Hi - I did search to see if this has already been posted but couldn't find it. The previous tenant of where I live now racked up a load of PCNs, and has had bailiffs chasing him ever since. I've deflected most of them with little effort. I came home today to find a card with my address but no name on the front. On the back it says: IMPORTANT DELIVERY URGENT RESPONSE We have attempted to make a delivery but unfortunately we have been unsuccessful. PLEASE CALL: 0844 811 7137 to rearrange a convenient time and location for us to redeliver. We will need to verify your identity before we make a delivery. It also has 'registered in England no 04118149, PO BOX 50218, London, EC2A 3WR' No company name stated. Obviously, it stinks and a little googling led me to JBW Enforcement. However the number didn't come up on google, it was through the postcode. So I thought I'd post this to make it a bit easier for people to find if they also receive a simliar card. It seems more than a tad misleading. Hope it helps TB

Hi - I did search to see if this has already been posted but couldn't find it. The previous tenant of where I live now racked up a load of PCNs, and has had bailiffs chasing him ever since. I've deflected most of them with little effort. I came home today to find a card with my address but no name on the front. On the back it says: IMPORTANT DELIVERY URGENT RESPONSE We have attempted to make a delivery but unfortunately we have been unsuccessful. PLEASE CALL: 0844 811 7137 to rearrange a convenient time and location for us to redeliver. We will need to verify your identity before we make a delivery. It also has 'registered in England no 04118149, PO BOX 50218, London, EC2A 3WR' No company name stated. Obviously, it stinks - what delivery company wouldn't tell you who they are - and a little googling led me to JBW Enforcement. However the number didn't come up on google, it was through the postcode. So I thought I'd post this to make it a bit easier for people to find if they also receive a simliar card. It seems more than a tad misleading and a bit of an unfair tactic. Hope it helps TB

Apologies if this has been done to death - I've looked and can't find it. This is an entirely hypothetical question. I have no tickets or fines outstanding, and no axe to grind. Increasingly, I see the CCTV smart cars (several London boroughs) undertaking their tasks whilst themselves positioned in an illegal parking location. Question 1: Is this allowable in some way? Question 2: If not, what action can be taken? Question 3: If the vehicle is parked illegally, would that somehow have implications for the evidence they collect against others? Although I realise that the contravention would still be committed, it seems a little unreasonable to enforce if the only way to collect evidence of it is to contravene it themselves. Just curious. TB

*bump*

Hi all - apologies again if this is staring me in the face, but I've had a good rummage and can't find it. I've seen in a few threads that interest shouldn't be charged on a disputed account (in default). Is this correct, and if so, where does it say this? Thanks TB

Just as a brief update on this, and in response to my complaint, the CRA has stated that it is possible that it would affect my rating. So they may be wrong, but I am suitably confused now! Any comments?

Well, I am suitably educated! I confess to not really understanding how the credit reference agencies do this stuff. I would have thought that if you had, for example, a default for £10,000, that would be bad, but to have two totalling £20,000 would have a greater detrimental impact on the scoring system. I didn't realise that the timing would make this effectively a moot point. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers TB

They were issued on the same day in November last year. One has been continually updated (as they're adding interest despite it being in dispute), the other is lying dormant.

Would two defaults not affect my credit rating more than one?

Bump

Hi all I'm looking at a mis-sold PPI situation on the grounds that I was told it was compulsory for the loan, and have written to the finance provider with all the details. They have replied saying that as they weren't at the point of sale, the company selling on their behalf are consequently responsible for any claim. I'm happy to chase the seller, but is this correct? Thanks TB

I take your point, and regarding previous episodes I again can't comment as I have no knowledge of them. However, at the risk of going entirely off thread I feel I have to point out that the only tangible advice I actually got was from Ting. One experienced poster in this thread said that they could not see why the PCN was not acceptable. Should I have taken this advice and just let the council win? Ultimately, not many people on the forum are legally trained and there is as much risk in open forum as outside it. Additionally, diversion to other boards for advice if it's not available in this (or any other) seems merely sensible in obtaining as much information as possible. People may not even be aware of other boards, and it may be that a particular expert in one area is available there and not here. Unless I am under a spectacular misapprehension, this isn't a competition for best forum, but a genuine desire to provide accurate information to people in need. As I said, the plan was for Ting to post what had happened after the event due to a number of issues. He was quite clear that this should happen to ensure that others can benefit from this experience. However, he is now not in a position to do so. I would still hate to be the 'straw that broke the camel's back' as far as any ban is concerned. I understand the need for the rules of the forum, but I'm beginning to think that perhaps we could utilise some flexibility where it is appropriate. It should perhaps be remembered that this was a 'win', and that even if Ting is all that has been inferred, that would include that he is effective in dealing with these situations. It's an old and crude saying, but sometimes 'it's better to have people inside the tent ****ing out, than outside the tent ****ing in'. Especially if they are particularly good at urination.

I can't comment on his view of this or any other forum - I don't know what experiences he has had or not had. Even if he does express that view, he was still on CAG despite it giving sterling assistance to me (and for all I know others), and asking for any donations to go to CAG as he was advising a CAGer. Ultimately, I thought that the purpose of these forums (all of them) was to provide assistance to those in need. It seems a bit churlish to ban someone for doing just that.

Since posting the update early this morning, it appears that Ting has been banned from this site. I would very much hope that this hasn't been because of me. If this is the case it would be entirely unwarranted. It was at my request that this was taken off site, and Ting did actually only deal with this on the basis that a donation was made to CAG and that all the information (as much as it could be) be posted to explain what had occurred. It would be entirely counter-productive to impose a ban, as it would restrict the ability to pass on what would be very beneficial information to others. I would appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me.

Anyway, just to update you. I took advantage of an offer from Ting to look at this off the main forum, as there are specific confidential issues to consider. Suffice to say that Newham council got both barrels both from him in writing and over the telephone pointing out just where they went wrong. He has said that he will update with some of the more technical detail at a later date for people to learn from. At his request, I'll be making a donation to CAG funds.

Please accept my apologies for the delay, but I've been reading through the thread and missed this comment. What's your point here? TB

Thanks for that x20. The situation is that there is a valid default (which would clearly affect my rating), but this has been duplicated and therefore would make the situation considerably worse. They've been asked on several occasions to remove the duplicate, but failed to do so. Any thoughts? Thanks TB

Is anyone familiar with this case? I'm looking to see if I can issue a claim (or counter-claim, depending on if the DCA jumps) using this. Is it only dishonoured cheques that would qualify, or would damage to financial reputation through application of duplicate defaults work? It's possible that it's a non-starter, but worth a look! Cheers TB

Yes, he had a notice to owner about a week ago (dated 17th October), and he went again to try and pay it. He's also had a reminder on the 11th November (dated 4th November) when he went for the third time to try and pay. THey couldn't find it again on the system, and signed the ticket to that effect on that date. Thanks for all your advice so far TB

I know what it actually is, and that sometimes zeros get lined through to distinguish fro O. However, it has always been that case with any official form I have encountered that this practice is not allowed simply because it can be construed as 'crossing out'. This particular example takes it to new levels by resembling other figures. I do know that too (although there are variants which could give a remote possibility of it NOT being a G), but the point is that it isn't clear. I would say it's not acceptable as three visits to the council's parking shop ended in their inability to find the PCN in the system. Not everyone has the wit or knowledge that we have to be able to work out what these figures are, which is why such ambiguity should not be acceptable. With the best will in the world, my friend is one of these people, with some reading difficulties. It would appear that the staff in the parking shop are not that far removed either. As it appears that this has been the cause of being unable to pay until it reached the higher figure, does it not seem reasonable that the charge should revert to the lower figure? There is no suggestion of getting out of paying. And here is the requested information. Cheers TB

A friend of mine (really!) has got this for parking his scooter on the pavement. He's in the wrong there, and the ticket would initially be justified. Now, he went into the parking shop, with the intention of paying. they couldn't find it on the system. He got a reminder, went back, they still couldn't find it. Got another letter (which stops him from paying the initial £50 - time has passed). he went back and the member of staff now signed the ticket to say it's not on the system. It's hardly surprising - the quality of information is appaling. Can you say definitively what dates are involved? Are those zeros or have they been crossed out? Or are they ones? Or fours? Or nines? Is that a nine or a G on the registration number? This surely can't be acceptable? Suggestions please! Thanks TB

Just a note to bear in mind - TfL isn't a cover all for buses and trains in how they deal with alleged fare evasion. Entirely different law applies to each. It is worth knowing which law you are being taken to court under in order to prepare a decent defence. Having a little bit of experience of this from an enforcement side (trains), I've always found that the majority of inspectors do need a little more than 'you didn't touch in' to take it to court. The poster who was using a card belonging to another would not only be guilty of fare evasion, this would probably be compounded by the fact that it's also technically theft. That kind of thing does make an inspector decide that perhaps there was an intent to avoid paying. That said, there are some complete spanners out there in the role, much as in any industry.

Thanks spamheed - Ill let you know how I get on. Cheers TB

Thanks Pinky Unsurprisingly, they're hiding behind that very section of the act you quote. I think I'll ask them to explain, as I'm too daft to understand such things

Sorry, this is probably all over the site, I just can't find it! Who does the notice of assignment come from? From my reading, it seems to come for the OC, and in other threads from the DCA. I've got one from a DCA, but to be honest, that's just their claim. Do I have to accept that? Surely the OC has to tell you that they have passed authority on to another party? Thanks TB