Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'fines'.
-
I joined this forum after googling "parking disputes at Brockholes" (nr Preston.) I am not the first to raise this issue. Today (2nd September 2016) I have received a letter from Park with Ease (dated 24th August 2016 , Envelope unfranked so I cannot prove posting date) claiming I didn't pay my parking fees at Brockholes Country park on 9th August 2016 and demanding £50 fine (or £25 if I pay up quickly!!) Try googling 'disputes with carparking at Brockholes' and it is amazing how often this situation comes up. Brockholes don't accept responsibility for any of this - as they state on their web site... Brockholes have a vehicle recognition system in place. A sign advised you to pay on leaving the car park. I did so - paid the maximum £6 and had a conversation with strangers at the payment machine as to the expense of the fees. I have no evidence or proof that I paid. Parked on 9th August. - I don't dispute that I parked but I know I paid the maximum amount. .. what to do if I cannot prove I paid almost a month later? Park with Ease is apparetly registered with IPC and hence have the right to get my personal details from DVLA. Furious as I really cannot prove I paid -- what can I do? -
Drivers caught using handheld mobile phones in Britain are to face "much tougher penalties", with fines and points doubling, the government says. Under new rules expected to come in next year, drivers will get six points on their licence and face a £200 fine. Newly qualified drivers could be made to retake their test the first time they are caught. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37389800 -
Hi so, I will try to be succinct! We all know the law changed, but I didn't quite get it. I bought a car second hand, it came with a tax disk, I thought I was fine for a few months. Obviously I wasn't, I understand that, and am happy to pay a REASONABLE amount because of this. I was caught on camera on 21st December near Oxford. I was caught on my home street in London on 13th January. I was clamped on 14th of January, costing me £100 to get out. I taxed my car that same day. On 15th January I get two letters, both dated 14th January - obviously these would not be received until after I got clamped. One letter referred to being caught on camera in December, charging me £117. The second letter referred to being caught on 13th January, asking me to pay £145. On phoning the DVLA, I was told I am supposed to pay BOTH fines. PLUS the £100 for the clamping. DO the maths if you want but it's a lot of money, for one (accidental) offence. I wrote a nice long, detailed letter of appeal, asking for a reasonable reduction and consolidation of these "out of court settlements). I have just received a letter telling me that none of my reasons were valid, and I still have to pay everything. Shall I fight it? It seems a crazy system, even if I swallow the fee for the clamping, having to pay twice for the same offence. And the fact that they seem to have KEPT THE DECEMBER OFFENCE BACK UNTIL THEY CAUGHT ME AGAIN, SENDING LETTERS FOR BOTH THE OFFENCES ON THE SAME DAY seems either very sneaky, to get maximum money from me, or at least very bad admin. If I do fight it, where will the court case be held? Locally to me or in Swansea? Anyone know? If I do fight it, how much might I have to pay if I lose? If I do fight it, anyone know my chances? Should I just pay because offences are offences? Thanks all, looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Jon
-
3053548.thumb.jpg.6ea05a752ac6bbf38ae4e7be9676053a.jpg)
In last week's White Paper on the future of the BBC, the Culture Secretary; John Whittingdale confirmed that watching TV without a valid TV licence will continue to be a criminal offence. At present, 13% (approx 180,000 cases) that go before the magistrates each year are in relation to TV licence evasion. In the consultation paper it was stated that 'more guidance' was required in relation to this offence together with 'proposed culpability factors'. Presently, the Sentencing Council are undertaking a large-scale revamp of sentencing rules for 27 common offences dealt with by the magistrates and if approval is given, the new sentences will take effect in the autumn. Yesterday, it was announced that substantial changes are being proposed by the Sentencing Council in relation to TV licence evasion. These proposals (if approved) could see many of the fines significantly increased, and in many cases....doubled. The most significant part of the Sentencing Council's proposals concerns the new 'culpability factors'. Under the proposal, the crime will be considered more serious if the individual: Has not tried to buy a licence; If they have tried to evade detection; Have additional subscription television service (Sky, BT TV, Netflix or Amazon) The effect will be that JPs will consider that an individual who is a Sky, Netflix, Amazon or BT TV subscriber will have committed a Category Two crime rather than the lesser Category Three offence for which they would currently be guilty. For individuals who have failed to pay for a TV licence for more than six months the offence will be Category One, which would mean the fine would be at the top of the Band B range. -
For a very long time I have raised concerns on here about inaccurate information regarding the enforcement of Magistrate Court fines. The reason for my concern is because, unlike any other debts, (penalty charge notices, liability orders etc) the enforcement officer has the right under the warrant to 'force entry'. Yesterday, the Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice; Shaliest Vara, clarified the position regarding enforcement agents fees....the 'pro rata' distribution of payments.... and most importantly, how courts deal with direct payments (after a warrant has been past to the enforcement agency. A copy of his statement features in my second post. By way of background, the following is a copy of a post that I made earlier this month: In the past couple of weeks I have received reports of six cases where a locksmith had been used to enforce a debt for magistrate court fines after a debtor had relied upon misinformation on the internet and believed that paying the amount only of the court fine (minus bailiff fees) to the court (as opposed to the enforcement company) would mean that the warrant had been satisfied. In four cases, payment had been made to the court on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement (when bailiff fees of just £75 had been added). In the remaining two cases, payment had been made following an enforcement agent agent visit (fee of £235 had been applied) In each case, the person had relied upon the following statements featured on social media sites (with close links to the Freeman on the Land movement). The warrant for court fines only enables the enforcement of the "Sum Adjudged". Section 76 of the Magistrates courts Act 1980. Pay the fine online. That extinguishes the power to control of goods. The warrant only gives a power to take control of goods for the "sum adjudged". In each debtors case, after making payment to the Magistrates Court they had received notification from the court that their payment had been forwarded to the enforcement company so that the company could properly deduct their Compliance fee of £75 and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis in line with legislation. By following the inaccurate advice, each debtor had incurred substantial additional fees. In four cases, an enforcement fee of £235 had been added and in each case locksmith fee had also been applied.
-
Cold callers hiding behind withheld numbers could be fined more than £2m in a new law to be announced today. From 16 May, all direct marketing companies registered in the UK will need to display their phone numbers when making unsolicited calls, even if they have call centres overseas. Companies can risk fines of up to £2 million from Ofcom and a further £500,000 from the ICO if they continue to bombard consumers with unwanted calls. The move will make it easier for people to decide whether to answer their phone and to make formal complaints if they are harassed. It will also help the regulator - the Information Commissioner's Office - to investigate those who break the rules by continuing to make nuisance calls. http://news.sky.com/story/1684141/fines-for-cold-callers-using-withheld-numbers Report it If you have received an unwanted sales call, please report it to the ICO. Although they cannot investigate all individual cases, reporting your concerns will help them take action in the future. https://ico.org.uk/concerns/marketing/report-telesales-calls/
-
Today I have had the misfortune to be made aware of yet another person who took internet advice after receiving a Notice of Enforcement and was led to believe that if he made payment direct to the Magistrate Court that he would be able to avoid bailiff fees. This person took the advice and paid the court direct and;.....as it always the case.....he received a letter from the court to advise him that his payment had been forwarded direct to Marston Group. He too has now found himself in a position where an enforcement agent has made a personal visit...and the debt increased by way of an enforcement fee of £235. He now owes £310 (to also include the Compliance Fee of £75). This inaccurate advice is costly debtors many thousands of pounds and given that the debt is for an unpaid court fine....the enforcement agent is permitted to force entry. For the avoidance of doubt, all debt streams (council tax arrears, unpaid local authority penalty charge notices and unpaid magistrate court fines) may only be enforced by way of the procedure outlined under Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act and the fees that can be charged are those under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. Worryingly, the debtor has been advised today (by the person responsible for this highly inaccurate advice) that the Magistrate Court have supposedly given him the wrong advice. He claims that the warrant 'ceased' when the payment was made to the court and that the debtor can rely upon section 52.8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014. Not true: Section 52.8 was substituted under The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 !!!!
-
Interesting article appeared on BBC news website in the Scotland section with regards to parking. Just wondering if instead of reaching a settlement and had actually gone through with the court hearing would the outcome have been different. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35772704 -
To take the discussion off another thread, there is an idea that councils can now attach to DLA or the new PIP to recoup Liability Orders, this is problematic if said benefit is funding say a Motability car on lease. Can we look at which benefits can lawfully be attached to so we can frame best advice? -
Hi I've been using a storage facility for a few years to store some old stuff. Recently, they seem to have started doing something a bit dodgy with their fines system to raise some extra cash. They send email invoices and not paper ones. I didn't get the invoice this month so didn't make the payment. Then I got two letters. They are dated a few days a part but the postmarks show that they were posted on the same day. The first refers to previous correspondence asking for payment and is a 5-day late fine for £5. The second also refers to previous correspondence and is a £10 for being ten days late. Bit annoying because they hadn't sent any previous correspondence, not even an invoice. I paid the same day. That was a week ago. Today I got a letter dated 1st February. That's around the date that I paid - but it's postmarked 3rd Feb which is two days after I paid. It's a 15-day late fine for £20. So, in total, they seem to have fined me a total of £35 for a service that doesn't cost much more than that, and have got some extra cash out of me simply by neglecting to send a demand for payment, and then delaying posting the fines until it's too late for me to pay. On the face of it this seems as dodgy as all hell, and looks like an attempt to up their profits. Is this legal? I'm planning to send them a letter asking for a copy of the "previous correspondence" and also asking for a list of the fines that have been levied on the account in the last year with the dates they were posted. I also want to ask why they send two fines on the same day, and why I've been fined after making the payment. Is there anything else I should be asking? And are these payments legal? I want to make sure I know where I stand before I write to them. I paid the fines inadvertently by sending a payment for 3 months in advance so I don't have to worry about more fines for a while. I'm also planning to move my stuff as soon as I can arrange a van. Thanks, H
-
The ICO is taking action against two more cold call blocking companies, continuing the crackdown on nuisance calls. Poole-based Nuisance Call Blocker Ltd has been fined £90,000 and Telecom Protection Service Ltd, based in Bournemouth, has received an £80,000 fine. Both companies were found to be making unsolicited marketing calls to people registered on the official Telephone Preference Service while trying to sell products and services to block the type of cold calls they were making. https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2015/11/ico-issues-fines-totalling-170-000-to-cold-call-blocking-companies/ Company fined £850,000 for millions of nuisance calls The National Advice Clinic, based in Lancashire, which also trades as the Industrial Hearing Clinic or the Central Compensation Office, made nearly 6 million calls between October 2014 and April 2015 about noise induced hearing loss claims has been fined £850,000 by the Claims Management Regulator https://www.gov.uk/government/news/company-fined-850000-for-millions-of-nuisance-calls ICO fines PPI claims firm £80,000 over 1.3m spam SMS deluge The Information Commissioner's Office has served up penalty of £80,000 to a PPI claims company that sent more than 1.3 million spam texts. Brum-based UKMS Money Solutions Limited (UKMS) had bought numbers in bulk from list brokers which it subsequently spammed to encourage people to make compensation claims for mis-sold payment protection insurance. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/23/ico_fines_ppi_claims_firm/
-
Hi Woken this morning at 7.10 by loud hammering on the door , It was that loud my neighbours came out !! Looked out of window and saw 2 men with torches and enforcement officers written on the back of there jackets .i ingnored them they went around the back hammering on the doors and windows. They left a letter for my husband I have called tday to issue a warrent of execution for out client counc i parking fine . Iam authorised to remove your goods to satisfiy the amount 422 00 debt 112.00 compliance fee 75.00 enforcement fee 235. If you fail to contact me i wil re attend your property and remove goods .Can they just enter my house if i refuse to let them in ?. Hubby will sort this out but their fees seem high this is the first time theyve attended but he has had letters which hes ignored . -
After the recent court case would the 'fines' given to parents for taking their children on holiday in term time be now classed as a speculative invoice? And could those who have paid them claim the money back?
-
Fines for misusing bus lanes are overtaking parking tickets as the main cause of complaints from drivers, according to the AA. The motoring group said thousands of drivers were being "entrapped" by worn road markings and poor signage. A junction in Lambeth, south London generated the highest number of fines, totalling over £6m, the AA claimed. Lucrative rat traps' Edmund King, AA president, said: "Whilst we support the use of bus lanes in the right places, functioning at the right times, we are totally opposed to 'entrapment' cameras on poorly designed or poorly signed bus lane junctions. "If thousands of drivers are getting tickets at the same junction then something is wrong and that junction or bus lane should be reviewed. "We fear that too many local highway authorities have become addicted to the lucrative income from these rat traps." BBC -
Wonder if they will refund the bailiff fees if the tickets went to bailiffs? Discuss. http://www.motoring.co.uk/car-news/council-to-pay-back-hundreds-of-parking-fines_66808
-
My brother is a colossal idiot who ran off from a taxi without paying fare, has since not bothered to pay the fine, and it has rocketed up to £1000 + over the months he's been ignoring it. He doesn't live at home with myself and my mother any more, and hasn't since last year. However, Collectica don't seem to care despite being told this on more than on occasion. This morning I heard a car engine idling outside at about 6:30/7.00. No knock, but when I went downstairs later there was a 'Notice of Removal' through the door (with no time on it, the time/date space has been left completely blank.) 'Please note that the amount now due is £1043.13 inclusive of charges for today's visit. If this amount is not PAID IN FULL, IMMEDIATELY, a further call with be made, WITHOUT NOTICE, to take control of goods and potentially REMOVE FOR SALE by public auction. Such action will render you liable to further substantial costs. Please see reverse for schedule of fees and costs. To avoid such severe action, please contact me on TODAY to arrange payment.' I'm frightened to be honest, I can't cope with situations like this as I am on ESA for severe anxiety and depression. I don't know where my brother is or how to contact him, as we don't get along, and if I told him about this he wouldn't do a thing. I phoned Citizens Advice this morning and was kept on hold until my phone credit ran out completely. What can the bailiffs do? My mother is the tenant and she's currently away so I'm the only one in the house besides the dog, I don't like the thought of having to face this alone. Can they break in if I leave the house, or take things that belong to myself or my mother if I don't have receipts for them? (The only things left that belong to my brother are a few clothes.) Do I or my mother have any recourse to stop this? -
Wonder if anyone has any advice for me on this one please (I'll accept suck it up and pay as an answer!) I've received 2 PCN's - one of Friday 17th, and a second on Monday 20th Background: I have a commuters permit, which allows discounted parking, and earlier parking for commuters using the train station. The permit is free, but I then buy parking against that permit, which I do in 1 month batches via RingGo. (See attached image) The permit is 'electronic' and just says I can park in 'Long Stay'. I was unsure where this was, but for reasons that are probably not relevant, I thought I could park in a certain place in the cheap bays. I've been using this same location for about 10 weeks Ticket 1 So, on Friday I get a ticket stating I do not have a relevant permit (not that I haven't paid parking, just the permit I had does not allow me to park at that time in the day). I dropped them an appeal email showing I had a permit and had paid for parking, which has been rejected on the basis my permit was not valid there. Ticket 2 Over the weekend, I tried to find out where I should be parking. I stumbled across this parking map (it's dated May 2015 when lots of changes to zones and fares occurred - not been able to find an earlier one) https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/assets/attach/16110/CMK%20Parking%20Map%20May%202015%203c.pdf (note the 21 different types of zone!) Because I knew I could park in 'Long Stay', I parked in the blue & black stripped zone to the left of that map, parked 'Long stay fixed tariff'. (Note, I had previously been parking in the purple zone to the immediate right of this stripped zone) However, I came back to another ticket. I've not yet appealed formally, but had a heated 'chat' with the phone line who basically stated that I could only park in a blue zone, and the fact I knew I had a commuter permit meant i must have known I could only park in a zone marked 'CO'. Turns out these are the plain blue areas to the north & south of where i parked. That was the first I knew of the link between CO and commuter permits - it is down there on the bottom right, but had never seen this map before I spent 30 mins searching for it, and still didn't see it when looking for where I could I park- and it certainly wasn't mentioned on the permit or the process for applying for it. The 1st ticket sounds like it's probably a write-off, but do I have any leg to stand on on the second one, given the only info made available to me was that I could park in the 'long stay' parking, and based on the map, that's where I parked. As an aside - I'm sure when I took out the permit it mentioned it being an E2 permit, and I drove around one weekend looking for e2 zones - and that's how i ended up in those purple bays. I can find no reference to e2 now though - but there was a big shake-up of parking zones in May, so could have changed - but equally I could have it wrong. Thanks for your time as always [ATTACH=CONFIG]58582[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]58583[/ATTACH] ps - sorry, just occurred to me the title isn't very helpful - I meant to change it before submitting my post - sorry
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31537381 They change the rules and don't inform those affected then fine them for breaking the rule, to me it seems totally unfair!
-
Bravest to benefit from bank fines: Victoria and George Cross holders will get £10k a year -
For a very long time (at least four years that I know of) plans have been made at the Ministry of Justice to charge a fee to debtors when court fines are imposed. I have posted brief details of these plans on the forum over the past year and the official announcement was made yesterday of the actual amounts and the reason why they are being charged. The following link provides some background and I will post further details later. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/336085/fact-sheet-criminal-courts-charge.pdf
-
Almost on a daily basis I receive an enquiry on this subject from either a debtor, solicitor or a police officer. Hopefully this thread will assist. Under the new bailiff regulations an enforcement agent has a general right without a warrant to enter debtor’s premises to search for and take control of goods. The legislation is Paragraph 14.1 of schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 In cases where a Controlled Goods Agreement has been previously signed, the bailiff may have re-entry rights into the premises under Paragraph 16.
-
Today the Ministry of Justice announced that from March a new service is being rolled out across the UK and Wales allowing people charged with some minor motoring offences to enter a plea online from any suitable device (including mobile phones) 24 hours a day. This will be done via a secure Ministry of Justice website and is an alternative to a postal plea or attending court in person. Motorists will be able to view their case details, view evidence and make their plea remotely. Motorists who use the new service to plead guilty at the earliest possible stage will benefit by receiving the maximum credit. At present the facility is limited to the following offences: Failure to identity the driver Using the vehicle without valid insurance Driving in excess of the speed limit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11438914/Motorists-to-be-given-chance-to-enter-plea-to-minor-driving-offences-online.html
-
Imposing fines of up to £500,000 on the companies behind cold calls and nuisance text messages is to become easier under changes to the law being made by the government. The move follows tens of thousands of complaints about cold calling. Currently, firms can only be punished if the Information Commissioner can prove a call caused "substantial damage or substantial distress". But from 6 April, that legal requirement is to be removed. More than 175,000 complaints were made to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) last year about nuisance calls and text messages. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31616523
-
http://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/private-parking-public-concern-press-release -
Hundreds of thousands of people will no longer be hit with £100 fines for failing to complete their income tax returns on time, under radical government plans. HM Revenue & Customs has admitted that its penalties regime may be too rigid, and is drawing up proposals to end fines for taxpayers who miss the deadline “by a day or two”. New rules outlined for public consultation could see people who owe the government tax charged higher interest rates on their debts to encourage them to pay sooner, instead of being hit with automatic fines. A system of penalty points – similar to motoring offences - could also be introduced so that financial sanctions apply only to people who persistently fail to pay their tax bills. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11398244/HMRC-plan-to-scrap-100-fines-for-late-tax-returns.html
