Jump to content

fuzzel

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'll have a look through the threads, but there is no such thing as an imaginary contract. You can't contract without your knowledge, it's not possible. By definition a contract requires agreement between the parties. It's going to be pretty black and white, other than technicalities like planning for signs, cameras and poles etc. The court either doesn't believe people when they say they didn't see the signs, or they don't. I can't legally have entered into a contract without my knowledge. It's not possible. That's why parking tickets are so hard to enforce. I could have seen the signs but disagreed with the terms and there would be no contract - I'd be parking there outwith any contract with farmfoods or PE. If I produce witnesses which would be my family to say that none of us saw the signs and therefore I could not possibly have entered a contract, there can be no liability under contract law. Period. Whether there is liability under some other area of the law like delict or trespass is another matter. There's no delict here though because they suffered no loss, and suing for damages under trespass is a complex procedure and they wouldn't be able to recover more than would be a reasonable charge for use of the land which, for a car park that was free to customers, would be negligible. I'm in absolutely no doubt that I'd win if it went to court, but I don't want to be attending court during another covid wave, or the hassle involved in preparing a defence, travelling the 35 miles to court etc. That's why I was keen to know how often they raise proceedings in these cases.
  2. I'm not sure I understand, what law governs the situation then if not contract or delict? Ie what then is the legal position and where do I have it wrong? My empty car park was just an example of how there can be no delictual liability. Contract law seems to be the only potential legal basis of their claim. It was a no charge car park you see, free for customers of farmfoods. I just didn't know that and parked in it because it was adjacent to the leisure centre I was going to and couldn't see an alternative car park. Yes I won't go off on my own with anything. How often do they proceed to court and, if they do, can they obtain CCJ without me being notified? eg through a summary process that doesn't require notification of the defendant?
  3. In reparation in Scotland and England, my understanding is that if you're a private entity you can only have a right of claim again another party in these circumstances under either contract, quasi contract, delict or quasi delict, so you either have to have breached a contract with the party pursuing you or you've done something wrong against them for which you are a) liable to them for damages and b) have cause them to injury, suffering, financial loss etc. contract cases (which this would be) the court has to decide whether there was a contract and, if so, was it breached. In delict, they have to decide, on the balance of probabilities whether the pursuer says happened has happened, they are liable and, if so, whether and how much loss the pursuer has suffered as a result. There's no delict here as the car park was empty and I've not prevented eg customers shopping at farmfoods by blocking an entrance, costing them a day's takings. The only issue is whether I saw and agreed to their terms and conditions when I parked there. Road signs are different, because they are governed by legislation which presume you have or ought to have seen the signs, so it's a different burden of proof compared to contractual issues. So here, the court would have to believe that I read PE's sign (I didn't and there's no evidence saying I did) and accepted their terms. That's my understanding of it, although I'm more familiar with Scots law than English. They are very similar when it comes to contract law though. My main concern is whether the court grants these clowns CCJ in my absence, without notification, as often happens with eg council tax cases. I'm not sure how the court setup operates in England, I know it's different from scotland. Re the car park, I'm 30 miles away, it's an hour away but I'm likely to be in the area again next week so I could get pics then. I think the original PCN was sent to the finance company, if they've sent it to me then I will have binned it as I always do with private parking charges (and before it occurred to me that, this one being in England, I should have held onto it and reconsidered). I think I probably gave away that I was the driver in the appeal message/email I sent them.
  4. Thanks, I live in Scotland and normally ignore these things, but because it occurred in England I thought I'd best deal with it. I stupidly thought they'd see sense when I appealed and explained I hadn't seen the signs and hadn't parked there for Farmfoods. Should have known better. For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture] (must be received within 14 days from the Incident) Please answer the following questions. 1 Date of the infringement 3/4/22 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 7/4/22 - it was issued to my car finance company who forwarded it to me. [scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please do not put JPG Picture files into your post 3 Date received not sure, less than a week after I parked there 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] N 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? 2 pictures, one showing the front of my car with timestamp, the other showing the back of my car with timestamp. 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] It was an online appeal via the Psrking Eye website iirc. Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Y - they just said the appeal was rejected. 7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Farmfoods, Berwick-upon-tweed For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. POPLA and BSA There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, please check HERE If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here - "notice of debt recovery" from dbcl pdf24_images_merged-1.pdf
  5. Hi Guys, I have a standard parking eye but with particular personal circumstances that might merit just paying the £145, depending on your advice. On 4th April 2022 we went to the new leisure centre in Berwick-upon-tweed. We don't live in the area and it was our first time since the new centre had been built, so we weren't aware of the parking situation. The old car park was gone, so we parked in the car park immediately next to it, just outside Farm foods. We didn't see any signs and the car park was empty aside from one other vehicle. When we came out, ours was the only car in the car park. I then received the parking charge notice from Parking Eye, along with pics of our car and the signage at the entrance to the car park (again, we didn't see it). I appealed and also sent them an email explaining that we didn't see any of their signage and assumed the car park was for both farmfoods and the leisure centre we were attending. I explained that since we did not see the sign we could not have entered into a contract with farmfoods or parking eye and therefore could not be held liable for any breach of their terms and conditions, therefore they have no contractual right of recovery against me. I refused to pay the charge and said they'd just have to take me to court, where I would defend the claim and seek expenses. So contractually, they have no right of claim because there was no contractual agreement, and there's no delictual liability because they've suffered no losses as a result of me parking there. So legally, I'm confident that if it went to court I would easily defeat a claim because they have no evidence that I read their signage and agreed to the terms therein, and no evidence of any losses they've suffered as a result of my actions. That's before considering any technical rules they may have broken in pursuing the charge What I'm wondering is whether it's worth defending in a practical sense, even though the law is on my side, because I've had some significant issues with long covid for the past 13 months plus a recent reinfection that has set me back a bit. Basically I'd rather not have to attend a busy court during what is the start of another wave of covid infections, or have the to and fro hassle of dealing with a court claim for the sake of £145. BUT, I also don't want to give in to these predatory scumbags and do exactly what so many people do and just give in to them for an easy life. For me, it might end up cutting off my nose to spite my face because I could do to be focussing on my health right now and not running on the treadmill of debt collection again. (I was there 4 years ago and you guys were incredible in helping me resolve it). All that being the case. 1. How likely are they to lodge a claim in court? 2. Are they likely to obtain a CCJ without my knowledge and without me having an opportunity to defend myself and if so, is there we I can intervene to prevent that? I don't want any credit report issues as we're looking to get a mortgage in the next few years. 3. What would you do in my shoes, in light of the above, to balance not being taken for a mug with not engaging these clowns for hours of my time to save £145? Thanks in advance.
  6. Hi dx, I just received this yesterday actually, I forgot to post it last night.... Good morning ********, I am assisting ****************** with this case. Please find attached decision form from the Court granting decree of absolvitor on a no expenses basis. I trust that this concludes matters. Kind regards There was an issue with the first interlocutor in that it only granted dismissal, so Shoosmiths had to recall the decree and get a new one. Thanks again for all your help. Obviously, I'm delighted with the outcome but I've learned a lot aswell. Got my expenses cheque here too
  7. I had thought expenses were limited to £300 based on posts ( I think) in the thread but it seems it's limited to 10% of the amount sued for/awarded in claims above £3000 from what I'm reading. Anyway I've agreed to £300 on the basis that decree will be for no expenses and have confirmed that to the court, and on the basis that Cabot send a cheque for £300 within 21 days. They didn't want a decree for expenses against them, hence agreeing to payment out with the court process.
  8. Cabot/Shoosmiths have agreed to Absolvitor with expenses in my favour. Thanks so much for all your help with it guys, and especially dx. I really appreciate everything you guys are doing on the site to help people. I'll donate half the expenses to CAG as a thank you and to reflect all the work that dx has put into helping me with the case. Cheers
  9. Sadly it is. Hopefully we'll be less financialised after the next global financial crisis. Next year if not before is my bet.
  10. Yeah its so sad that people don't end up on sites like this where they can realise that and not be exploited. Don't get me wrong, i messed up and got myself into a lot of debt when i was younger and I'm not saying I'm not accountable. But even with defaults i paid back way more than i ever borrowed and let's not forget that under the current fiat-based monetary system, the money banks lend is created out of thin air and borrowed into existence at zero cost to them anyway! Even if you think that's fair, which i don't, it certainly can't be fair for these parasites to come along decades later and pretend to own a debt that you now owe to them, scaring people into making payments. If the people on this site were to collectively aporoach the FSA, the press and their politicians with what's really going on in this industry, there would be even more outcry and investigation than we have seen to date, particular in relation to certain claimants like cabot abusing the legal system and the low max expenses of the simple procedure with spurious claims they know they can't substantiate, or don't even bother to check they can substantiate It's a disgrace. cost to the tax payer of processing these eventually-abandoned claims must be huge
  11. HI dx, The claimant has lodged a motion to abandon the action could I ask you to delete post 157 or at least remove the line that mentions the name of the solicitor at Shoosmiths. I meant to remove the name of the solicitor in the email I posted up from Shoos but having spoken to the solicitor today he asked me to remove it from this website on the basis that it's defamatory because I referred to him as "a muppet". I'm not worried about that because i don't think it is defamatory since the comment would have to be false for that to apply. One could easily argue that since the action has been raised spuriously and before any evidence of a legal basis for claim has even been found (and eventually could not be found) and then subsequently abandoned the day before a proof, my comments have some merit. Nonetheless, it wasn't my intention to attack anyone personally. I was talking to the solicitor on the recommendation of the sheriff clerk. I told them I wanted absolvitor with expenses and not a dismissal and they said that they'd look into what options I have procedurally and get back to me, but meantime I should contact shoosmiths and explain my position. I did that and explained that given the hoops I have required to jump through in this case to try and get to the bottom of what the claim is about, not least because the principal agent refused to attend court even when instructed by the sheriff, that I wanted absolvitor to be sure the matter could not be rehashed and brought again. I explained that I was considering approaching the FSA on the basis that they are in breach of current guidelines which advise companies not to bring cases which they know are timebarred, as appears to be the case here, (and also on the basis that they are raising spurious cases on a speculative basis). He is taking his clients instructions and will get back to me on Monday as he couldn't reach them today and is out of the office on Monday. He advised there appears to have been a consolidated loan for which the client has been unable to obtain the required documentation, hence the abandonment. Obviously that's something they should have clarified before raising an action and certainly before now. In the meantime, the proof won't go ahead and the claimant's solicitor has advised the court to hold off on delaying with their abandonment motion until he has taken instructions on abandonment with expenses of £300 in my favour. The court advised that if the claimant is not agreeable to that I can lodge an incidental motion to have a hearing on the case in order to argue for absolvitor. I need to wait until Monday to confirm whether that will be necessary. If they decide to raise any further actions in relation to any matter, regardless of the merits, then it would be my intention to involve the FSA and any other relevant bodies to look closely at this claimant, these solicitors and their practices, which amount to nothing more than abuse of legal process, safe in the knowledge that expenses are minimal at £300 in even a case abandoned at the 11th hour. There is now way I am going through this again without taking them to task on their practices to the fullest extent and their behaviour in this case and others on this site would support that.
×
×
  • Create New...