![](https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/uploads/set_resources_3/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_pattern.png)
RyanB96
Registered UsersChange your profile picture
-
Posts
117 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation
7 NeutralRecent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
-
@jk2054 I’ll draft one up shortly. On another note, I requested £220 compensation as per 261. Ryanair offered £213.xx (€250 converted to GBP) as opposed to £220 under U.K. law. I requested the full £220 which they declined and refused to budge. Am I correctly within my rights to request the full £220? I didn’t particularly care over the £6-7 but given this delay and the effort of writing and LoC, if I am within my rights, then I may aswell add it in! thanks!
-
RyanB96 started following Ryanair are delaying paying out the compensation for a delayed flight
-
Hi, I had a delayed flight back in March. The flight was delayed for well over 5 hours and I submitted my flight compensation claim and food voucher claim. I had emails confirming that ryanair would indeed pay the compensation within 10 days. I chased up after 10 days, and was told 21 days not 10 days. I chased up on Thursday last week as the 21 days was drawing near. Today (day 21) I received an email saying it would take 4-6 weeks further to process the payment due to high volumes. What do I do? Can I do anything? It takes 2 minutes to process a BACS transfer, not 21 days and certainly not 21+6 weeks = 9 weeks!! Thank you
-
Hi all, I have just received this email from the county court as a response to me sending the WS to them: If I understand this correctly, UKPC / DCB Legal cancelled the claim, and its done and dusted? Given the WS letter was received 22 Dec (Friday), 23/24 (weekend), 25/26 (Bank Holiday), 27/28/29 (Working days), 30/31 (weekend), 1 (Bank Holiday) ... Presumably, the Judge giving only 3 working days to compile the WS and even then, they were over the Christmas period meant that they did not have enough time to do their own WS, so backed off?
-
Hi Dave, thank you so much - that definitely reads nicer than mine!! You are right about the figure being £70. The only thing I can see not in there is about referring to the council generally being 3 hours instead of 1.5 hours, but I'm not sure if that is worth adding, or how I might structure that professionally - do you think that would be worth adding in? I'm still working on the friends, but one I know is away and won't have time to ring the bank, the other hasnt come back to me yet.
-
Hi all, I've collated the above comments into the below, taking your improved version too Dave. Notes: Removed: 4. The claimant has failed to show a cause for action by NOT supplying documents requested in a CPR 31.14 request for documents and state that you think the claim should be summarily dismissed under CPR 16.4(4) (Unsure if this applies, they responded to the request with pictures of signs, copy of PCN, but no contract between UKPC & McDonalds or planning permission for signage) No need for this para, you make those arguments later on 10.X Conclusion points. I did get confused with the PoFA regarding driver vs keeper liable, and how to structure that, comments in colour below
-
Something I haven't included, but that I do have, is transaction IDs: 3 purchases: - 09:34:32 - 09:35:14 - 10:10:57 I know my two friends also bought more food later on, and just before we left, but I'm not sure I could persuade them to dig deep enough to get those transaction ID timestamps. Are these useful at all?
-
Hi I have been reading up the past couple of days on WS's and found some useful threads. I am very much a math-guy, and writing, understanding this stuff is not my strong suit, but here is my first draft (note, I have taken many bits from other witness statements I have seen too, I think they make sense to include) It seems usually by the time of writing the WS, I should have already received the WS from DCB Legal? I have not received this. I know a few people previously have messaged inboxes due to embarrassment posting these, but what the hell! Please advise your thoughts and rip me as needed. Witness Statement of XXXXX Introduction 1. I, XXXXX am the Defendant in this claim. I represent myself as a in-person, with no formal legal training. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 2. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle: XXXXXX 3. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence section supplied in this bundle referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. 4. The claimant has failed to show a cause for action by NOT supplying documents requested in a CPR 31.14 request for documents and state that you think the claim should be summarily dismissed under CPR 16.4(4) (Unsure if this applies, they responded to the request with pictures of signs, copy of PCN, but no contract between UKPC & McDonalds or planning permission for signage) 5. Background Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on 22nd April 2022 (Exhibit 1) following the vehicle being parked at McDonalds - Wakefield 2 - 569, WF2 9BY on 17th April 2022 which is 5 days after the contravention. The car park in question was almost empty and being used for the sole purpose of purchasing McDonalds goods. We overstayed as two friends were not feeling well, so continued to stay in McDonalds until they felt better, frequently purchasing McDonalds goods. (Is it worth adding the personal touch here, or deleting everything after "contravention"?) 6. Contract 6.1. No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives UK Parking Control Ltd a right to bring claims in their own name, no contract has been produced after my CPR request (Exhibit 2). A picture of a sign (Exhibit 3) stating they are acting on behalf of McDonalds is not the same as producing a contract. Definition of “Relevant contract” From PoFA 2[1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is- (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to Companies Act 2006, Section 44. ( Companies Act 2006 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK An Act to reform company law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to companies; to make other provision relating to companies and other forms of business organisation; to make... 6.2 The PCN document sent by DCB Legal following the defendants CPR request, clearly states the arrival time of the vehicle, and the departure time of the vehicle. It does not take into account relative delays of the McDonalds site e.g. drive thru, parking, deliveries, traffic. The defendant puts it to the claimant a request for strict proof the car was specifically parked for longer than the allowed duration. 7. Illegal Conduct - No Contract Formed 7.1. At the time of writing the claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself, and has provided no Witness Statement with evidence. 7.2 The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is McDonalds) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Claimant has produced no Witness Statement. 7.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc. under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved. (In another thread, this was "Town and Country Planning Act 1990 -> Is 2007 the correct one (I referred 2007 in my CPR31.14) 7.4 Due to the failure to produce the documents in the 14-day duration following my CPR 31.14 Request dated 31/03/2023, I do not believe the claimant possesses these documents 8. Unfair PCN 8.1. The PCN provided as part of the claim does not establish the duration in which the defendant was parked, only the arrival time of entering the site, and the departure time. 8.2 The PCN provided as part of the claim does not establish clearly, and explicitly, what the defendant was being charged for. It is titled "Parking" Charge, and refers to staying for longer than duration allowed, this is confusing. This de facto removes any chance for the defendant to appeal as there is no clear, explicit explanation for the charge. 8.3 The Claimant did not respect PAPLOC and never sent me a Letter Before Claim. 8.4 It is unreasonable to delay litigation for so long to claim over a year additional in interest. 8.5 I did not see the signage at the time, and was not aware of any parking restrictions on the McDonalds car park. The car park was being used as per its proper purpose. 8.6 The Claimant has not provided evidence the signage was in place at the time of the infringement. 9. Double Recovery: 9.1. As well as the original £100 parking charge and £85 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £82.24 9.2. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”. Which in this case is £100. 9.3 The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100. Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off". 9.4. Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery. 9.5. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court V Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (...) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.” 9.6. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating “It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a addi8onal sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. 9.7. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14. 9.8. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4). 9.9. The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA AND THE CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused. 10. In Conclusion 10.1 I believe the claimant has become use to intimidation tactics and has gotten greedy. I believe the truth of the manor is the claimant has used bullying tactics successfully for too long and is therefore assured that innocent drivers will fall into the trap of paying rather than going through the hours it takes to defend themselves. In the process, wasting the time of the Court, the time of the Defendant and everyone else who has advised the Defendant, out of sheer decency to help have a fair hearing and see justice delivered. 10.2 I am in disbelief that I am being heard in this court, defending myself nearly 2 years after receiving a charge through my door. I have had to spend weeks' worth of my life studying the letter of the law in order to defend myself from this ridiculous attempt at a swindle. 10.3 I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Should I mention anything relating to bullying tactics, using multiple brands to threaten, using key words like "Bailiff" to cause intimidation etc.? Should I mention that even after my initial request to not use email, they responded to my 31.14 request by email anyway (I then requested, again, and wrote to them a second time to not use email - note they have not emailed since)? Is there anything immediately obvious to add / remove? How does it look overall? Do I need to insert any sections of any further relevant law? Should I mention anything specifically related to this point from my defence: 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The "Evidence" Exhibits 1. The PCN letter 2. My CPR 31.14 Request Letter to DCB Legal 3. The Picture of the signage they sent in response to 31.14 Should I add any more?
-
Hi Andy, I was on the phone (or trying) - as you sent this. Finally, I have spoken to someone, who said the reason it was not attached is because the hearing date has not been decided yet, the notice of hearing not issued and she apologises for the confusing wording in the notification of allocation to small claims track. I am away in January; she provided me with an email and stated I should email in letting them know I wouldn't be able to attend a hearing in January if that was the day decided, I have done just that too. @FTMDave Indeed. I haven't started it yet, because I didn't want to get bogged down in research and effort on it, then it be struck out if the hearing fee wasn't paid anyway, or forget all of my research on the matter come the time of the hearing if they are months apart. There still seems to be a question mark over whether the hearing fee has been paid given the notification of allocation to small track Step 6 mentions "The claimant must pay the hearing fee" - suggests it has not yet been done? Now that things seem to be moving, I will spend some time on the WS ASAP Thank you both, and happy holidays!!
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
The Consumer Action Group
×
- Create New...
IPS spam blocked by CleanTalk.