Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • 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.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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...