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 
      • 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

The truth about the number of parking cases lodged by BPA members in the Small Claims court in 2011


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4304 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

Compliments of Nev - a tireless worker for the rights of motorists in the UK

 

 

I have an idea that the BPA at some point claimed that there about 36,000 cases per year? Maybe someone can correct me

Dear All,

 

Please find the attached breakdown of those now infamous 845 private parking cases that were lodged by BPA AOS members in the small claims court for 2011 (England and Wales).

 

For those who are not aware, the BPA have come up with a number of explanations as to why these 845 cases don't appear to match their claimed figures of 36,000 to 90,000

 

1) They first thought that the 845 were only appeals to a circuit judge (no they are not)

 

2) Their members list hundreds of cases on one application (no they don't - that's not how the system works - it's one case one listing)

 

3) They don't include NI and Scotland (true- but they represent only a tiny proportion of the population of the UK)

 

4) It was a best guess and they told the DVLA that, it's the DVLA's fault for using the figures in the Impact Assessment.

 

Regards

 

Nev

 

Data (2).xls

Link to post
Share on other sites

Name of Parking Company Number of claims initiated

ARMTRAC SECURITY SERVICES 28

BALFOUR BEATTY WORKPLACE LIMITED 8

BALFOUR BEATTY WORKPLACE LTD 2

BUSINESS WATCH GUARDING LTD 2

CAR PARK SOLUTIONS 1

COMBINED SOLUTIONS UK LTD T/AS COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS 10

COMBINED SOLUTIONS UK LTD T/AS COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS 8

COUNTY PARKING ENF AGY LTD 22

DEVERE PARKING SERVICE 4

DEVERE PARKING SERVICES 92

DEVERE PARKING SERVICES ( A FIRM) 14

DEVERE PARKING SERVICES (A FIRM) 58

DEVERE PARKING SERVICES LTD 52

DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED 30

EAST KENT HOPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 1

EAST KENT HOPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS FUNDATION TRUST 1

EAST KENT HOSPITAL NHS TRUST 1

EAST KENT HOSPITALS U.NHS.F.T ROSS HOUSE 25

EAST KENT HOSPITALS UNIVERSITY N H S FOUNDATION TRUST 1

EAST KENT HOSPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS 1

EAST KENT HOSPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 14

EAST KENT HOSPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS TRUST 1

EAST KENT HOSPTALS UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 1

EAST KENT UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 1

ELITE MANAGEMENT (MIDLANDS) LI 53A LOWER HALL LANE 8

ELITE MANAGEMENT (MIDLANDS) LI BRADFORD HOUSE 7

ELITE MANAGEMENT LTD 53A LOWER HALL LANE 7

ETHICAL GROUP LTD 1

EURO CAR PARKS LIMITED 7

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES 1

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED 7

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD 10

LEGAL PARKING ENFORCERS(UK)LTD 23

NAPIER PARKING LIMITED 1

NCP LTD 2

NEW GENERATION PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD 2

NEWLYN PLC 7

NORTHERN RAIL LTD 2

OBSERVICES PARKING CONSULTANCY LTD 167

OBSERVICES PARKING CONSULTANCY LTD 56

OCS GROUP UK LTD T/A CANNON C ONSUMABLES NORTHGATE WHIT 7

PARKINGEYE LIMITED 40 EATON AVENUE 5

PARKSHIELD.COM LTD T/A PCPEA 9

PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS 13

RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP LIMITED 1

RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP LTD 1

RISK CONSULTANTS LTD T/A APSECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 1

RISK CONSULTANTS LTD T/A ASPECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 5

RISK CONSULTANTS LTD T/A ASPECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 19

RISK CONSULTANTS LTD T/S ASPECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 1

RISK CONSULTANTS T.AS ASPECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 1

RISK CONSULTANTS T/A ASPECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 1

ROSSENDALES COLLECT LIMITED 1

ROSSENDALES LTD 1

SALISBURY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 2

SECURE CAR PARKS LTD 26

SECURITAS SECURITY PERSONNEL L TD CREDIT CONTROL REGENT BU 2

SECURITAS SECURITY PERSONNEL LIMTED 1

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES 1

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES LI MITED 203-205 LOWER RICHMOND 1

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES LI MITED UNIT 2 REDHALL COURT 1

SUSSEX SECURITY SOLUTONS LTD 34

TOTAL PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD 1

TOTAL PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD SOMERSET HOUSE 4

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES 2

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED 8

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD 7

VINCI PARK CAR PARK SERVICES U PORTSOKEN HOUSE 2

WING PARKING LTD 1

Total 845

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd already done some more work on this and got hold of the email exchanges between the BPA and the DVLA that give the audit trail for the original figures (the emails are redacted courtesy of the DVLA).

 

What is clear from those emails and must not get confused is this.

 

The BPA did not supply the DVLA with a numeric figure, they gave then a percentage return of between 2-5% of all AOS members PCN's taken to the small claims court each year (this is important because of what I will get to in a minute or so).

 

It was the DVLA who took that 2-5% range and converted it into a numeric range of being between 36,000 and 90,000. The DVLA did this on the basis that they reckoned on 1.8 million BPA AOS PCN's per year.

 

OK park that there for a minute.

 

Lets go back to the email exchanges, when the BPA gave the 2-5% figure, they also claimed that they believed that their members were issuing 4 million PCNs per year

 

This means that the BPA were (in effect) at that time feeding the DVLA a numeric range of between 80,000 to 200,000 cases in the small claims court each year!

 

The email subject boxes are marked as "AOS Operator Survey Results" - this was not therefore a 'best guess' nor anecdotal evidence informally provided to the Dft. This was information that was passed to the DVLA under the email heading of 'AOS Operator Survey Results'

 

Furthermore, this was information repeatedly asked for by the DVLA to (quote) 'satisfy the economists'

 

It is this 'smoking gun' email sent by Steve Clark (Cc'd to Patrick Troy and Kelvin Reynolds) which contained the crucial 2-5% response for the DVLA and the claim of 4 million tickets

 

That means that 'they' (all three of them were party to the email) were trying to convince the DVLA that their members were taking between 80,000 and 200,000 motorists to court each year!!

 

Now I know that the DVLA challenged them over the 4 million figure which was eventually haggled down to 1.8 million but surely to God the alarm bells should have gone off in the DVLA with the huge disparity and the retraction, when pushed, from 4 million to 1.8 million.

Edited by Nev Met
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only speculate on that. The true figures would not have supported the argument for RK liability and secondly, if you read the actual Impact Assessment that the DVLA wrote I don't think the BPA could have done a better job themselves at making the arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...