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

es parking PCN - central reads secure car park blackpool


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2087 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

having read their terms you cant breach their contract by overstaying,

just not purchasing a ticket in the first place

so anyone going here should pay for an hour and stop all day at no extra cost!

 

in your case they are using the clause about parking wholly within a marked bay and have an illustration of a car that (partially) occpies 2 bays so different to a vehicle parked sticking out of a single bay because the bays are too small to fit a dinky toy.

 

The former has a good reason for being penalised,

they lose money by the thoughtless driver taking up a space that could otherwise be used and charged for.

 

there is no prescribed minimum size for a bay in off street parking in council land so bays can be any size they want them to be

but as there is a standard for bays on public roads then this will be the benchmark and the parking co will have to show at least a plausible reason why theirs are vastly different if they want to have a condition that gives rise to such a claim.

 

If the bay is too small to fit a standard car then the contract demanding you park in such a manner can never be fulfilled so it is an unfair term,

they either wnat you to pay and park or they dont want you there at all,

they cant say park but we are going to clobber you regardless.

 

The bad news is they are too greedy and too thick to consider this sort of thing and their trade association is run by charlatans

so they become emboldened to sue people as they see this racket as a licence to print money rather than a managerial tool for compliance.

In short, they lose but only after a long battle.

 

I also note a sign for Ace security so it makes me wonder whether ES have taken over a site quite recently

if that is the case I would bet that the landowner has them on a short contract having had bad service before.

 

This will make demanding sight of their contract a must if they do try their luck at court.

It also leads to a claim of contradictory signage and you could always claim you thought the other signs were the relevannt ones not the ES ones.

 

They cant say that ist true, just witter on about how brilliant theirs are but it will still leave that doubt

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

thanks ericsbrother

i know i cannot show you which bay i was parked in ,

but if you study the white lines they are approx a foot or so from the wall ,

i didnt park up to the wall as previously caught my front bumper

 

i parked up to the end of the white line ,

 

so by this my car was probably sticking out the back of the bay,

i was also governed by a wall on my drivers side

 

if this should not be on here please delete rossalyn

 

thanks to all again

Link to post
Share on other sites

makes no odds

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

as said,

it really doesnt matter because the spaces are miles smaller than an on road standard space and that will be taken as a comparator.

 

Although there is no law regarding how big off road parking spaces acn be if the painted box is smaller than any car then it cannot be a genuine term to the offer of parking that has been breached.

Link to post
Share on other sites

long time before that happens,

you will get a series of begging letters from powerless dca's first,

then a letter from Gladstones or BW Legal,

the parking worlds last hope.

 

That is the point we suggest responding in forthright terms rather than waiting for a court claim form.

 

If they ignore your reply ( and they do) then you can show they have behaved unreasonably and claim a carrier bag full of costs and you wont even have to pay the 5p for the bag

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

thanks for all your advice

 

i have not received a letter yet ,

perhaps due to the xmas period ,

 

when i do get one shall i open it and reply

 

would it be possible for you to write my reply so i can copy and send ,

it would seem more professional, or shall i just write one myself

 

or should i just not open the letter and ignore making out i have not received it

 

i wish you all a happy and prosperous 2018,

 

i may have to make a trip to blackpools court or can i ask to go to a court local to myself

 

thanks all

Link to post
Share on other sites

stop running ahead of yourself

if you get anything more simply ask here FIRST before doing or NOT doing anything.

 

you seem a little confused or are not reading things carefully enough here....so best to ask eh?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yesterday the 29th of december

 

i received a demand from es parking enforcement for £125

 

the letter obviously got delayed in the xmas post

it was dated 14th december

 

i had 14 days from this date to pay

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw what a shame....

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you didn't have 14 days

their time limits are totally immaterial.

why do you keep thinking you have to pay anyone..anything...?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That will only happen if the idiot PPC takes you to court, and you don't defend it and let them get a default CCJ.

 

The team here will help defeat them.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
:yo::yo: ignore them

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks have i a good case to win also i made another donation yesterday by paypal

 

Thanks! All donations are very gratefully received. We've been reduced to Malted Milk (not) biscuits in the staff canteen at CAG Towers. :lol:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would respond and let them know that their client should have known better than falling for their claptrapa and that they have wasted their money hiring them to write another pointless letter as all partied know that there was no offer of a contract in the first place so cannot possibly be a breach of one and that any court action will be vigourously defended and a full costs recovery order sought along with a counterclaim for the breach of the DPA for obtaining keeper details when there was no cause to do so.

 

Don be polite, they know that their clients are uselass because they have advised them at every step and they are useless themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's best not to do it by email, as it gives them a free way to hassle you. If you write to them (envelope & stamp) they have to spend money to reply to you and/or hassle you further.

 

18pt characters means, write it in big letters. And in crayon might be a good idea as well :lol:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...