Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • 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
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • 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 xx/xx/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 xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/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.
  • 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 Parking


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2200 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

Hi,

 

First I apologise if this thread is posted in the wrong forum; I'm not really sure where or who to ask.

 

I was just wondering if a Company with designated parking spaces, sharing the same land as residents with designated numbered parking spaces (flats), with the parking lot separated from a public road with a barrier and keyfob system, constitutes as private land.

 

If so, would it be possible to keep a SORN vehicle in a parking bay designated for the Company I work for?

 

I plan on keeping my car at work after SORNing the vehicle. Obviously I won't if it's illegal. SORN instructions say to keep it on private land. If the parking bay is classed as private land, I should be okay, right?

 

Additionally, am I still allowed to enter the SORN vehicle with a key (obviously to unlock it and gain entry) provided I never turn the engine on or move the vehicle on public land?

 

Any thoughts?

 

Thanks in advance :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't really a matter for the private parking forum. I think 'General Motoring Issues' would be better suited, so I'll move the thread there.

 

-

 

I'd say that you'd be fine as long as you have the landowners or leaseholders permission, so your company saying it's OK would be fine, but they may not be too impressed with loosing a parking space, but that's up to them.

 

So, it'd be perfectly legal to do.

 

You can enter the car, start it, drive it around or do anything else you want with it as long as it's on private land, you'd not be breaking any laws or rules as long as it doesn't go outside of the barriers.

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

This thread really should be in DVLA regarding SORN.

 

Whilst Dragonfly is mostly correct, there are other aspects that you should be aware with vehicles on private land.

 

In addition to the SORN aspect, whilst it is restricted by keyfob/barrier acess, if there is a footpath going across the land, it could be that under the Road Traffic Act 1988 it can be deemed land to which the public have free access, so section 143 regarding third party insurance applies.

 

Likewise Section 4 creates the offence of driving or in charge whilst under the influence of drink or drugs on a road or public place.

 

I am sure that you would not consider doing this, but it would be up to you to ensure the 'no public access' aspect.

Edited by Gick
spelling correction

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I see, I 'm sorry, I wasn't really sure where to write my post :(

 

There is a footpath leading up to the barrier and keyfob scanner, and there is also access on foot through the brushes, however the footpath only leads upto the paved car parking lot. By that I mean there is no footpath cutting through the parking lot, only up to it. This, I imagine, is for the residents living in the apartments next to the Company building.

 

Of course I wouldn't drive under the influence of drink or drugs. I never even drink or take drugs anyway, plus that's a stupid thing to do xD

 

I'll double check with my CEO; I'm assuming he'd know for sure if it's private land.

 

Thanks for the help! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been discussed here before and the key thing to be aware of is that the law about when a vehicle must be taxed is different from when a vehicle must be insured. The requirement to tax is more limited than the requirement to insure.

 

The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 section 29 2(B) says vehicles do not need to be taxed " if the vehicle is being neither used nor kept on a public road", and then in section 62 defines public road for the purposes of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 as "“public road”— in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, means a road which is repairable at the public expense.". So a SORN'd vehicle in a private car park should be OK (as long as it's taxed when you drive it to the car park of course!).

 

Insurance is dealt with in the Road Traffic Act 1988 s143 and says that a vehicle must be insured if it is "on a road [defined as: 'any highway and any other road to which the public has access'] or other public place ... ". What counts as a "road to which the public has access" or a "public place" depends on the facts of each case but if in practice people do walk through the car park then it's safest to assume that insurance is required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...