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 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.
  • 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

F1RST Parking windscreen PCN - Royal Holloway University **WON AT POPLA**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1932 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

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Sorry for all the posts today on this. The NTD includes a 14 day discount, but their NTK doesn't. Shouldn't it be offered to both?

 

NTK and NTD have same First Parking address, but both are different to the signage. Also the FOI request has yet another address.

 

Also there is a document on the RH website all about parking. https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/media/2236/traffic-and-car-parking-policymay18final.pdf

 

Section 5.3 says "Charges recovered by the College will be used to supplement the administration/ upkeep of parking facilities and to support sustainable transport initiatives" however the FOI request shows that they don't make any money from them.

 

Page 9 says that you will get a warning before getting a PCN, but they don't seem to be issuing them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no

 

which has registered address? if not the NTK then it isnt a lawful invoice and they cant enforce (wont stop them trying)

 

that is the sort of wooly cobblers they like to spout forth so the student union exec fall in behind it.

Also they write such cobblers because if they didnt claim such nonsense they lose massive tax breaks they get for being a charitable/educational establishment. same with hospitals, all just lies to assuage the public

 

that could make a difference IF it comes to a court claim.

 

Has your other half asked the colege to cancel on those grounds and point out that there will be bad publicity coming their way if the matter gets to court?

From what you intimated earlier it appears not but you really should go after them, they hate to be embarrassed so that is a great weapon- show them up.

 

For example they have an economics and business studies depts, did they bother to ask for expert advice when sanctioning the wording on the signage?

If not why have they allowed a bunch of cavemen to write stuff that makes the look as though they dont know thier arse from their elbow.

 

The truth is the management would never stoop to actually asking an academic anything like this because they look down on the departments as being merely "cost centres" forgetting that it is the depts that bring ALL of the money in ( no students=no money) and they are the financail burden all depts have to bear whether they want to or not.

 

get someone in the relevant dept involved as a college issue.

Edited by dx100uk
space/spell
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only address on the NTK (appears twice) is 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC1N 3AX

The Registered business address is 16 Queen Square, Bristol, BS1 4NT

 

It just so happens I am dealing with another company that is at the same address as 27 Gloucester Street, and I know it is a mail forwarding address and these companies are not based there.

 

We've not spoken with the college just yet about the charge, but I have submitted a FOI request, one of the questions I'm asking is:

 

According to a document found on your website entitled "Traffic and Car Parking Policy" found here: https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/media/2236/traffic-and-car-parking-policymay18final.pdf, Section 5.3 states "Charges recovered by the College will be used to supplement the administration/ upkeep of parking facilities and to support sustainable transport initiatives". Please can you provide me with the total amount of charges that were recovered by the college and how much was used to supplement the administration and upkeep of the parking facilities?

 

We'll see what comes back and will use that against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

look up the reg address of the comapny then rather than wondering aloud what it all menas. If they ahve a written address for service of legal documents it doesnt have to be the company reg address, just a suitable business address. they cnat use somehting random knowing the bailiffs cnat find them there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

look up the reg address of the comapny then rather than wondering aloud what it all menas. If they ahve a written address for service of legal documents it doesnt have to be the company reg address, just a suitable business address. they cnat use somehting random knowing the bailiffs cnat find them there.

 

I did, it's in the post above... I thought you said the NTK has to be the registered address and it isn't. I'm not wondering anything out loud...

Link to post
Share on other sites

who issues the permits, college or parking co?

reason I ask is that someone will ahve a list of vehicle reg numbers to give them a "whitelist" of cars that should be able to park witout interference. you can bet that the college vice chancellor wont get a £100 demand if his permit fell down

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok with registered or business address they must show it somewhere so if correct on the sign then that is OK but if not on sign it must be in NTK. Now business address is an address they occupy and can accept the service of documents at. It cant be a PO box number basically if they get it right once then you are not going to win an argument on that front. Gladstones address is on a golf course but they dotn trade form there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their actual registered address is 16 Queen Square, Bristol, United Kingdom, BS1 4NT according to Companies House today.

 

The sign says their registered office is 20-22 Bedford Row, London

 

The NTK has neither address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

then that is an argument to use if she gest sued, that the creditor has not been properly identified ( or they havent properly identified themselves as the creditor) but I would haver some much stronger arguments to go with as well and you have been advised as to where this lies, ie with the signage and the possible lack of rights to make a contract in the first place. anyone can look at the signs so they should be the emphasis.

 

I asked who issued the PERMITS and you say who issued the tickets which to my mind is different so try again. If FP issue the permits then what is the procedure for applying for one, who has the paperwork, college security? Academic epartment?

 

please try and think ahead a bit and then we wont have to spend time dragging eevry little detail out if you. Get you GF to post instead as she will know how she applied for the permit. Seeing a blank form would be good if it says who to retunrn it to as well as what you ahve to include on the application. i said about a list of vehicles held by parking co or college, this should ahve prompted something in this regard

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Permits were issued by the university. You apply on the Royal Holloway website and then take documents with you on the welcome week. They then sent the permit in the post, we don't have the original letter, but the permit itself does have "First Parking LLP" on it.

 

I found a copy of the "Royal Holloway and New Bedford College Act 1985" here: https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/media/1441/rhbedfordact1985.pdf

 

I believe this is the College Charter? I'm having a read through now but I'm not sure I understand much of it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so have read through the Act and section 4 part 5 says

 

(5) Subject to consultation with the University, the College may enter into any agreement or arrangement on such terms and conditions as the Council thinks fit with any other college or any national or local authority, school, institution, association or other body whatsoever (whether incorporated or not) for co-operating with or assisting or being assisted by such body in any manner and for any purpose which is consistent with the objects of the College and approved by the Council.

 

Well we've just spent the afternoon going through all of their meeting minutes going back to 2009 and there is no mention of car parking or First Parking other than some money being spent on one of the car parks to renovate. They signed the agreement with First Parking LLP in Oct 2014.

 

Looks like they've not followed the Act and didn't get approval from the Council (unless done before 2009). Another FOI request should clear that up. Slight chance that another board has discussed this but the council will still have to agree.

 

Even then, they will need to explain in accordance of the act how it assists them with the objects of the college.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no, that is the union between RH and Bedford College.

You need to go back another 100 years to find the charter. anyways, you have misunderstood the emanding of that clause, that is about joing with another college in the future, not employing Hitler's great nephew to run the car park.

 

The info is in the public domian, stop wasting time and effort on FOI requests, just ask them in plain english where it is in the public domain.

they can refuse to answer a FOI request where the info is already available.

 

All of this is secondary, ther signage etc isnt so put your efforst into what is most productive.

You havent asked the council about planning permission for the signs yet.

 

I was at uni in central London any mention of new signs to the local council would have the residents in the £100m properties have a fit so never would get approval. So you have that plus the historic building listing to consider. Historic England has an absolute bucket load of separate listings of grade 2 or above so get reading and then yu will know where to go to take more piccies to see if there are signs that blot that copybook.

 

Do not tell anyone about what you find out at this stage, your other half hasnt even got as far as receiving a threatogram yet so store up all of this knowledge and evidence. If you can show criminality then there is no contract eevn if you want to be bound by one.

Asking or telling about this may well get the authorities puckering their bum cheeks and phoning HE and asking for retrospective permission and that complcates things

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any other requests to the college go ignored. The people behind the FOI requests are helpful and fast responding.

 

No, not in the future, they already joined. "Since 1985 called Royal Holloway and Bedford New College. Now governed by Royal Holloway and Bedford New College Act 1985" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisations_with_a_British_royal_charter).

 

In terms of the NTK, should we appeal to get a POPLA code, or wait longer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear, what have I misunderstood? They need permission from the Council before engaging in contracts with other entities, and the Council doesn't appear to ever have approved the parking contract.

 

You're very confusing, it was you that brought up the whole thing about the charter, the charters don't seem to be public, I haven't found a single one online and no information of where to find them. I found the act that now governs the college but you say this doesn't apply?

 

You also started saying that I'm wasting my time as this is all secondary buy you brought all this up in the first place. I mentioned previously about getting FOI requests and you agreed with it, but now again you're saying I'm wasting my time?

 

You seem to be trying to one-up everything we're saying or doing. You don't know if I've asked the council if they have planning permission or not, but have assumed we haven't. Are you getting confused between multiple threads?

Edited by dx100uk
quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

no, it is about joining with other educational institutions without having to get another act of parliament. This doesnt apply to hiring a bandit to run the car park.

 

as said you have picked put the wrong thing to help you.

 

What is a waste of time is pursuing anything within that clause, you have to look elsewhere, not that using the Charter is a waste of time.

Also I said that they dont have to answer a FOI request where the information is already in the public domain or has been answered before, not that FOI requests are a waste of time. Know your weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as we knew it would

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

Just keeping log of where this is at. Nothing worse than reading old posts that didn't say the outcome.

 

Finally have a copy of the charter. Uploading it here in case someone else needs in future. I will have a read through it tonight.

BC GB.100.2.7 Bedford College Charter of Incorporation 11 Jan 1909.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...