Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

kregrs

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    539
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

About kregrs

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've been seeing a lot of ads lately on facebook recently for reclaiming secret commissions from secured loans and mortgages, guessing it's the next big thing after PPI? Anyway, it got me thinking, between 2002 and 2005, I mortgaged, and remortgaged with 3 companies, and had a smaller secured loan with Welcome, is it worth me looking into reclaiming, or am I out of time? The mortgages were for £25k, £60k and £80k, and the Welcome loan was £2.5k, if it makes any difference?
  2. I've juggled my ws around, but cant see that I can refer to their lack of t&c's having now seen there is a sign bearing the terms at the entrance of the car park, so have left that out, and it's not much longer than the original. In the county court at Ipswich Claim number - Claimant National Car Parks Limited -vs- Defendant 1) I, , of am the defendant in this claim. The facts in this statement come from my own knowledge. 2) I make this statement in readiness for the hearing listed for the 23rd May 2019 at 10.00 and in support of my defence. 3) On the 28th August 2017 at approximately 12:55 my vehicle did enter Tacket Street car park to drop off two passengers, leaving the car park within a few minutes of entering. It then returned at approximately 13:25 to collect the same two passengers, and again left within a few minutes of arriving. Neither event was a parking event, and each time the vehicle had left within the ten minute grace period recommended by the BPA. Document DA1 is a copy of the BPA guidelines. 4) I believe that I have been victim to a circumstance referred to as double dipping, where ANPR technology fails to record the entry or exit of a vehicle. As members of the BPA, the claimant would be aware of this issue, as the BPA provide guidelines to their members regarding this situation. Document DA2 is a copy of a document relating to ANPR performance, and shows that systems may only be accurate to 90 – 94%, and as low as 60%. In order for double dipping to take place, the ANPR camera would fail to record an image of the registration plate on entry or exit, this could be due to the vehicle entering or exiting too close to the vehicle in front, or a pedestrian walking between the vehicle and the camera and obscuring the registration plate. The camera would be unable to read the registration and would therefore not record the event. 5) In paragraph 28 of the claimants statement, the claimant has stated that my vehicle left the car park at 17:31, but has provided no evidence to back up this claim, this is also a contradiction of the timings given on the ANPR images. 6) Page twenty seven of the claimants documents show an image taken from an ANPR camera, and an enhanced image of the vehicle registration plate. There appears to be a disparity between the two images, the angle of the enhanced image does not match the angle of the registration plate in the full image. 7) Page twenty eight of the claimants documents shows an image from the ANPR camera of the rear of the vehicle, again the enhanced image does not appear to match the full image, showing a white registration plate, therefore a front registration plate. It also does not match the image on page twenty seven, and appears to have been taken from another image. I believe that the facts contained in this witness statement are true. Signed – Dated -
  3. Having been down and taken photos of the signs, it seems I was wrong and there are two signs with the terms and conditions, and they're the full t&c's. All I can say is I have never noticed them before, there is one on each entrance, although the signs do look to be fairly new, no damage, marks or weathering on them, same with the posts, very new looking galvanised sign posts. Interestingly, in their pack of photos, there isnt a picture of the sign with the full t&c's on https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Acc7ba12a-e709-4e0a-811b-7a8a097eccca
  4. Witness statement In the county court at Ipswich Claim number - Claimant National Car Parks Limited -vs- Defendant 1) I, *****, am the defendant in this claim. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 2) I make this statement in readiness for the hearing listed for the 23rd May 2019 at 10.00 and in support of my defence. 3) On the 28th August 2017 the claimant alleges that my vehicle was parked in a car park operated by themselves, and that the vehicle was parked with out payment of the parking charge. While the vehicle did enter the car park, it was to set down two passengers, before leaving the car park immediately afterwards, and returning approximately thirty minutes later to collect the same two passengers. 4) I believe that I have been victim to a circumstance referred to as double dipping, where ANPR technology fails to record the entry or exit of a vehicle. As members of the BPA, the claimant would be aware of this issue, as the BPA provide guidelines to their members regarding this situation. Document DA1 is a copy of a document relating to ANPR performance, and shows that systems may only be accurate to 90 – 94%, and as low as 60%. In order for double dipping to take place, the ANPR camera would fail to record an image of the registration plate on entry or exit, this could be due to the vehicle entering or exiting too close to the vehicle in front, or a pedestrian walking in front of the vehicle and obscuring the registration plate. The camera would be unable to read the registration and would therefore not record the event. 5) In paragraph 28 of the claimants statement, the claimant has stated that my vehicle left the car park at 17:31, but has provided no evidence to back up this claim. 6) Document DA2 shows pictures of the signs placed around the Tacket Street car park. As can be seen from the photographs, the terms and conditions shown are significantly less than those that the claimant is relying on in their claim. Under s62 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015 that is unfair. In short, I would not and cannot be bound to something that I had not been given the opportunity at the time to consider. 7) I believe that the facts contained in this witness statement are true. Signed – Dated -
  5. Do I reference their mistake in my ws? Or is it a matter left until the day?
  6. Will be writing statement today, so will upload as soon as it is done, will also go and take shots of the signage in the car park, do I need pics of every sign? What should I make of her mistake with the timing? Where she has stated that I left the car park at 17??, I can prove I was elsewhere at that time, some 4 miles away from the car park. Do I ask them to provide the complete ANPR logs?
  7. Not sure if this will work, having issues uploading pdf from phone.... https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Addc228f0-52fb-47aa-bed0-a1786596ecb5
  8. Ok, so an update. I have been a bit busy with work etc, but the date for court is 23/05/19, and as such I have received from BW their witness statement. Stupid question time, do I need to do the same and send them a witness statement? They are relying heavily on the ANPR data, and claiming there was no fault with the cameras and have provided ANPR logs for the day. They have also provided the full t&c's, nearly 3 pages, strangely too much too fit on a sign, but again something they are relying on. Also, there is a mistake in the witness statement regarding times, one of the times quoted is quite a long way out, although the timings on the camera stills are correct. Copies of all correspondence from BW are also in there, but not copies of the letters received recently, especially the pay up demands from the last few months. And lastly, they're saying my defence is without merit!
  9. There was a something at the top telling me I needed to flag the topic to admin in order to be able to reply.
  10. Defence was filed, direction questionnaire received and returned as well. In the mean time I've had 2 letters from BW, one is an offer to settle out of court for a reduced sum, as they believe my defence is unlikely to succeed, so assuming that's scare tactics. The other seems to be a fishing exercise, and apart from explaining their clients contractual rights, they're asking me to prove the vehicle did in fact leave the car park and return later. They've requested I send them this info by 09/10/18, postmark on the letter is 24/10/18...
  11. Little update, I've still to file my defence, this will be done over the weekend as the 33 days ends on Tuesday. I've had a reply from BW regarding cpr request. They've supplied copies of notices from NCP, and it seems I did lodge an appeal with NCP which they of course refused. They haven't provided anything regarding planning permission for the signs and have refused to let me see a contract. Their words being that "I am not obliged sight of the contract and their client will not provide me with a copy".
  12. The one where Proserve gave up would have been about October 2014, and the one where I bounced it back to the haulier would have been around April/May 2015.
  13. Sorry to drag up an old post, but being a regular at Felixstowe docks and surrounding area I thought I might be able to add some details. The pic is of an entrance to either Pentalvers or ACS container yard, and Mr Duff and his merry band of men regularly park their van there. Both container yards (Pentalvers has 2, one on Nicholas Road and the other on Fagbury Road) often struggle with the volume of vehicles using the yards, queues build quite quickly and Proserve seem to manage the queues, sending vehicles to wait elsewhere and giving them a timeslot to return. I myself have fallen prey to Proserve in the past, and they must use some form of obtaining details, the occasions I fell victim to them I was driving an unmarked (plain) lorry with no details of the haulier visible! On the 2 occasions that I received a parking notice, I managed to not pay and didn't get anywhere near a courtroom. One haulier caved in and paid after I refused to, and the other one I argued the toss with Proserves 'legal representative' (ahem) via email to the point he stopped replying... As for vehicles being banned from the docks over a Proserve ticket, there has been one haulier banned in the past, but I think that was overturned quite quickly. How they'd ban an individual driver, the only way I can think of would be to cancel their RHiDEs card, but as they're issued and dealt with by Port Police I can't see how they'd go about it.
×
×
  • Create New...