credit rating. Experian and the other CRA's exist for the benefit of their members, not for the general public, never forget that however sympathetic they appear to be. If I have understood what it means correctly, a Notice of Correction is actually an admission that the debt is owed but the consumer is saying there are extenuating circumstances e.g. unemployment, illness, as to why the payments were not maintained. Whereas a Notice of Dispute actually challenges the debt is owed. Either way, the fact a default is on your CRF is as far as creditors are going to look. Let us know how you get on.

There have been some landmark appeal cases since 2000 regarding the validity of PCN's - there's a good chance that LBK&C's PCN's may have been invalid like a lot of other local authorities and they will have changed them. So you could apply under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for details of the tickets in question though I don't know if they keep actual copies or you could apply under the Freedom of Information Act to find out if they have in fact altered their PCN's since 2000 for compliance problems. If thye have, I would argue they should refund the money including the bailiffs fees. Its worth a try.

DVLA totally ignoring the Data Protection Act again? I'd write a letter of complaint. This is what their website says as to their data processing: So what are they doing releasing information to companies chasing for private debts without consent? The N1 has obviously been attached to the letter to frighten you into paying. Respond to them by asking under what legal authority are they seeking this payment - it can only be in contract law if it was a private car park in which case they have to prove that you were aware of the terms and conditions of parking there.

Parking is free for train users at my local station. No doubt that will change in time though.

The NPAS decision linked below about driveaways is worth reading. I had a similar experience with Manchester City Council last year - in that case, the warden had inputted my vehicle details before the P&D ticket had expired and then waited for a few minutes before printing it out so the time stamp on the PCN would make it look like the ticket had expired. Unfortunately for her, I came back before she could print the ticket. It was cancelled immediately after I wrote to the Council. http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/user_documents/YoniLaminavTFL.pdf

sam, what debt is the bailiff trying to collect? If its to do with Council tax, the County Court procedure doesn't apply. If you only had the CCJ's made against you last week, they aren't registered for 28 days anyway so a warrant couldn't be issued before then. To get a proper answer to your question, you need to let us know what the debt is so we know if its a private bailiff company or County Court bailiffs you are dealing with.

No, do not pay anything. Is this definitely a private car park? NCP have contracts with several local authorities to run public car parks. Check the penalty notice for confirmation. If it is a private car park, write to NCP and ask them to confirm under what legal authority they are suggesting they have an entitlement to claim anything from you. If its a local authority car park being managed by NCP on the LA's behalf then you need to do the usual appeal letter and take it from there.

What debt is it that the bailiffs are trying to collect from you?

What does it say in the terms & conditions of the account about recovery of the cost of pursuing you for the debt in the event of default?

A must see programme - thanks for the tip Recycler. Chelsea, no-one is suggesting that all bailiffs are dishonest or act illegally - there's bad apples in most barrells - but unfortunately many of them are culpable because its what happens in a largely unregulated trade where there's lots of money to be made. Here is an extract from Hansard's Parliamentary Written Answers to Questions in November 2003: Bailiffs Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many complaints have been made in each year since 1997 concerning the conduct of bailiffs; how many complaints have been investigated; how many complaints have resulted in a prosecution; how many convictions there were concerning the conduct of bailiffs; and if he will publish a list of banned bailiffs. [136800] Mr. Leslie [holding answer 6 November 2003]: My Department is responsible for county court bailiffs only. Any complaint involving a county court bailiff, unless of a serious nature, is dealt with by the county court that s/he is assigned to. There is no database kept on complaints against individual bailiffs. There are Certificated Bailiffs who act in a private capacity. They are given their authority to do so for a period of two years, by their local county court judge, in accordance with the Distress for Rent Rules 1988. A complaint against a Certificated Bailiff is considered by a judge of the county court that granted the certificate. 17 Nov 2003 : Column 469W If the certificate is revoked the Department will be informed. The information will be recorded on the Register of Certificated Bailiffs that is kept centrally. The Register is open to public search through a central point of contact. No data is retained longer than three years. In 2001 two certificates were cancelled, in 2002, 13 were cancelled, and in 2003 to date 17 have been cancelled. Any prosecution would be taken by the member of the public affected by the action of a certificated bailiff. There is no data kept by the county court or the Department centrally. So you see, the Government doesn't even keep track of them, despite the pathetically small number that seem to have behaved so grossly even by their standards that they actually got their licences taken away. I would suggest that since parking was decriminalised and local authorities began putting a lot more business their way collecting the penalties, bailiffs have found themselves dealing with a much more vocal part of the population than their traditional territory and they have been found out for the money spinning tricks and lies they resort to in order to pump up their fees. By and large, you don't find the same attitude in the County Court Bailiffs as they are employed directly by the Court on civil service terms and conditions so the kind of financial incentive deals that go on between bailiff companies and local authorities don't exist there. Thanks to the efforts of websites like LMAG and its founder members like Recycler, together with CAG, people are sharing information and learning how they are being ripped off. It is amazing how many people never hear anything from the Bailiff companies until it is claimed they have already sent two or three letters and a carried out a visit so, according to their figures, you're already in debt to them for £300 and rising. This is plain dishonesty and its about time it got some mainstream exposure so good on the BBC for tackling it.

I think Glenn UK has responded very succinctly to the points in issue and I entirely endorse those responses. As you do not wish to acknowledge that your evaluation of the legal position on costs in small claims is inaccurate (and actually driven by gambling the "odds") there really isn't going to be any prospect of us agreeing on what it means to be "deliberately misleading" so as to amount to misconduct and equally no prospect of you acknowledging that far from failing to answer your point, my previous posts along with Glenn's are tantamount to hitting you over the head with it numerous times.

There's nothing to prevent a person using a solicitor to deal with a small claim but the procedure is not designed or intended for involvement of the legal profession on any great scale. Apart from the Court fees, the only legal costs generally allowable are solicitors costs on the claim which will be a relatively small fixed amount nowhere near commercial rates. For that reason, it is standard practice and has been for many years for many businesses not to bother defending small claims as they are uneconomic. The cost of defending them usually far outweighs the amount of compensation they are being sued for so they just pay up. Legal costs are only one element of the cost structure in small claims though. If witnesses have to be called e.g accountants or other professional witnesses, then the loser will be expected to pay their expenses for attending Court.

Well that's one of them, for the purpose of this particular debate. The banks have never so far challenged a case through the Court process. In those cases where judgement has been given against them, its been by default, and not by legal argument. The banks don't want any precedents set against them, so its acceptable from their point of view to refund charges to the small percentage of customers who are challenging them. There's still a huge percentage of people who are not challenging them, therefore its still far more profitable for them to carry on as they are. Why on earth would they want to shoot themselves in the foot by risking a legal precedent that will require them to refund all charges whether people ask for them back or not? Whether the banks can succeed or not has yet to be established. You've simply made the assumption that they can't. However, that isn't the only assumption you've made in your posts to this thread. You've assumed that bank charges actions are somehow different than other actions therefore the possibility of the Court awarding costs against bank charges claimants are zero - at least that's how I interpreted this: You only qualified your assertion after I pointed out your assessment of the legal position was actually wrong although it is a common assumption that small claims = no costs. Bank charges claims are no different to any other type of small claim and I would hesitate to give advice to anyone in the terms you are expressing here. Also: What rules would they be then? If you mean the Civil Procedure Rules, yes of course people must file their claims accordingly but that's no guarantee of success. Obviously people should be careful not to have their claims thrown out because they didn't do something they were supposed to do or vice versa. But that's quite different from evaluating the likelihood of success/failure in a given situation. However, since the thread has no real contribution to make to "Legalities" as a topic, it doesn't really matter.

Why do you keep making assumptions? If you were a practising solicitor and you gave advice to a client that he could never have a costs order made against him in a small claim - - then you would be potentially liable for complaints of negligence and poor service and quite rightly so because that advice is patently wrong. Make no mistake - you do not get off the hook by later trying to modify your advice by saying oh well it almost never happens in a certain type of case, probably. There's always someone who is capable of behaving unreasonably in the most straightforward of situations, believe me. As for misconduct of the opposing solicitors being reported to the Law Society, well they only owe a duty to their own clients and none to you. We've already established that their references to costs are not actually wrong whether you approve of it or not.

This is a perfect example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. You are both wrong in your assumptions that costs cannot be awarded against the losing party on the small claims track. The Civil Procedure Rules do provide for circumstances when costs can be awarded. Any solicitor knows this. Most lay people don't.

Moggers, Parking on private land is a trespass, not an offence so you can't be "fined" because you have not committed any "offence". These people are just trying it on. Another company with the same [problem] is Excel Parking. They use the same black and yellow checkered plastic bags, have a badge logo that looks police-ish and official, refers to "offence" in the body of the ticket - load of old tripe frankly. Private car parks are regulated by whatever contract has been made between the car park owner and the vehicle owner - the conditions of parking must be clearly displayed at the entrance of the car park - its no good putting them on the back of a ticket that you only get to see when you have paid your money. Tell them to take a running jump...

How do you know what advice the banks are getting? Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions. Perhaps its because of the advice they are getting from their solicitors that not a single bank has allowed a claim to go ahead in the Courts for a decision. Banks are no different to any other client who chooses to disregard advice or who will only take it when they are dragged screaming and kicking to the court room doors.

There is no scale of fees for bailiffs in magistrates court cases. They can charge reasonable fees. If you think they have been unreasonable in the charges applied, you would have to take the matter back to the Magistrates Court that imposed the fine. Who issued the tickets? Police or Local Authority? Not all local authorities have introduced decriminalised parking yet so those that haven't will still be using the Magistrates Court for enforcement. The police can also still issue tickets for illegal parking.

Continue with your letter. Have they got a County Court Judgement against you? If not, the bailiffs are really just acting as debt collectors.

You can't get the Judgement removed from your credit file now, its on for 6 years. But you can get a certificate of satisfaction from the Court on production of proof that you have paid. The Court charges £15 for the certificate. The entry on your credit file will then be updated to show the Judgement as having been satisfied - still only marginally better than the money still being owed as far as your credit status goes.

Vicky, You need to start a new thread. It gets too confusing when more than one person is posting about different problems on the same thread. Chris, I've been thinking over your situation. When did you actually finish paying off Philips? I can't fathom these charges they've added unless its for collecting the installment payments in which case the OFT debt collection guidelines are that any charges must be reasonable and proportionate to the debt and reflect the actual costs of collection. And of course there should be a contractual basis on which they are made anyway. The Council Tax regs. don't deal with installment payments. The paperwork Phillips left you in January 2005 sounds like enough to allow them to argue they did leave you a Bill. Well, on balance the worst case scenario is if you challenge them in a detailed assessment, if you lose you could be a couple of hundred pounds out of pocket. If you challenge them through MCOL and lose, you'll just be down the Court issue fee which should be less than £100. If they argue that small claims court is not the right place to challenge their fees, I suppose you could say that the DJ should look at your claim and decide which part of it is fees as per the Regs and which part of it is unlawful charges, similar to bank charges. At least the ball is in their Court then whether they want to turn up at Court and defend or pay you off. What do you think of that?

This is the paragraph in your original post that caught my eye. Yes I would agree with that.