Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
  • 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

TnC Parking Enforcement Notice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3819 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

Hi Everyone,

 

I need some advice and confirmation that I should be ignoring a Parking Enforcement Notice which I received from TnC Parking Services on behalf of their client P4 Parking.

 

I live Edinburgh (EH11) and the fight for parking spaces is a daily battle. I'm a musician and after returning home very late one night from work, I parked in the only place available within a two mile radius of my flat. I parked on the street, not in a bay and was not obstructing or impacting access to the car park in anyway. There are just two signs within that area of the car park however nether are on the side of which I parked and none are visible at night due to low lighting. The area in which I parked is used on a daily basis by others and their inconsistencies in who they choose to ticket is somewhat baffling.

 

After reading many posts on here, I have chosen to ignore the two demands they have sent me so far via the personal information they acquired from the DVLA, as there are no trespass laws in Scotland and I believe that only police or council have the right to issue such demands.

 

So my question is, am I right? Should I keep ignoring or do I contact them with my despute?

 

I have no intention of paying this so called 'fine' as I believe it to be unlawful but somehow they've manage to get under my skin and I can't help but worry about it. :frown:

 

Please help put my mind at ease. Many thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Scotland there is no chance of anyone recovering anything from you as there is no such thing as trespass so just ignore any letter that doesnt arrive with a red county court stamp on it. If they are stupid enough to issue a summons then that is easily defeated by demanding "strict proof" of claim by claimant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I spent almost £300 at Homebase in Greenock only to be hit a week later with a Contractural Parking Charge Notice from G24 Ltd. They want £100 from me which will be reduced to £60 if I pay within 14 days. My "crime"? I parked in the Homebase car park for 143 minutes which was 53 minutes over the permitted 90 minutes. I am seething especially as the signage was very poor, I was not aware that there were any restrictions and I do not recall entering into any contract,

I have read various opinions and have decided to ignore this letter. Is this the right thing to do? Has anyone actually been taken to court? Like other people, I just need a bit of reassurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer to your invoice dated the xxxxxx

 

In response, I would ask you to note the following.

The registered keeper/owner of a vehicle is under no obligation whatsoever to provide details of the driver or any other information to a commercial company of no legal status of any description. (Scottish Jurisdiction).

 

In addition, liability for payment could only be determined by a Sherriff under Scottish Civil Law and such demands should not be confused in any way with Penalty Charge Notices issued under the terms of a Road Traffic Order.

 

Furthermore,, where a ticket has been issued under the law of contract to a vehicle which although allowed to park on the land, is in breach of the conditions relating to parking, the driver could argue that the charge being demanded is so high that it amounts to a penalty and is therefore unlawful under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

 

What the regulations state

 

A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated when it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

The previous paragraphs are also supported by the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract

 

Transferral to a debt collection agency and the threat of additional charges is also in my opinion questionable for the following reasons taken from the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance.

 

 

2.6 Paragraph H.

Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for money.

 

2.8 Paragraph A

Sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

2.8 Paragraph J

Requiring an individual to supply information to prove they are not the debtor in question.

 

2.10 Paragraph B

Misleading debtors into believing that they are legally liable to pay collection charges when this is not the case, for example, when there is no contractual provision. .

 

I am also aware that I am under no obligation to engage in any way with debt collection agents.

 

In Conclusion, the contents of this correspondence should not be considered as a letter of appeal, but as total denial of liability..

 

I hope this clearly outlines my position.

 

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I sent a letter denying liability and have now received a "final notice". G24 are now demanding £100 saying that "you (as the registered keeper) are now liable to pay the Parking charge and we have the right to take recovery action against you". If, after 28 days the Parking Charge is not paid they will take further steps to recover the amount owed by forwarding the outstanding amount to a debt recovery agency and additional charges may arise if they have to do so.

 

I have no intentions of paying but just wondered if this would have any affect on my credit rating?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a letter denying liability and have now received a "final notice". G24 are now demanding £100 saying that "you (as the registered keeper) are now liable to pay the Parking charge and we have the right to take recovery action against you". If, after 28 days the Parking Charge is not paid they will take further steps to recover the amount owed by forwarding the outstanding amount to a debt recovery agency and additional charges may arise if they have to do so.

 

I have no intentions of paying but just wondered if this would have any affect on my credit rating?

 

None whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Scotland the PoFA doesnt apply so it is for the company to prove that you were the driver at the time. Did you admit being the driver? if you didnt their claim is dead in the water as without proof of who was driving at the time they cannot even begin to chase the RK of the vehicle, which they appear to be doing so you can claim for harassment by them. As for the rest of the wording of their letter, it is all hot air. Passing it on to a DCA just means that you will get some more letters telling you to pay up and probably adding another £50 to the supposed debt but this is a worthless as the original letters. This again, has no legal basis so no-one is going to take you to court because if you defend any action they may well be in BIG trouble and lose the legal right to pursue anyone for debt in the future via the court process as well as costing them good money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

G24 do not know who was driving the car and I have not given them this information. I have informed them that under Scottish jurisdiction the registered keeper/owner of a vehicle is under no obligation whatsoever to provide details of the driver or any other information to a commercial company of no legal status of any description. So it does appear that they are harassing me as I haven't just rolled over and paid up. Should I write to them again or just ignore?

 

I just wish more people would stand up to these bullies as they are taking advantage of people's fear and/or indifference.

 

Thanks for everyone's support as sometimes it's a bit worrying when you have kept on the straight and narrow all your life and then something like this happens!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to pay for a stamp and continue playing letter tennis then by all means reply but I think that they will cut their losses and leave you alone soon. Sending out pointless drivel costs them money so as long as it doesnt really bother you I would leave them alone and file away all the correspondence in case you do feel like hitting them back at some point if it all gets a bit too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...