Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
    • 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.
  • 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

Park Direct UK - Oldchurch, RM7 0FS - underground garage private housing estate


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1899 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

Friends daughter has received a ticket for 'failing to clearly display a valid parking permit'.

 

It is permit controlled parking for an underground car park.

She had the permit on display but feels that it may have been the wrong way up.

 

Do we wait for them to write to her asking who the driver was.

Beth parking ticket_0001.jpg

Beth parking ticket_0002.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, this is serious. James Bond is issuing parking tickets now :lol:

 

Could you have a look at this post please. Copy and paste the relevant part of that, along with your answers, back to this thread :thumb:

 

 

In the mean time, do not contact Park Direct at all. You must wait for them to do all the running as there's a good chance that they'll mess it up at some point, so let them waste their money.

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

1 The date of infringement? 26/07/18

 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] N

 

if you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it,

suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide

 

has there been a response?

please post it up as well, suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

If you haven't appealed yet - ,.........

 

have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] N/A at the moment

what date is on it

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence?

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?]

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances]

 

5 Who is the parking company? Park Direct

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Oldchurch, RM7 0FS - This is an underground garage on a private housing estate

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, interesting.

 

Your friends daughter...

 

Is she a resident?

If so, Owner or tenant?

And what does it say on the deeds/lease/tenancy agreement about parking arrangements.

 

Forget anything else that may have been said since the deeds/lease/tenancy agreement was signed, the only important thing is exactly what that document says about parking.

 

What i'm getting at is if there is allocated parking and your friends daughter was parked in her own space, then she could have been displaying a bubblegum wrapper (or nothing at all) if she wanted to. She'd have "supremacy of contract" and there'll be nothing that Park Direct or anyone else can do to override that.

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

Hi Dragonfly,

She doesn't live there but was visiting friends and they gave her the permit to use (none of them have a car so she uses it a lot). Its quite a new housing estate and there are not enough parking spaces for the properties and the permits go along with the property. Her friends are renting the property and the parking permit comes as part of the rental agreement.

 

I've been there myself when visiting clients and it is a nightmare as there are no visitor parking spaces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Permit or no then, she had the permission of a resident to park in a parking space. Just bear that in mind for now, it will become important later on in the process :thumb:

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

the permit scheme is supposed to be a simple administrative function to manage parking events by non residents however, the parking co's use it as a method of chiselling money out of those who have a right to be there and pay scant regard to the fact that the residents dont have to show permits as it is the parking co's job to know who is allowed.

 

generally these schemes are introduced by the development managing agents, who take a backhander for allowing the bandit to run riot but this means that they have no actual authority to be there. this only becomes apparent when the bandits try their luck at court against a defended claim.

 

also the wording is very precise, failing to clearly display, not failing to display.

I bet the signage offering the contract doesnt have 2 separate clauses in it about the difference.

Edited by dx100uk
Merge /Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

How big was the signage. Could you read the small print easily from the drivers seat of a car?

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say the sigange isnt a contract because it doesnt have a proper address for the person offering you the contract to consider so now what they say in their NTK becomes ultra critical. The scan of the actual ticket is too small to read so having to make certain assumptions of its content.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing in their T&CS to say that the permit had to be facing upward [assuming it was] just that it has to be " fully" displayed in the windscreen whatever that means. As far as I can see they have no reason to issue your daughter with a ticket except from the point of their greed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ticket doesnt create any driver liability as it fails to contain certain key information, as does the signage. that will mena they are chasing the keeper unlawfully as they wont have a good reason to apply for the keeper details. The DVLA will ignore any complaint so when the NTK arrives a complaint to the ICO will be in order, about both the parking co and the DVLA for allowing them to access her details.

 

One day the ICO will act and all of these bandits will have to change their tune

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry for not being in touch earlier, been away for a few days.

 

What is the key information that the ticket requires - not doubting you just trying to get me head round it.

 

Checked with the driver and she claims that she could not read the signs clearly without getting out of the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony3x there are many different reasons for a parking company to be unable to legally recover the invoices that they send out ad nauseam to motorists and keepers. So many that these incompetent retards rarely get it right. They know , but cannot be bothered to amend their mistakes because they make more than enough money from those who pay up anyway.

 

There is no point writing to them just yet as they have not sent the NTK and they are often so riddled with errors that no Judge would even allow their case on the NTK alone. When your friend

does receive the NTK please post it on here with identifiers [name, reg etc] removed to provide more ammunition why their invoice should not be paid.

 

These things are rarely resolved quickly mainly because the parking companies refuse to accept that they have done anything wrong and keep sending out more and more ludicrous demands in the hope that people will eventually pay up. However the people who have the permit may be able to stop matters by complaining to their managing agent that there was a permit being used on the car at the time and it was valid so there is no reason to charge your friend to see if they can get the ticket cancelled.

 

Another way may be to complain to the DVLA that a NTD was issued when there was no reason thus breaching the GDPR. The car was displaying a valid permit which was actually confirmed by the windscreen ticket. Ask the DVLA to watch out for Park Direct 's request [ that would involve the car registration and the keepers address] and refuse to send the keeper details as that may be judged to be aiding and abetting a breach of the DPA since there is no reasonable cause to ask for the keepers address etc. She could also try claiming the right to restrict the actual processing of her data in this instance.

If the DVLA agrees then she will not receive a NTK -case closed

And a complaint to the

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

not a valid NTK as it fails to say who the creditor is.

This means there is no liablity created by this notice so no-one has to pay.

 

I would presume that they took the advice of the world's greatest solicitors, Gladstones, before creating this document, No wonder it is only fit for compost.

 

The proproetors of Gladstones solicitors are Will and John who also own the IPC (International Parking Community, not to be confused with the Independent parking committess a name they used to use but belongs to someone else) Not that they mention this on the NTK, another breach of the POFA. perhaps they are ashamed of themselves and the IPC and so they should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

until/unless she gets a letter of claim

i'd tell her to sit on her hands

 

dx

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Not sure how relevant but checking the address given on the ticket I have noticed it is wrong. There is not a road called 'Oldchurch', this is the area (name of hospital that used to be on the site). The road relating to the postcode is totally different.

 

To add to the above. I have had a good look at the photos on the NTK. Even zoomed in you cannot tell whether or not there is anything on the dashboard as they are too dark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...