Hi, I have finally been refunded the £235 from Marston. Marston were very unhelpful/robotic/rude when spoken to and felt that the £235 was legitimate. They have not responded to any emails therefore giving no explanation to the reasoning for the refund other than being asked to do it by a Parking Officer at Kirklees Council. It seems like they do what they like regardless of the regulations. See below for the email exchange with the council. It shows the timeline of the letters and when it was passed on to Marston therefore showing the lack of attempts they make to actually identify a possible new address (all good ££££ for them) and the fact that the log book address had been updated to our new address 4 months (and 2 council reminder letters) prior to it being passed to Marston. Marston then sat on it for 7 months earning £75 for sending out a letter to an address that was highly likely to be wrong. They abuse the system. Parasites. I bet they hate the regulations that restrict their earning capacity so bend every rule and hope to steamroller and stonewall people into accepting what they say as being true. I've still got the bailiffs mobile number, I'll have to ask him about it one day. Thanks for your help with this. Cheers, Dave ............................................. From: John xxx Sent: 08 September 2017 08:53 To: 'Dave xxx' Subject: RE: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf Hi…..David Good morning. I have managed to contact our liaison officer with Marston and asked them to reconsider your request to the refund of the attendance fee. Please look out for that as they have agreed to arrange for a refund to you. Regards John Senior Parking Officer Kirklees Council From: Dave xxx Sent: 06 September 2017 17:07 To: John xxx Subject: Re: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf Thanks, I have spoken with Marston and they feel that the £235 attendance cost was lawful despite their warrant having a different address on it and no notice of enforcement being posted to our new address therefore meaning that the next enforcement stage had not been reached. Apparently my payment was made "voluntarily", which the customer service agent suggests is my own fault despite the bailiff insisting that full payment was the only option. It seems that had I not answered the door and acted like an honest citizen I would've received a notice of enforcement through the post requesting £173 therefore saving myself £235. Could you please advise me further on making an out of time witness statement. Is this something that needs to be done prior to contacting the LGO? Thanks David From: John Lee Sent: 06 September 2017 16:17 To: 'Dave xxx' Subject: RE: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf Hi…….David The PCN reference KM88398003 The process from the issue of a PCN right up to sending the case to a debt collecting agency is configured to a standard industry time line which is also automated. For any none payment or communication from the keeper of vehicle, they will be passed on, there is no second trace unless the letter sent was return marked: Gone away, moved away, etc. The process is followed as in accordance to the Department of Transport guidelines. Regards John Senior Parking Officer Kirklees Council From: Dave xxx Sent: 06 September 2017 16:08 To: John xxx Subject: Re: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf Many thanks. Could you please provide the PCN number relating to our case? I'm surprised to hear that you took so long to pass the case to Marston as I would've assumed that seeing as Marston stand to gain financially by not rechecking with the DVLA for a new address (a common occurrence since the paper tax disc ceased) that they wouldn't have checked, but seeing as you are a public service I would've hoped for more common sense. A majority of people would pay in good time in order to reduce the fine, so if there is no reply it stands to reason that they may have moved. A second check with the DVLA (or any of the other sources of tracing people) prior to sending your second letter, third letter, or before handing the case to Marston would've identified our new address. Surely as a council you can easily access electoral rolls? Regards, David -------- Original message -------- Subject: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf From: John xxx To: Dave xxx CC: Dear Sir Whilst you wait for a response from Marston, I will provide the information regarding a PCN incurred by the vehicle. On 19/6/16 at 1220hrs, the above mentioned vehicle went through a Bus Gate enforcement at St George’s Square. We subsequently done a trace with the dvla for the keeper’s details. Upon receiving the keeper’s information, we sent 3 statutory letters (dated 23/6/16; 27/9/16 and 19/1/2017 respectively) to the owner before passing the case to Marston (standard procedure). The original address from dvla was: .............. Regards John xxx Senior Parking Officer Kirklees Council

It's an interesting case. A precedent definitely needs to be set. From everything I've read it feels like I've had the £235 taken from me unlawfully (rather than it being the bailiff's interpretation of the law vs ours), am I definitely correct in thinking this as the standards/regulations appear to clearly explain how they should be operating? Thanks again for the time and interest you've all put into this.

Hi. Personally I would prefer to keep it open and I'll continue to post updates and any responses I receive. It may help someone else? I'm having to work in small chunks due to child care commitments over the summer hols. It's very frustrating that I have been scammed out of £235 despite the simple guidance that is in place, yet I feel that I am going to be up against the whim of a few individuals when it comes to being able reverse something that following logic and common sense shouldn't be an issue. I felt that the £235 was wrong, even spoke to the guy about it and he blatantly BS'd me despite all of his appreciation of how understanding I was being.

Hi. After waking at 0330hrs continually thinking about this I have collated the following info. The following options have been suggested to me: -(In the first instance, you should write to Marston direct) -(submit an Out of Time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre - issue being incorrect address on log book and potential costs if rejected) http://pilesadvice.co.uk/index/traffic-enforcement-centre-tec/out-of-time-witness-statement -(You need to contact the council that issued the PCN) -(if nothing works contact Local Government Ombudsman) I intend to send this Marston in the first instance along with a little more info from my initial post and more formal formatting. Any advice? Thanks again, Dave ----------------------------------------- Issues surrounding this case: The notice of enforcement went to an old address. No efforts were made to contact us at our new address despite the ease and low cost of tracing someone that isn't trying to hide from anyone throughout the 14 months since the supposed offence. We have been on the electoral role ever since we moved house and we have a traceable credit history linking our old/new addresses. We have identical hand written requests for fees from the bailiff, the first of which was handed to the current owners of our previous property at 0800hrs on 07/08/17 and the second presented to us at 0945hrs on the same morning. At the point during that morning that the bailiff discovered that we now live at a different address a new warrant should have been drafted and a new NOE sent to the new address. The regulation 8(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 state: 8.—(1) Notice of enforcement must be given— (a) by post addressed to the debtor at the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business; We were not given the notice, despite the bailiff having every opportunity to do so, therefore the next enforcement stage could not have taken place until you had done so thus making the £235 attendance fee unlawful. Further more, Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act includes an aim to support early payment and compliance by debtors as they will be fully aware of the costs implication if they fail to do so, and provides the debtor with an opportunity to settle the debt at the compliance stage without the need to face a bailiff visit. Schedule 12 procedure, paragraph 7 states: "An enforcement agent may not take control of goods unless the debtor has been given notice (of enforcement)". In this case, a notice of enforcement was not received despite the bailiff having every opportunity to send one by post after visiting our old address on the morning of 07/08/17; instead unlawfully opting to visit our new address and insisting that the only option available was to pay there and then in full despite the address not appearing on the original warrant and the need for a notice of enforcement being ignored. This is supported by the requirement to issue a Notice of Enforcement to every debtor. The details of which are described in Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 Part 2 paragraph 6 (minimum period of notice of enforcement) and: 8(1) Notice of enforcement must be given— (a) by post addressed to the debtor at the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business; We were not afforded the opportunity to settle at compliance stage as Marston did not give us notice in accordance with legislation despite knowing "where the debtor usually lives". The notice was clearly sent to our previous address and not correctly reissued to our new address as per legislation despite the bailiff having every opportunity to do so. We ask that Marston now refund us the £235 enforcement fee that we paid without first being given the opportunity to settle at compliance stage as prescribed in legislation. -----------------------------------------

Hi. Thanks so much for taking your time to reply. Very much appreciated after what has happened today. The people who bought our house actually messaged my partner regarding what he'd delivered to them, in person, and then they posted it (but didn't knock) to us late afternoon. They say they've being doing, "return to sender". Regarding the dvla and the council, the dvla did have the new address via her driver's licence but they must not check that database even though the fine was in her name. I'll speak to the council and email Marston as per your advice tomorrow. It sounds great that there are these safeguards to protect people. Let's hope they see sense! All the best, Dave

Hi, Thanks for having a look at this. In hindsight I'm a bit confused about what happened earlier when a bailiff turned up at my door. We moved house 3 years ago. My other half didn't update the address on her car's log book, only her driver's licence. She got clamped/fined in September 2016 and updated the log book address. Fair enough, our mistake, it's a pity that we didn't have warning letters forwarded to us but hey ho. Today a bailiff turned up regarding a PCN for driving on a taxi only street in June 2016. Again, we hadn't received any previous correspondence regarding this. I paid up in full but have since become confused about the £235 Attendance Cost. The bailiff came to our current address at 10am, but we have subsequently found out that he originally went to our old address at 8am and handed an identical notice of fees to our the people who moved into our old house. What bugs me is why have they didn't trace our new address before leaving the office and send us a letter regarding the fine thus saving us £235? I did phone the Bailiff on his mobile to ask this and he said that the £235 isn't just a fee in relation to attending an address, it is a fee that was added to the fine because the fine had become a warrant and that process incurs the costs (and that calling it a fee just for attending an address isn't strictly true?!). We have been on the electoral role ever since we moved house, we have a traceable credit history linking our old/new addresses, and what surprises me most is that Kirklees Council must have contacted the DVLA with her vehicle registration and we had already updated our address with them (drivers licence but not log book). They could've searched the electoral role via 192.com for as little as 40p and found our new address as soon as they were asked to chase the fine, or ideally Kirklees could've done this before passing it onto Marston. I've read that the Attendance Cost is limited to £235 to prevent unreasonable charges but surely £235 is unreasonable given the ease and low cost of tracing someone that isn't trying to hide from anyone? I've also read that we should've received a Notice Of Enforcement prior to the Bailiff attending our property and given the fact that he initially attended our old address the address on the warrant would have been incorrect? Would you feel that we have grounds to contest the £235 Attendance Cost added to our fine? Any advice would be gratefully received. Many thanks, Dave

reply from CaB: Thank you for your enquiry to the Citizens Advice consumer service dated 07/01/2014. Your reference number for this case is AW ....... and should be quoted in all further correspondence regarding this case. We understand from your email that a fridge freezer has been delivered damaged and you want to know your rights. Based on the information you have provided the key points in response to your enquiry are as follows: Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (As Amended) all goods supplied by a trader to a consumer must be of a satisfactory quality, fit for their purpose, and as described. If the goods do not meet these requirements, then you may have a short time in which to return the goods to the trader and ask for a refund. After this your rights will be to claim: - a repair or a like-for-like replacement; or if neither of these are possible - - an appropriate level of refund (this may take into account usage). If you wish to pursue a refund, the trader may ask you to prove the faults are due to the manufacture of the goods, rather than fair wear & tear, misuse, accidental damage or neglect. Alternatively, if you will allow the trader a chance to repair or replace before considering a refund then this ‘burden of proof’ works the other way - any faults which occur within the first 6 months are assumed to have been present at the time of sale, and have only just become apparent. If the trader believes otherwise (for instance, if they believe you have caused the fault through misuse) they have the right to test the product to prove their case. If they cannot prove their case, you may seek a suitable form of redress as detailed above. At this stage we would advise to discuss the matter further with the trader, referring to the information above, as it is always advisable to try to negotiate an outcome that is acceptable to yourself and the trader before taking any further steps. If this does not resolve the matter, you could take a more formal approach and write to the trader. The letter should outline any relevant events regarding this issue and make it clear what you expect from the trader and why. It should also give the trader a reasonable time to resolve the matter. Template letters can be found at advice guide website (if the link does not work when you click it, please copy and paste it into your browser address bar). In this case, the letter named ‘Letter to complain about faulty goods’ would be most suitable. If you use the template letter then please amend it as to fit your circumstances. We would also suggest that any letter is sent by recorded delivery and that you keep a copy – this may help you prove that you have contacted the trader and tried to resolve the matter amicably, and also you can use the ‘Recorded Signed For’ label the post office will supply you with to confirm that the trader has received the letter. In addition, if you have paid by credit or debit card, you may be able to seek a refund through the card issuer if they have a 'chargeback' scheme. You should submit your claim in writing to the bank, specifically mentioning the 'chargeback' scheme, and asking that the matter is resolved in a timely manner. Please can you also provide the trader’s address and postcode so we can add these to the case notes? If you require any further advice or information about this case, please do not hesitate to contact the Citizens Advice consumer service by return email or by calling 08454 04 05 06 quoting the case reference number. Thank you for your enquiry.

Thanks. Sounds positive. Awaiting reply from CAB. I hate this s##t!

I have recently had a new bathroom, completed 12/12/13. The company that we used provided us with a verbal quote of £1400 to install a new bathroom suite, tile the walls, and install the flooring. We did not receive a written quote. We were asked to purchase the bathroom suite (toilet, sink, bath, towel rail, electric shower, shower curtain, toilet roll holder, waste pipes x 2), the tiles, and the flooring. We paid the final invoice (£1400. Full invoice details: "Labour only to install new bathroom suite and associated tiling") despite our reservations regarding the quality of the work, but just wanting them out of our house after 3 weeks to do a "5 day job". We then got a call from the electrician (19/12/13) who fitted the electric shower asking for £220. We understood that the bathroom fitters were sub-contracting the shower fitting and that it was included in the price, minus the cost of parts. Myself and my partner remember at least two occasions when the installation of the shower was discussed with the bathroom fitters and they had said that it was included. I personally spoke with them as we had considered using an electrician that we knew but we agreed that it would be easier to use their electrician as it was already included within the original quote. We hadn't been present whilst the electrician was in the house but he explained the cost of the cabling and came to the house and showed us the required parts that he had had to install onto the main circuit board in order to make the installation safe. We were surprised to be facing further costs but paid the electrician for the 'parts' element of the invoice (£120) as we understood that we had agreed to the initial verbal quote for the labour costs of installing the bathroom and hence already paid for the labour involved in the installation of the shower but did owe for the parts. Today we have received an email from the bathroom fitters threatening us with court action if we do not pay the £100 labour fee for the electricians work. Where do we stand regarding this? Any advice would be gratefully received.

just had a quick look at a money co uk article on section 75. Sounds like another way of applying pressure? But it did mention....... The Debit Chargeback scheme does, however, offer some protection for purchases made on Visa and Mastercard debit cards. This scheme enables you to obtain a refund from your debit card provider if any purchase you make on your card is unsatisfactory, doesn’t arrive or is faulty. It also protects you if your card is used fraudulently. However, unlike Section 75 there is no legal obligation for providers to fulfil this protection so placing a claim with the issuer of your Visa card or Mastercard provider may require a little persistence.

I hoped/thought that their 'good will gesture' was an admission of fault. I'm sure this has no legal footing in their eyes though. I just keep thinking that if I had decided to buy second hand or buy a known damaged item I would not pay very much. I also think that if I wanted to sell it today, regardless of depreciation as soon as it left the warehouse, the damage significantly reduces the value of the item. I have never bought a white goods item of this cost or brand new from a high street vendor and expected 110% service and a pristine item. I am encouraged that I seem to have more rights than they would like to believe I have and would absolutely love to receive a brand new item in perfect condition as that is what I paid for and they absolutely left me with damaged goods. What would my costs be regarding County Court action? Thanks for all of the replies

Bought it online via debit card

I was not given any opportunity to inspect the goods. They asked where we wanted it and we left them to it. It was delivered on the day we moved house just after we'd received the keys to the new house. To say we were distracted is an understatement. Yes the engineer did make a note of it and Zanussi seem to have only picked up on this and ignored my initial issue (the salad drawer(!) that I complained about before I even know about the other damage). I am still awaiting a reply for final confirmation on the salad drawer. They have told me to go back to Currys regarding the dent.

Cheers!

Hi, I received a damaged Zanussi fridge/freezer from Currys (approx 26th Oct 2013). Significant dent to side of item, near the bottom next to the motor. Unpacked and installed into fitted kitchen by delivery men. Damage only noticed 4 weeks later when the fridge/freezer was slid out due to an electrician needing to access the wall behind it. The item had not been moved prior to this since installation. Zanussi assigned an engineer to inspect the item due to an ill fitting salad drawer and commented that the dent looked as though the item "had been dropped". Currys have offered a 10% good will gesture but refuse to replace the item with a new unit as they state that I should have informed them of the damage within 48 hours of receiving it, but they do not dispute that the item was received in a damaged state. I personally feel that the item has been devalued by at least 75%, not to mention my warranty also being in doubt seeing as Zanussi have decided to blame the dent for causing the other problem. As the dent is next to the motor etc I feel that should the item fail the dent will again be blamed and both Zanussi and Currys will refuse to help. I am not looking for a financial 'good will gesture', I just want a new unit that is in perfect condition, the condition that any paying customer would expect. I was wondering where I stand re the Sales of Goods Act 1979 as it seems that Currys are not in a position to state that I must report any damage within 48 hours (their interpretation of a reasonable period of time), especially if the damage is not in an obvious place and causes the item to not fulfill the criteria of being 'as described' or 'of satisfactory quality', not mention the fact that the damage is next to the motor and the need for a fridge/freezer to be correctly sealed could class the item as being questionably 'fit for purpose'. Currys are currently standing firm on this despite numerous emails. Any guidance on this would be gratefully received.