Equita

[GODALMIGHTY111]

Hi to all here, excellent forum, i have been browsing the stories on your boards for some days now and just registered to share mine with you and also ask advise.


I am expecting Equita to visit soon with regard to TFL CC, briefly i drove into london charge zone at about 4.00pm (July 2010) parked up and stayed night in hotel, left next am 8.30 ish. Got home tried to use web site to pay, didn't work so phoned instead, told the lady what i had done gave her my debit card details and thought no more about it (she only took 1 payment of £10 and i did not check my statement).

Several weeks later got a £120 bill for not paying. I sent appeal explaining not my fault YOUR fault for not taking what was owed, but quite happy to stump another tenner.

Heard nothing till earlier this year when posted and hand delivered notes from Equita threatning removal of car, goods etc started arriving, called bailif number, told to just pay, said i had moved twice since and they would have to find me (i havn't moved and my car is locked in the garage, with the key hole taped over so they cant peak) to which he said "we will, we have ANPR cameras all over the country", then i told him he was dreaming and put phone down and changed mobile number.

Got a letter monday this week saying "we know times are hard so we will give you a payment option for instalments but must start before Xmas.


Question: should i send them notice of romoval of implied right of access or just ignore them, i wont be intimidated by geezers knocking on the door so dont worry on that score.


Many thanks in advance

[labman]

Re: Equita

My initial approach would be to TFL to find out what happened to your appeal. I'd also write to the CEO explaining exactly what you have explained here, remind him of their vicarious liability (assuming they instructed the bailiffs) and ask for the bailiffs to be called off.

This is their mistake, not yours. Why should you pay such an astronomical sum?

In terms of Equita, have a read of the bailiff guide under the bailiffs tab and post back with any questions.

[GODALMIGHTY111]

Re: Equita

Thanks labman, i did write to TFL and also tried to phone but was told "in the hands of the baliffs so cant do anything", which in effect means i must pay before they would even consider looking at whether or not they made a mistake ! and if i could get back the money back that i dont owe them in the first place. That kind of logic seems to prevail in public organisations.
When i lived in london i got a council tax notice that they were taking me to court for £0.00 arrears of council tax but had then added court costs to make it £38.00 owed, brilliant scam).
Have read most of baliffs guide but i was thinking in the case that i just cant be arsed with these parasites and dont want to converse with them at all should i deny them access, i have a good way of filming them clearly if they then breach that notice i can hasle them for a change. I also believe that i only need to show that its from the occupier, no name, is that correct ?

Many thanks

[labman]

Re: Equita

Has the matter been to court, and if so, what court did it go to?

[GODALMIGHTY111]

Re: Equita

Hi, the letter states

Delivered by hand
BAILIFF REMOVAL

I HAVE CALLED AT YOUR HOME TODAY TO EXECUTE A WARRANT ISSUED BY
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT.

I AM AUTHORISED BY THE COURT UNDER THE ENFORCEMENT OF ROAD
TRAFFIC DEBTS (CERTIFIED BAILIFFS) REGULATIONS 1993
(AMENDMENTS 2003). TO REMOVE YOUR VEHICLE/HOUSHOLD EFFECTS
TO SATISFY YOUR UNPAID PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE DUE TO
TRANSPORT FOR LONDON CONGESTION CHARGING.

IF YOU FAIL TO CONTACT ME IN THE NEXT 24 HOURS I WILL HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO REATTEND YOUR PROPERTY AT ANY HOUR OF THE DAY OR NIGHT TO IMPOUND YOUR VEHICLE/REMOVE GOODS.

THIS WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL EXTRA COSTS OF AT LEAST £140.00

TO AVOID ANY FURTHER ACTION/BAILIFF COSTS CONTACT MY MOBILE



One was signed and another with a different name was not signed.
The first letter and the notice of intent were unsigned but marked Bailiff Manager


Also i checked the certified bailiffs list and his name is on it but he does not work for Equita.

Cheers

[labman]

Re: Equita

You need to phone the Ministry of Justice and make sure he is certificated to work for Equita legally if you're sure it is Equita bailiffs. Telephone number is in Bailiffs Guide.

You also need to contact the court to find out the exact amount of the fine. It is likely the bailiff may have added unlawful charges already.

Do not let him in.

Meanwhile vigorously pursue TFL for not taking the correct sum and do your damndest to get the bailiffs called entirely. Remind them of their vicarious liability.

[GODALMIGHTY111]

Re: Equita

Hi, thanks again for your reply, but i think i am now of the opinion that the more we the mere sheep keep acknowledging their presence, the more we empower them, if everyone just ignored them they would not exist.
P.S. do you think i should include in my letter to bailiff the fact that some extreeeemly nasty dogs live at this address. Making clear that this is not a threat but a mere warning to be very careful if on my property,:*.*:

Cheers again

[labman]

Re: Equita

I think it's unwise to ignore bailiffs who have a legitimate reason for being at your property. You will end up paying a fortune.

As for the dogs, if they have a legitimate right to enter your property and a domestic pet attacks them, you can be sued.

At the end of the day it's your choice, but personally I think you'd be making the wrong one ignoring them.


CEO for TFL: peterhendy@tfl.gov.uk

Also worth looking at http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/ Poorly designed, but reputedly very good on the law. Cannot vouch for that personally as I'm a good boy! lol

[ploddertom]

Re: Equita

You should ring the TEC at Northampton and find out the address they have on the Warrant, if for an old address you can fill an Out of Time in for submission. If accepted will scrap any Bailiff involvement and charges.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Equita

P.S. do you think i should include in my letter to bailiff the fact that some extreeeemly nasty dogs live at this address. Making clear that this is not a threat but a mere warning to be very careful if on my property,:*.*:

No.

Not only could that needlessly boost the bugger's ego, it could provide him with an excuse to get the plods involved to prevent a breach of the peace.

[GODALMIGHTY111]

Re: Equita

Nah got no dogs really. Just thought it might make him think twice before jumping over the garage.

Labman said "if they have a legitimate right to enter your property and a domestic pet attacks them, you can be sued." and thats the point they do not have any legitimate right to come on my property never mind enter it, after i have served them a notice of understanding and removal of implied right of access. I have no contract with these people. Might get a tiger

cheers all

Read more at: Equita - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Sorry forgot to thank cleverclogs, good point about the rozzas and they have enough to do fighting real crime in this area

[CleverClogs]

Re: Equita

Nah got no dogs really. Just thought it might make him think twice before jumping over the garage.

Even if the bailiff had been born under a red sun, one might doubt he would clear a garage in a single bound.

Labman said "if they have a legitimate right to enter your property and a domestic pet attacks them, you can be sued." and thats the point they do not have any legitimate right to come on my property never mind enter it, after i have served them a notice of understanding and removal of implied right of access. I have no contract with these people. Might get a tiger

A moat stocked with ravenous piranha might be a better idea.

Sorry forgot to thank cleverclogs, good point about the rozzas and they have enough to do fighting real crime in this area

The reason why one should avoid involving the plods is that they know very little about the law and even less about civil law. It has not been unknown for a policeman to insist that a bailiff has a right of entry when he does not, even to the point of threatening to arrest a householder who refused admittance to a bailiff enforcing a CCJ.

[labman]

Re: Equita

Any action on Post #9 yet?

[GODALMIGHTY111]

Re: Equita

Hi yall, no labman, no action yet and i aint expectin none this side of the yearly hols, got another threatning letter so i decided to send them this.........

REMOVAL OF IMPLIED RIGHT OF ACCESS to the Property:
Address……mine……………………………………………………………….

Notice is hereby given that Implied Right of Access to the above named Property
along with all associated properties therein, including, but not limited to, any private
conveyance in respect of the following have been removed and will apply to any
Employee, Agent, Principal, Third Party and/or other Persons.

Exemptions of notice are:
Police Officers acting under ‘Oath of Office’ and/or with a ‘Lawful Warrant’
Royal Mail and postal courier delivery services
Current Utilities providers contracted with the Occupier
Free local newspapers


Any transgression of this notice without express pre-written and signed
consent from the Legal Owner/Occupier may result in a fine of £2,500
for the Person and Corporation separately.

THE LEGAL OWNER/OCCUPIER.

24hr CCTV is in operation.


Might make the twats think Eh.

I always wanted a wireless webcam ever since i saw a robins nest in a clematis bush right next to me mums front window would have been fascinating to have been able to have filmed it, sadly no wirless webcams in those days BUT NOW THER ARE so i treated myself, early xmas present etc. Works a treat, and infra red so brill at night, best thing is you cant see it from outside and people get very wary if they SEE the camera, i'll get much more realistic baliff action if he thinks the "CCTV SURVIELENCE IN OP" sentence in the above letter is just an idle threat.

I'm gonna go all the way with this. Its surely fruadulant in the first place, of TFL to claim i have commited an offence, and then trying to extract moneis from me; nowing; (by listening to thier own tapes of the telephone conversation, and if they havnot done, then thats thier neglegance, not my offence), that they simply cant manage a system proplerly, SIMPLES.

They other thing is, it could just be that they are a corporation who have to show increases in dividend no matter what the tactics, fraud included, with threats, and damanding money with menaces. Its just plain wrong an i aint falling for the continueing process of leeching every penny they can squeeze out of us suckers.

MOST of the population know what is morally right and wrong, but these people work for corporations, and to keep thie jobs (so as not to have the bailifs calling to take away thier ****) they do what they have to, by any means they have to.
But i never did like bullies at school, so i guess me free education wasn't a waste at all.

I was bullied at school, once, i smacked a chair over his head, he didn't do it again.SIMPLES......


Next post could have a link to some video. Or might not release till after court proceedings, i think thier may be a few bile,iffs around commenting daft things around here, still welcome to discuss with all.

Bye now

[GODALMIGHTY111]

Re: Equita

Dunno, ive been to S.A. and i have seen a man clear a garage easy; all residents keep BIG dogs, might have been samplin somthin, but he did it