Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 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.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Private Resident vs UKPC. Taking me to court


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2702 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

You'd need to look at the precise wording of the lease, but if there is no mention to the contrary,

I would have thought that anything on the title would be included in the lease,

meaning that you have supremacy or primacy of contract, and they can't touch you for not having a permit.

 

Others with a professional eye (EB et al) may be able to advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my (untrained) eye, that sounds very positive, and may be all you need in terms of a defence. There was a very recent case (last few days) on the Parking Prankster blog relating to claims by a PPC against tenants who have primacy of contract in their lease. Look it up.

 

 

Good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

point covered twice, as an easement and part of the lease.

 

 

No-one can alter these without your consent, not the parking co, nor the managing agents and not even the freeholder.

 

 

the latter can go to court to force a change if one cannot be agreed upon, if it is for the general good but that isnt going to happen just to allow some cowboy to make a few quid at everyone else's expense when the landowner doesnt profit

 

the parking space is part of the flat,

in this matter the parking co has no rights to tell you what to do inside you flat so they have no rights to tell you what you can do with your parking space.

 

I would consider sending them a letter inviting them to discontinue or you will be seeking damages for trespass and harassment as per Davey v UKPC.

 

 

They havent really learned from the past but this short separate letter to them will not only let them know that their costs may not be limited to £50 court fee thrown away but a few thousand and possibility the chance to go to prison for contempt (in reality a fine plus damages) and also you are aware they are serial offending muppets.

 

 

You can also name the managment co in the injunction to force them to stop allowing UKPC onto the site as all of the other parking spaces would be covered in the same terms and they have conspired with UKPC in a way that has allowed them to trespass and harass you.

 

Also see M v UKPC and Dr M v UKPC for other cases where they ahve been told off for being stupid in residentail parking matters. There are loads of others as well, 3 in one day at one court.

 

Another thing,

as they ahve no legal reason for doing so they have obtained your keeper details unlawfully and you can go after them for that as well as a brwach of the DPA.

 

 

Again, the parking prankster has a recent entry on his blog that explains all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing, as they ahve no legal reason for dooing so they have obtained your keeper details unlawfully and you can go after them for that as well as a brwach of the DPA. Again, the parking prankster has a recent entry on his blog that explains all.

 

Thanks for the advice here :)

 

I have sent UKPC a long letter stating the above, along with that once the case has gone through, I will be following up on the above charges. I cant see them backing down for some reason, so im excited to get the outcome of the court case, and follow up with this headshot back at them!

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

bad ideas, the short letter telling them they are in the s*1t would have kept the rest of your powder dry so to speak. Nothing in getting them to discontinue would make any difference to your right to sue them but then you could have done things at your own pace and on your terms. They now have a financial imperative to actually continue as they may think it worth risking a few quid so stop them losing a potentail fortune by hoping the judge may say somethinglike they do have a right to be there but just not in your space.. They then get away with saying sorry and you dont get the injunction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...