Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Rogue company Parking Control Management


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4129 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Patrick Troy, chief executive of the BPA, said that a member of staff would be visiting PCM to check that it was complying with the code. He said the BPA preferred to work with member companies and give them the chance to change their practices rather than fining or expelling them.

 

It's a pity the BPA members don't prefer to apply a similar approach to people alledgedly misusing a car park instead of fining or expelling them (banning them returning) for these apparent misdemenours! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr King said that motorists ticketed or clamped on private land should have the same right of appeal to an independent body as drivers who were fined for parking offences on public roads.

 

King's missing the point entirely. How can there be an appeals process? It would mean overturning centuries of contract law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr King's organisation is an insurance company-sponsored former 'motoring' organisation with no members. That said, it is interesting that they are only commenting on those situations where you are a victim of extortion - you don't get YOUR property back unless you pay money to the people who took your vehicle.

 

Since clamping in Scotland was outlawed on the basis of it 'depriving the car owner of the full enjoyment of his purchase', this has the added benefit of stopping firms lifting vehicles from private property, as the same situation occurs. This just leaves Scottish drivers with the prospect of private tickets, and we all know how to deal with those. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

hi there, I dont know if this threads a wee bit old now but I am about to have a legal tussle with these lot!

 

Funny though because PCM ltd went under a few years ago and miraculously PCM UK Ltd appeared. The latter has also now in liquidation but still trading in the same manner.

 

Coincidence or just a jinxed company name maybe?

 

They will be my little warm up court case before i tackle far bigger banks ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell me how you know they have gone under? I ask as their website has now gone down and I'm trying to pursue them for a fine settlement. Cheers:grin:

 

Companies house website contain details of insolvent companies and those in a Company Voluntary Arrangement, but be totally sure you look for the correct company. Often a company goes under with big debts then reopens under a near identical name and carries on again:mad: Also the insolvency service might have a record too.

 

Just for the record:

Parking control management limited is insolvent and shouldnt be trading at all.

Parking control management uk limited is in a CVA and still trading

 

pcm-uk.co.uk is live but empty, but they are hiding their address which is a breach of the law i believe (but dont ask me which one off the top of my head)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Aha, Lamma thats the one.

 

Interestingly its an offence to make the company address invisble like this punishable by a level 3 fine.

 

Im sure they have been trading for at least a couple of years so the fact the website is still under construction suggests they have committed the offence under S7(2)© for years on end :eek:

 

Curiously under S9 they must reveal their address if you write to them.... err but to what address does one write to?!?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pity the BPA members don't prefer to apply a similar approach to people alledgedly misusing a car park instead of fining or expelling them (banning them returning) for these apparent misdemenours! :D

 

In short BPAs business model is licencing out their logo. nothing more.

 

Intrisically voluntary 'regulators' cant work because they cant punish their 'customers' who pay to licence their logo who would just threaten un-join their membership. They are also often set up by industry insiders to pretend legitimacy to their conduct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They did have a fully functioning website a few weeks back which made them look like an A1 firm. ISO badges, BPA logos, plus others. Does anyone know when they entered a CVA?

 

I cant remember off the top of my head, but it may be a year or so ago- companies house website Im sure says if you hunt around. The firm overseeing their CVA is the same firm who was the administrator of the predecessor company would you believe.

 

Looking at the BPA website I do wonder what the link between the two are as it maybe more than just association and member relationship....but who knows for now :rolleyes:

 

Has anyone ever corresponding with PCM UK and how did they respond?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I got nowhere with them, and now that they're in a CVA there does not seem much point taking them to the small claims court, chances of a refund, nill...

 

Never use private car parks, lesson learnt! especially those operated by this firm, although they'll probably be changing their name again at some point soon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

This company behave like hooligans, I have seen them clamping aggressively in the past, now clamping is being outlawed their revenue is diminished and they are under financial pressure.

I hope Mr Ian Cordingley has to find employment in a proper job

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...