Nothing like rubbing salt into the wound Lolerz. At least I couched mine with a bit of humour. But one could say that at least the driver was not outed? A partner or family member could have parked it.

You could add at the end of paragraph 13 "However I am grateful that having parking Eye referred to the Beavis case as it gave me a reason to check it. I realised that though their Lordships agreed that the penalty clause was engaged, it was not regarded as relevant in that case because Parking Eye had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear for new motorists. This is not the case in Llanishen . There can be no legitimate interest involved here since the car park was closed."

That is simply superb. Well done!

You think they read appeals? Can amoebas even read?

To be fair @lookinforinfo they might have actually read an appeal that short instead of just immediately rejecting it.

Just type, no need to quote.

have you got the 5 windscreen tickets still? thread title updated

My word, I completely missed the appeal! Is that all you sent? No wonder they declined it.

If you appeal in the right way [for example not revealing who was driving ] there are some occasions when POPLA may cancel the PCN. With the other mob at the IAS I am not sure they even know how to cancel PCNs. Your appeal did not reveal who was driving -just. That being said and without me trying to be offensive it was among the poorest appeals I have seen. Most motorists at least put up a reason however weak in mitigation. Though here even had you advanced the finest reason to cancel, I fear it would have fallen on deaf ears. However I am assuming that you only appealed one PCN which means that your other PCNs will be thrown o

Unlikely you've messed up completely but you certainly haven't helped yourself. You've got 2 options. 1. Pay their invoice and the matter will go away. 2. Listen to us and fight the PPC. We'd rather you take option 2. The good news is that when people listen to us, take our advice, and fight it, most of the time countrywide don't do court. There was a similar case to yours a few years ago with Countrywide. They did take the driver to court but as they listened to us the case was dismissed TWICE and costs were awarded to the CAGger both times. If you're willing to take option 2. You should simply sit on your

Quote removed in post #3. No need to quote just type. It makes it a mess for people reading on mobile.

NEVER appeal a Private parking invoice. The they have absolutely no reason to uphold the appeal (they lose money) and you lose vital protections under PoFA. You also run the risk of outing yourself as the driver. If you can another PCN from anywhere please come here FIRST before doing anything. Tagging my fellow site colleague @FTMDave to advise further once he's available.

Thread title updated. Your lease takes precedence over any private parking contracts. If your lease states you can park there, you can park there. End of. Don't appeal to the parking company. Can you fill this out please and scan a copy of the PCN?

perhaps this goes some way to answer your question HB? Operation Timber Come clean on secret taxpayer rescue plans for Thames Water, MP demands | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Exclusive: Sarah Olney to press in parliament for details of scheme being drawn up in event of supplier’s collapse

you got conned from day one sadly. and as usual CAB advised you to blindly keep on paying without questioning the validity of the claim. by still paying you have been running the statute barred date to infinity. never ever blindly pay any dca on any debt without questioning it's now enforceable stop paying now stop being a DCA cash cow cabot will never get a copy of the Yes Car agreement from the 1990's Topic moved to the Welcome forum and topic title retitled .

*Tell* them to start the chargeback don't *ask* them.

IMHO failure to properly comply with an SAR is a sep matter that can be enforced in court, but is a matter for later. p'haps worth a mention in your WS if the claim ever gets that far. your defence should be as vague and generic as their POC. not giving anything away.

Frustrating isnt it. He's been IN the bank and theyve asked for all evidence and will decide once speaking to the other end. They already closed the case once because they didnt get all the evidence needed. Had to reopen it! Ill run him through the process tonight, he's more than overwhelmed with information and processes so Im doing it all for him to get things moving Cheers

I think that you need to assert the right – either within 30 days or if you are claiming the six-month right, you need to assert that right. I must say that it troubles me and Frankly it should be obvious and there should be a presumption in favour of the right but it seems that the statute wants you to assert it in some way that makes it clear to the other side that the vehicle is rejected or else that they are being given a single chance to repair it failing which – a rejection. I think this is a controversial area and could cause problems and delays trying to argue it. It's also complicated by the fact that it seems in the

Understood. But you really need to move on this. You should really have contacted the port authority in October, instead of wasting your energy on the very spivs who set up the signs so as to entrap motorists. Not that that was your fault.

Top notch service as always. Thanks Dave and LFI. I'm currently applying a new coat of gloss to my WS based on the suggestions mentioned. I'll post a new draft up shortly for consideration. Thanks CD

New version attached. It takes into consideration their WS. I had stupidly quoted verbatim about the recent persuasive case and had suggested that the vehicle was parked. Have sorted that. A short section added at the end about the Unicorn Food Tax - in fact two different types of feed for the unicorns from PE! I have added LFI's Beavis magic. i was unsure how to properly explain the Beavis case - LFI did it in two lines. Draft Witness Statement-2.pdf

You could also complain to the ICO about their lack of a reply to your claim that your GDPR has been breached. That will take longer to get a response from them than probably from the court

I quoted a recent persuasive case in your No keeper liability section. The unredacted name of the defendant which you can quote is in the PDF here https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/465769-premier-park-euro-car-parts-gatwick-80-crawley-rh10-9pl-no-parking-period-quoted-so-pofa-not-respected/ Their WS is dynamite, especially para 16 where they again hide the consideration & grace periods. However, I'll comment in the morn, tiredness is kicking in here.

then i think, even though you didnt invoke or mention at the time your consumer rights? you were within the 30 days, you can now reject the vehicle. under your consumer rights/laws, vehicle retailers get one chance to rectify a fault, then if the vehicle latterly fails again for the same fault/symptom, it invokes your right to return for a full refund. i'll ping @BankFodder to cross i's and dot t's but i think you are in with a chance here.

Check back tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening. The problem is that although they are going try to get the credit reference agencies to remove the entries, they can't guarantee the time. It's not acceptable and also you don't know who else this data has been shared with.

I think CEL have called your bluff. You now have a choice of - drop the matter - sue for £3500 - sue for an open amount and let the judge decide. If you decide on the third option you will need to do some reading up as I believe these cases are a bit more complicated. You've had conflicting advice from the regulars which is no bad thing as we have very few cases like yours and it's good to weigh up different opinions. It was great that you got rid of the CCJ so quickly from your credit file but on the other hand ironically it makes it more difficult to sue CEL who did right their wrong. I get the impres

As I've just had a 6-hour train journey and needed things to occupy my time, I've had a look through the new bits of the CoP. Of course there's the usual Will & John pretending to improve matters for the motorist before instantly contradicting themselves. However, there are bits that are half decent, and which the PPCs will surely ignore, which we can use in WSs. These are below. Bits in red are new, taken from the government CoP. Bits in blue are new, but not based on the government CoP. Bits in black had always been there, just not noticed properly by me. They have also had to accept the government consideratio

Usually in this situation, the freehold company is dormant. It only exists to hold the freehold title to the property (and be the legal base for the leases). When you buy a share of freehold you buy a share of said company. There's usually an RTM (Right to Manage) or RMC (Resident Management Company) set up that handles the day-to-day running, which may outsource this to a Managing Agent like has been done here. Legally these are separate entities with their own accounting periods and company records etc. Naturally, the PPC will need the contract in the name of the FREEHOLD company, not the management company. I do agree that you