Jump to content


Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 25/05/18 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    the most imporanat thing about a "no parking or stopping" sign is that it is prohibitive in nature. the only reason a parking co can charge you for anything is because you have entered into a contract with them and then either owe them money as a contractual agreement or as a result of a breach of contract. A sign saying "no parking" or "no stopping" isnt an offer of terms for parking and if you think about it if it was an offer of terms the only way of forming a contract would be to break it so unfair terms anyway. What you have considered so far is part of the whole story from your point of view and if you follow that by explaining as you are how you eneter the land, what you see (or dont) and what happened to your vehicle then you end up withat least 4 reasons as to why no contract was formed and thus broken so you cant owe them money for the same. as said earlier, they know they are on to a hiding to nothing but wont admit they are wrong becasue they will never earn a penny ever again as they would know their demands are just plain fraud and will wait and see what you have to say before chucking the towel in so they dont have to pay you your costs of whipping them in court. At the end of all this you will have a cast iron case for suing them if you have the stamina for a return match as they have obtained and processed your personal data without a reason for doing so. again they will whinge that they thought they were right but they have lost so many cases of this nature (esp at Liverpool airport) such a claim is laughable but again hope that you dont go after them. If you feel like winding them up go and park there agin after the court case and see if they dare issue you a NTK If they dont you will know that they are just chancers and have not a grain of integrity in them.
  2. 3 points
    If you bought insurance you ought to have been given a policy document - that should tell you how to claim. I’m pretty sure that it will be a different process than just writing to customer service. The document might even have a special number to call for advice on how to submit your claim. Do you have this paperwork?
  3. 3 points
    the key thing here is that the first you heard about the unicorn food tax being added was from someone who has nothing to do with anything so even if there was small print about extra collection charges on the signage ( god knows which would be applicable out of the forest of signs they have) then it would be an unfair contract for more than one reason anyway. by the way you owe me £999 for this advice, my terms were available to see on the website ww.imanhonestcrook.con, page 19 bottom paragraph section 16(b) subsection 4(f) so you definitely owe the money as I deemed that you read and understood the terms.
  4. 3 points
    all sites are bound to have teething issues, especially when you upgrade from one platform to another. You cant make all changes on a test forum and transfer over, as the backends could be different, plus people are still making and replying to posts all the time. Believe me, been there and done it, many a time. On multi million pound websites. it may seen straightforward to the layman, but sadly web development is never that straightforward. For this site, its even more compounded as the old webmaster is sadly no longer with us, so any code he made has to be translated and interpreted by the new one, and if its not optimized code it can be very difficult to work through as the slightest change could impact something totally irrelevant.
  5. 3 points
    just type no need to keep hitting quote, it just makes the thread twice as long to scroll through to find you reply. its not for you to prove its not statute barred by for link to do it. if you wanted to be really funny with them , use the address of the grave yard or the cremation parlour that was used!! hope you don't mind the humour but link are thick as 2 short planks, they don't care who pays it, there must be a mug out there somewhere we can fleece.
  6. 2 points
    Here is a link to the DWP online guide to claiming Universal Credit, there are videos explaining the process here. https://www.understandinguniversalcredit.gov.uk/making-a-claim/how-to-claim/
  7. 2 points
    I think the only issue with that is that the site is voluntary run It relies on people helping between their day jobs and to be honest between other things that they have in their lives as well I'm sure things will be updated but it can't be expected to be instant unfortunately
  8. 2 points
    Can't really help I'm afraid. BF thinks I know about cars because of an exchange we had on another thread, but I don't (apart from common sense!) What I would say is: 1. I presume you will want to retain ownership until you've got the judgment paid 2. Then you want to make sure you are no longer the registered keeper. Look on your V5C and it should tell you what to do if the car is returned to trade (I assume this is how this should be interpreted). In any event make sure DVLA know you are no longer the registered keeper. Might be an idea to call them for advice - though I understand they can be hard to get on the 'phone. 3. Not sure how ownership formally transfers eg is documentation needed? Note the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner of the vehicle - in fact the V5C says it is not evidence of ownership. 4. Also not sure about how the insurance works. If you are no longer registered keeper, does that mean you are no longer responsible for insurance? Or do you need to transfer ownership first? You could try asking DVLA about this too. 5. There is a DVLA board on here where you could ask for clarification on these questions. As I say I'm no expert so I wouldn't describe the above as "advice", but it may be a starting point for you. I'm sure other posters are in a better position to give advice you can rely on - don't rely on me!
  9. 2 points
    Cast iron win against these bandits but she would rather pay them more than they are lawfully entitled to claim if they did actually have a claim. Is there an upside to paying? NO there isn't, they have added costs they haven't and wont occur so they make an extra £50 for the white flag waving. If you do nothing no it wont proceed on the papers, a court date will be set and you will be expected to turn up. If she doesn't then they will just invent a load more fake costs and it will cost her another £50-75. Get it into yoru head that everything you do now makes you money and costs them. Even if you lose at court they wont get any more if you turn up as they have limited themselves. They still have to shell out to actually get to a hearing
  10. 2 points
  11. 2 points
    But why do you think that? By insulting them you are showing that you know their "case" is complete pants, that they'd lose in court, that you're not scared of them, that you hold them in contempt and that you'd have no problem doing court. It's people who treat them with respect who they think are the mugs and they're more likely to take to court, hoping the person will be scared of court or think their carp case actually holds water. No guarantees of course, but EB's classics have shut these fleecers up many a time.
  12. 2 points
    I'm not qualified to advise you on what to do with your £10k, but I will say that most advice sites that I've seen recommend that if you have a lump sum available it is in most cases better to use it to pay off your debts than to put it into a savings account simply because most people are paying much higher interest rates on their borrowings than they could get with their savings. And prioritise the debts to pay off so that you pay those with the highest interest rate first (which probably isn't your mortgage). That said, when I was made redundant and able to pay off my mortgage I jumped at it just know that my house was, at last, all mine and if mortgage rates went up it no longer mattered to me! MoneySavingExpert for example: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/pay-off-debts/
  13. 2 points
    Posting as an information share, not something I need help with, as this comes up on CAG from time to time. When I've been an Executor I've received letters from the DWP asking me to repay to DWP any pension etc benefits they paid out after the date the person died. I always assumed the DWP had the legal power to recover that money. Turns out they never did and I could have ignored their requests! [But note this does not apply if the DWP had overpaid benefits before the person died. DWP might be entitled to recover those.] http://paullewismoney.blogspot.com/2019/03/dwp-cannot-enforce-demands-to-repay.html
  14. 2 points
    No. Maybe because I've been driving for many years and know the difference between a tax and a fine or fixed penalty (or even a fee for a course if that is what the OP is offered and he accepts). But let's not allow the thread to degenerate into an unnecessary argument as it won't help the OP one little bit.
  15. 2 points
    understnad this, we like beating private parking co's because the majority of the cases we see here they have no right to demand a penny and they deserve a good thrahing. the big thing is we arent the ones who have to stand up in court and even if you end up with that task it will be only as an advisor to the person who got the demand so if they arent clued up on what is what it doesnt matter how brilliant we or you are they still have to perform. Not all cases where the pwerson refuses to play their game go to court but the parking co's kniow that 85% of any claims they issue will get paid so their lack of success with the other 15% is small beer financially and they would rather lie and bully the others into paying and risk a few losses than to admit they dont actually have a claim against anyone to begin with. Stick with it if the person you are helping wants to continue, if they dont then there is nothing anyone can do to force them. We dont feel like we have had our time wasted, on the contrary it is your time that has been wasted if you decide to give up and the person you are helping still wants to continueand that is why I say read more so you dotn have to keep going back to places to get more information. it may never be needed but better to have it and not need it than need it but not have it.
  16. 2 points
    I agree with "think about it". If you can't get through on the 'phone (which could be said to be a problem in itself) just send a simple and straightforward letter as you have explained here. I think the wording I suggested earlier for a face to face conversation will do as well in a letter as in a conversation. If you have written authorisation from your relative to act on their behalf include a copy, otherwise get written confirmation now and include that. There's no special formula or wording you need to use, just explain your concerns in a non-confrontational way as honeybee suggested. If English is not your first language(?) say so in the letter and apologise if your wording comes across as abrupt - say it's not intentional and you are just looking for an amicable resolution. OK?
  17. 2 points
  18. 2 points
  19. 2 points
    From what I can see without photobucket interfereing with my viewing thre is a yellow sign under the NE parking sign that says "no unauthorised parking, wheel clamping in operation". That is you get out of jail free card for 3 reasons, firstly wheel clamping is illegal so the threat fo such means that anything else they say doesnt count as the contract is void, secondly the statement that no unauthorised parking means that the sigange is prohibitive in nature so not a genuine offer of terms to park and thirdly it creates a confusion as it clearly conflicts with the wording on the blue and white sign above it regardless of the content of their newer sign. so they are stuffed under contract and consumer law. Lookingforinfo has posted as I was writing so those points about the parking also destroy their claim, grace period etc. NE will use Gladdys to try and bully you later but ow you know you have somehting to say to them ( dont use all of the points, just one of them will do) as a response to their threat of court when it comes
  20. 2 points
    This has nothing to do with how empty the carpark was-it is about contracts. You have fallen foul of their alleged contract with motorists by leaving the area ie not using the businesses that surround the car park. You weren't to know but your appeal used the wrong reason. You are not dealing with anything like honest people when you enter most controlled car parks. they are not interested in anything other than to screw as much money out of every motorist they can regardless of the legality. In your case, you appeared to have parked there for around 5 minutes [they would have recorded the exact time of when you entered and left the car park which is obviously not the same length of time that you actually parked there. Under the Code of Practice, motorists are allowed a minimum of ten minutes to find a parking spot, read the parking signage and decide whether they want to stay. If they leave before ten minutes there should be no charge. So had you appealed for that reason, it would be reasonable to assume that they should have cancelled your ticket. That does mean that they should not have contacted the DVLA and have thus breached GDPR so I would advise you that as they have not a leg to stand on just to ignore them for now. They know they would lose in Court but as they think you don't know about the ten minute rule they will continue to send threatening letters. However should they send a letter before claim-an unlikely event in the circumstances, come back to us and we will advise you how to blow them out of the water. It is best not to appeal again since you have already admitted that you were the driver which has lost your protection under POFA. Just accept that you owe them nothing and be happy that their greed outweighs their stupidity.
  21. 2 points
    Orchid Witness statement in opposition to SJ.pdf
  22. 2 points
  23. 2 points
    Please guys can we all stick together. .we have a reason we are here and why i joined this site. I didn't get the outcome I wanted but can we learn from past mistakes and move on. Isn't knowledge power ?? We are here to fight injustice from people making money out of misery not to get out of our debts. Can we put our differences aside..concernedexpat came here for help not to start war ☺
  24. 2 points
    Well, I'm another lady too and I think Mrs O'Frog's advice is sound. And I won't even charge the fictitious £100. lol HB
  25. 2 points
    Ok, this you need to respond to. You state that "the land is not relevant land as far as the POFA goes so there is no keeper liability in this matter so there is no cause for action against me. As docks and harbours governed by it own byelaws these are supreme to any contract you claim to have so there is no contract for the driver to consider that is enforceable. This menas that you accessing and processing of my personal data is unlawful under the GDPR and any court claim mat result in a counterclaim for damages breach of the GDPR as per VCS V Phillip, Liverpool CC dec 2016 "
  26. 2 points
    I don't have specific experience of any sort of permit scheme but I do of taking on a council highways department. It got as far as a court on The Strand in London and I won. To be fair they caved halfway through the second day, as we returned from lunch my counsel was approached by theirs with the magic words 'could I have a moment of your time'. I count it as a win, it cost them a ridiculous amount of money It got that far because stupid little people working for councils honestly believe they can say what they want, do what they want, tell outright lies, go to extraordinary lengths to intimidate the people they are paid to serve. They aren't used to people standing up to them and they get away with it 99.9% of time. As others have said, you need to check your status carefully and then hit them. Get legal advice - not from some small town solicitor but from a big firm. I was lucky, someone pointed me to the right people. Don't be intimidated, don't believe a single word of what you're told by any council employee. They are the equivalent of every miserable call centre monkey you've ever dealt with. The brightest minds aren't attracted to council jobs after all.
  27. 2 points
    Permitbay - I haven't commented so far, as I don't know where you stand. But reading the above I really think you are in the wrong place to get sound advice. If I were you I would get some advice from a qualified lawyer. I don't know the ins and outs of this, except to point out that you cannot legally obstruct the highway, or (I believe) any public right of way.
  28. 2 points
    I think the OP just needs to be reassured here. Never Happen The bailiff does not even have any powers at this point, and after such a time he would have to apply to the court under CPR83, to have a warrant issued, which after 13 years they would be V unlikely to issue.
  29. 2 points
    It was a lot easier to use CAG with the old format. Now when you do New or Unread Posts you only get several posts coming up. If you click on a post to read it, when you are finished and click to go out, it takes you to the top of the page of new posts and you have to scroll down to find the one that you have just viewed. Must a admit I don't personally like the drab colours associated with the pages.
  30. 2 points
    Yes very good news in deed! 5.5 million they raked inlast year.....not bad for a run down filty car park that towers above a derelict shopping centre. One of the only restaurant owners left on the edge ofthe precinct got a 100.00 charge and why? .....because his passenger wheels were touching the white line. BUT on that particular side was the ticket machine so he was not stopping anyone parking there or depriving them of income.....but still got 100.00 from him. Just sickening to see them getting away with it. So glad i stuck with it.
  31. 2 points
    You could simply have a few stickies that contain/collate listed links for certain individual benefits. Going to be a lot of crossover so a simple link to the answer/thread/post and everything is good! It's not (5 banning points awarded by a mod - insert favourite word about sex beginning with f here) rocket science? Although the ing at the end might be stone cold Olympic Ice skating 10! Rightsnet up dated not long ago and did a very good job of it. Here whilst I'm neither here nor there I'd love to see the disability impact study you did of this change????
  32. 2 points
    CMC charges were capped at 20% by law effective July this year https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cmr-special-bulletin-new-fee-cap-measures/cmr-special-bulletin-new-fee-cap-measures
  33. 1 point
    There's every chance you won't be paying them anything. Follow the advice of the guys here and they'll guide you through this. HB
  34. 1 point
    Thank you Andy, does this look a little better? Defence 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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 insofar as I have in the past held a contractual relationship with Barclaycard. I do not recall the precise details or aware of any outstanding balance. I therefore have sought clarification from the claimant by way of a CPR 31.14. Unfortunately the claimant has failed to comply with my request. 3. Paragraph 2 is noted that the debt was legally assigned by Hoist Portfolio Holdings LTD (Ex Barclaycard) to the claimant and notice has been served. The Letter of Assignment was received on the 14th June 2017 but since that date have not received anything requesting or related to the alleged debt until the Letter of Claim dated 24th January 2019 4. Paragraph 3 is noted the claimant states that the defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the agreement. The claimant has failed to comply to my section 78 request and thus remains in default of said request and therefore unable to enforce any alleged agreement . 5.Paragraph 4 is noted the claimant states a default notice has been served upon the defendant pursuant tos.87(1) CCA. I have never received any Default Notice relating to the alleged claim therefore it is denied. 6. On the 08th April 2019 I made a legal request by way of a section 78 request to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to comply with my request and is therefore in default and unable to enforce or request any relief until such time they comply. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (c) Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice Pursuant of sec 87(1) of the CCA1974. (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 and evidence any breach and notice of breach by way of a default notice or notice of sums in arrears 8. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  35. 1 point
    "As vulnerable as they are making out"? Sorry? They would have to be pretty vulnerable indeed to have secure locks in place to prevent them from leaving the premises on their own. Are you now trying to claim they aren't vulnerable? That isn't going to have legs! If they were not that vulnerable it would be abuse in itself to prevent them leaving their home wherever they wanted to. And you need to the careful. Stick to the simple story. Stop elaborating on it. Policies are not written to cover every eventuality. And you know that. On the other hand, if a senior member of staff (and she was senior) with many years experience knows that there is a fault on the door - and she says she did know that- common sense and professional expertise would suggest that she double checked the door since she was the only other person there. Why would she need to be told that? That will be their argument. "Apparently" isn't evidence. They are alleging neglect. That is not the same thing as "a mistake" or "an error". Neglect implies a deliberate act or an ommission that could have been, and should have been, managed properly. Her defence is that it wasn't neglect. Another member of staff came in. The door must not have closed properly after her. There was no reason to assume it wouldn't, but in hindsight something similar happened and was reported in the book. She had evidence of that and can prove it. It must be an intermittent fault. She didn't do anything wrong. As soon as it was reported that the resident had left she went and got her. No embellishments and no excuses. A simple, clear story. Then she can point to her work record, her years of practice without any problems and the fact that she has never done anything wrong and intends to fight for her clean record with every option available to her. Then stop. Don't embellish. Don't threaten. Don't make excuses. You need to understand that the aim here is to get the employer to back down. It doesn't matter what their motivation is, because that's another thing you can't prove. If at all possible you need to avoid having to go to an employment tribunal because she might lose. The odds are stacked against her winning. So you need the employer to find that it was not neglect. At best, an unfortunate incident that must not happen again. At worst, an error of judgement on her part. Because even the latter isn't massively damaging to her. Nobody is daft enough to think such errors don't happen. If the employer can find a solution that saves face for them, they are less likely to pursue this to the n-th degree. And I'm doing my best to get her not sacked here. Which is the scenario none of us want.
  36. 1 point
    Dispute with them over incorrect data held by them so asked for SAR of everything they have. their legal dept bod said "we dont have to supply information that is 2 years old as you couldnt do a SAR until they brought in the GDPR last year". I asked if they had heard about the Data Protection Act and they said yes, we had to protect your data so you cant have it. I have now transferred to another supplier.
  37. 1 point
    prepaid envelope? Stuff one of the pizza menus in it and send it back, the people opening the letters might be hungry. I extremis you can sellotape the envelope to a brick and post it back. I sent a paving slab to Renatherm because they had already taken delivery of 2 bricks and still insisetd on sending out rubbish It is unlikely to eb associated with the bandits at Trace though.
  38. 1 point
  39. 1 point
    I would hate to think of the conditions of his Stamens then.
  40. 1 point
    Can you post up the letter (redact any personal details) of the damages he is claiming for? Did you take any photos of the property when you left? But yes you could counter-sue for not protecting your deposit, I'm sure the penalty is up to 3x your deposit? I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
  41. 1 point
    The poo is now hitting the fan. It's 40 years of the Tory civil war on Europe erupting into one final battle.
  42. 1 point
  43. 1 point
    It's called signed-for now. Worth it so they can't say they didn't receive it. I'll have proof.
  44. 1 point
    as already said, their failure to respond to the CPR can be used against them but you dont wait for it, you can still use that stick later. Your outline defence is fine, no need to add the detail you have suggested, it may tie you to a particular point that isnt that important and thus lead you down a blind alley. Your photo may well completely stuff them later when the lack of breach is expanded upon but is part of only 1 facet of your argument a general point is good at this juncture. Now what Mrs O'Frog has pointed out is that you can rubbish the wording for the claim as for example not saying whether it is for money due as a contractual agreement or for breach of contract, the POC is too vague to show a cause for action against you as it failed to say in what capacity you are being sued etc. again this wont be a magic bulelt but it will usually cause the judge to look at their claim with a jaundiced eye and make them prove every aspect of it, esp if they have employed a solicitor to prosecute it as they should know what is what That will place you at a slight advantage on the day if it gets as far as a hearing.
  45. 1 point
    I've managed to upload my avatar at last by doing what Webby said, but it's gone blurry.
  46. 1 point
    Thanks, I'm getting there. Me and my laptop are probably a lot older than you and have 3 dependants aswell as being taken to court and have always valued CAG. I shall persevere to be able to deal with the technology
  47. 1 point
    By the VERY FACT of you fueling up your representing that you have the means to pay. Just because the garage uses alternative means without getting the police involved means they are paid quicker and YOU have less chance of being charged. Yes it is a criminal offence. It Is not a civil matter if the police get involved.
  48. 1 point
    You are welcome to use any of the photos I have of the lido car park. I often pass the car park as is near my place of work. If you need any additional photos of the car park then please let me know.
  49. 1 point
    Ok I will start the ball rolling and others will add more later as their are many variables involved. The parking companies know their paperwork is flawed and they also know that if they took many more motorists to Court they would block up the Court system and cause a huge outcry so they only take something under 10% of the tickets issued to Court. So if you only have one ticket against you it is often better to keep your head beneath the parapet so your name does not come to the attention of the parking company. Hence the reason we say ignore them most of the time . You understand that when people write to challenge the charge they run the risk of giving away that they were the driver and/ or exhibiting ignorance of the Laws they are citing as well as not being sufficiently robust in their challenges. This leads the PC to think that by rejecting the challenge [which they do 99% of the time] and racking up the pressure that person will pay up. Anther reason that we say "ignore" is because there is still insufficient evidence to ensure the driver will win in Court even though an error has already been identified with their paperwork or signage for example. This is because sadly not all Judges are au fait with the legal complexities of POFA and parking contracts and can be swayed by a lawyer or their own self belief [or ignorance] rather than the evidence before them. If you write to the PC and point out why there is no contract between you too early, they not being too honest will slightly amend their position so it now appears that they are still correct in demanding money from you. On this Forum we always advise never to challenge until the NTK has arrived. And if we then advise to challenge it is often because the keeper has posted up the signage; confirmed there is no planning permission and generally done all the homework asked for by those on the Forum. It may also be that there is history with that particular car park-the Peel Centre Stockport for example-so a strong warning shot was sent so that the PC knew not to go any further with this case. Although the odds are small we have to assume that each thread could end up in Court so we need to find as much ammunition as possible so that even if the defendant doesn't do a good job in getting their points across there will be enough they got right to win anyway. Just having one point against them may not be enough in all cases to win so the more things we can find wrong the better. Moving on to POPLA you do realise that it is not an even playing field. Not all points that would win in Court are taken into account at POPLA and we are finding that there is a seeming lack of impartiality in some of their decisions. And of course you know that appealing to the IPC version [the IAS] is a complete waste of time. In your case with seven tickets care has to be taken. Yes you do have supremacy of contract but they will use a good lawyer if ti goes to Court not their usual run of the mill ones so more work may be needed in your case. That is by no means a comprehensive answer to your question but gives you an idea of the complexities involved. Each thread may contain different problems and the different PCS often require different reactions there is no one solution that fits all problems. But I am pleased that you are reading other threads and hope that I might have cleared up some of your problems rather than making the situation even more unclear than before. I am posting a judgement below which involved a supremacy of contract in a different situation to yours where the original case was heard just using the paper arguments of each without either side being present. The tenant had the courage to appeal the decision and won at the County Court. That Judge gave a very good definition of what parking which PCS should take notice of when issuing tickets for short stays..
  50. 1 point
    Hello Granny I have been fighting the same battle for my sister who likewise is mentally unwell. Had some great success by sending where appropriate medical reports and a covering letter. So far a significant sum has been written off. It is very stressful but keep going
×
×
  • Create New...