Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/06/21 in Posts

  1. The amber list is a complete waste of time. Either quarantine arrivals under supervision or accept they will mix in the community. My neighbour has hosted a teenager from Spain over half term, her daughter's boyfriend. He has visited multiple times in the past year - not a single check.
  2. dump them get your moneyback via your bank and chargeback and go use Giff Gaff. far far cheaper and simpler.
  3. It may be worth exploring what the costs are of changing the name of the claimant. It may turn out that the costs are substantially higher to change the name of a claimant later on but presumably you would be no worse off for finding out as if the costs were prohibitive you simply discontinue the claim and submit a correct one accordingly. Presumably this throws into question the availability and willingness of the new claimant to participate. It used to be that a "McKenzie friend" was unable to speak for the claimant in court however there appears to be increasing latitude towards this. While it may be necessary to bring to the attention of the judge there appears to be reported success of individuals other than the claimant being able to advocate the case as a "lay representative". With regards to point 2. I don't think anyone is claiming a refund under the consumer rights act, this appears to be a stab in the dark at your potential claim unless you specifically mentioned it. I think you would be perfectly entitled to simply refer to the information TV licensing have published on their own website indicating they offer refunds. Was the previously offered refund subject to the condition of completing their form?
  4. Comp Car Insurance covers accidental damage, but of course there will be an excess. Being on private property does not make any difference.
  5. You could ask OFGEM about the issues. Sounds like massive failure to maintain accurate data. Not sure why Octopus think they still have the supply, unless Economy or those responsible failed to update the energy industries central database to register the supply information. Having had a little insight at an energy company reviewing how they operated, when a consumer switches suppliers, the new suppliers update a central industry register ( cannot remember name) to show that Mrs X at the address concerned is now with X energy company. If Economy never changed the information on the central register, then I suspect some scan has been done by Octopus and they believe the supply is still with them, so they must be owed the amount requested. Just trying to apply some logic to the problem and coming up with a possible explanation. The remedy is that if your friend proves the account with Economy was the last supply she registered, OFGEM may tell Octopus to go away and instead ask OVO to invoice your friend for last 12 months supply based on the OVO standard variable rate for estimated usage.
  6. please don't file that embarrassed defence. very old hat esp the bit about re filing later. see about post 66 here VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - No Stopping 47) STOPPING IN A RESTRICTED BUS STOP /STAND Robin Hood Airport Doncaster - Page 3 - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group
  7. Mark R Miller tweeted this earlier, I think it's a great epitaph. A 92 year-old nun died today in a Carmelite Monastery in Illinois. She was kind of an unusual nun. She didn’t sing very well. She was frequently late to her required duties around the convent. She threw sticks for the communal dogs which was not allowed. Also she was my mother.
  8. If this is an initial defence, after AOS, its way too long 3 lines 5 max betts at this stage if you refer back to FTM Dave's response at Post# 6 less is more at this stage Look at No contract was entered intp, as******** How long were they in the carpark, as is a minimum 10 minute Grace period in the Trade Association guidelines Others will have some suggestions also.
  9. The SAR template is on page 3 of the linked thread. We ask people not to post them on the open forum, so you just need to adapt it if it needs that. They won't let you know they'll back down, often they just lapse into silence and hope you'll throw away the paperwork. If it ever gets as far as a court case, they have to write to you first and then there would be court papers. You can't get a CCJ unless - they start a court case - they win it, and they don't win many with people here - and you don't pay what the judge says you owe within 28 days It's a long way from CCJ stage. So keep the paperwork even if it's a pain and probably keep them updated with your address. See what other people here think about the address bit. HB
  10. just send a snotty letter to CST that will update your address also. simply click SAR and get one of those running separately to too ECP
  11. Call the Consultant's secretary, or (if the clinical team has one) ask the ward to put you through to the team's 'Registrar' (or ST, if they are ST3* or above), to: ask what progress is being made (if asked as a question, it is less likely to be seen as a challenge, but will ensure the Clinical team's Consultant has had the matter raised with them). You then still have PALS as a later escalation option. * ST = Speciality Trainee. ST1 and ST2 aren't seen as equivalent to the old 'Registrar' Grade, while ST3 and above are ......
  12. There were actually two elephants in the room-the other being the lack of planning permission. Not having it is something that Parking Eye cannot absolve them selves from since it was in their classic often quoted case that the truth about lack of planning permission was revealed. This next part therefore is a continuation of point 60] that I made in an earlier post. I am referring to Parking Eye v Beavis in the Supreme Court -the one that all parking companies quote ad nauseam. There are times though when the judgement in that case goes against the parking companies and while the lack of planning permission itself did not appear in the case what was mentioned was how necessary it was for all parking companies to adhere to the BPA or IPC Code of Practice. You should say that it was Lord Neuberger in the Supreme Court, meaning that lower Courts had to follow, was 111] " ........And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced." Thus where in their respective Codes parking companies agree to comply with all relevant Laws relating to parking, by not having planning permission, they sacrifice their ability to use the DVLA for the data required to pursue the keeper. The main point that Walli is making should not be about the signs being obviously visible but that they shouldn't be there. Lord Neuberger made it perfectly clear that Parking Eye et al had to comply with the CoP for that was the only reason that they could apply to the DVLA. No wonder Mr Walli is not expecting to attend the hearing. He does not want to be challenged by the Judge over his Delaration of Truth that he signed, knowing full well that VCS have not complied with their CoP. [Sorry I am doing a Walli and repeating myself but I cannot stress too much that if you make a meal of that part that they have failed to get PP I would think that VCS would not dare to take the case to Court.
  13. To add a little more to your WS I have included an article on how to refute the extra £60 charge- a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html 'It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.'' It addresses the elephant in the room [ ie their WS]. They did not mention the £60 penalty charge. You must. They must be aware of that at VCS . Therefore Walli signed that Statement of Truth knowing that the £60 matter had been resolved several years ago.
  14. There are several points on their WS that require your attention which will help strengthen your case. Where there are questions on their WS I will follow their numerology. 9] the driver did not accept the contract by entering the car park. Firstly the sign at the entrance does not lay out the terms of their contract it is just an invitation to treat. Secondly the acceptance of a contract would not be until the driver had paid the required fee or if it is a free car park then the driver can stay for at least ten minutes without having accepted the contract. 11] while there are sufficient signs around the car park, the actual fee claimed for a breach of their terms is written in white on a blue background while the Terms and Conditions are written on a white background with blue writing. This appears to be a separate part of the notice, unrelated to the T&CS. 12] the defendant denies the driver stayed for longer than one hour. 13]the documents on MW2 are incorrect 19]the ANPR cameras are not infallible its success rate varies between 93% and 98% as confirmed here http://nebula.wsimg.com/07f5430a8d1c9bafced3dd1585f678f8?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 26] the claimant admits that the NTK failed to comply with PoFA 2012 [sent out too late] thus they have no claim on the keeper 27] there is nothing in PoFA that requires the keeper to contact the claimant or even advise them who was driving. At no time does the claimant state whether he is pursuing the keeper as the keeper or as the driver. The claimant carries on to say that there are number of ways notwithstanding to pursue the Defendant without actually specifying any. Maybe the Claimant doesn't know any but what cannot be done is to pursue the keeper. 45] the keeper decided that as they were not liable for the debt because there was no keeper liability and because the car had complied with the Terms and conditions there was no requirement to enter into a dialogue knowing that VCS would not cease pursuit. 46] this is a gross breach of PoFA. The Claimant has already stated that they failed to comply with the Act so there is no Keeper liability regardless of whether the Defendant took "appropriate action" or not. The Defendant has scoured PoFA and can find no reference to the Keeper where there is no liability to be then liable for the debt for not taking appropriate action. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the existence of said provision in PoFA. It would seem risking being held in contempt of court that anyone would sign a Statement of Truth after such an outrageous claim. 47] the Keeper under PoFA is only invited by a parking company to provide them with the name of the driver if they were not the driver themselves. There is no compunction upon the keeper to provide the driver's name. This would appear to be a grey area for the Claimant and there is a question of how knowledgeable the Claimant is on the question of Keeper liability. 60] there may be warning signs all over the car park but not one of them has been authorised by the local Council under the Town and Country [advertisements] regulations 2007. This puts them in breach of their agreement with Scottish Widows where they agree to comply with the IPC Code of Conduct 2.42 Be compliant with all necessary legislation. That also means they do not comply with DVLA terms either. So VCS assure all three companies that they are compliant when they are not. Their right to apply for motorists data from the DVLA relies on them being compliant with IPC CoP. So it calls into question their right to even have applied to the DVLA for the Defendants data which would be a breach of GDPR and if the Judge agrees the current fee for breaches is around £750.
  15. Yes incorporate what DX has posted that adds clarity to it, as the PPC cannot unilaterally reduce a time limit agreed in the original planning permission, to a lower time like a ludicrous reduction to say 30 minutes from 3 hours.
  16. + there is no evidence the council stipulated any parking time restriction upon granting the initial planning consent, the normal free parking parking period being 2 or 3 hrs at such retail parks. Nor any evidence from the Council nor the claimant applying or being granted such a variance to only a 1 hrs time period.
  17. Looks a cracking WS to me - which will not only be superb for you personally to stick the boot into Simon, but will stay on the site as as a useful template for others in a similar situation. Either send it tomorrow, and then enjoy your holiday thinking of Simon and Wally-of-the-feather-fame sweating in their office upon its receipt ... ... or send it off when you get back, makes no real difference. Happy Hols!
  18. As there is quite a lot of retweaking going on, and using the version in post 51 as the starting point, I would suggest creating another small section between "Double Dipping" and "Conclusion", to deal with Simon's Unicorn Food Tax. Something like - Double recovery of costs 20. The Claimant in claiming not only £100 for the PCN plus court fee and interest, but a completely invented sum of £60 for which there is no justification. This seems to be a way of attempting to bypass the limit on costs at small claims. 21. In case the Claimant tries to state that this case has somehow created extra unforeseen costs for the company, the fact is that the Claimant's company has a Legal Department as evidenced by its letter to the Defendant of 20 March (Exhibit XXXXX) and the company employs a paralegal as shown in paragraph 1 of the Claimant's WS. Presumably it is the normal daily job of these employees to write legal letters. Hopefully the section will be completely superfluous as the judge will have thrown the case out thanks to your prior points. However, I think it's worth sticking the boot into Simple Simon and Mr Wally too over the Unicorn Food Tax. From some reading up I've done I doubt very much that Simon really does have a Legal Department, but as he lies on his letters and pretends he does then he can pay the price! As you're considering sending it off on Saturday, please post up a revised draft at sometime tomorrow if you can with all the retweaking done. BTW, it's fantastic to read those words "I'm on holiday from this Saturday for a week" from someone again after so long!
  19. gobbly gooke you dont need it 1 to 4 looks like a defence or should have been. you dont need to repeat that in your WS you've already filed it simply start by stating i am the register keeper of the vehicle reg xxxxx
  20. if her credit file was full of defaults and other bad markers when loans were given, then yes an IRL complaint might prove very worthy. 1st port of call is to send them an sar.
  21. I see dodo Harding is still refusing to apologise for, or even acknowledge there were any failings by her or test and trace Apparently all the perceptions of failings were because other peoples 'expectations were to high' I mean, what do you expect for a measly 37 Billion Pounds? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/07/dido-harding-defends-test-and-trace-and-says-expectations-too-high
×
×
  • Create New...