Jump to content

kregrs

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kregrs

  1. I'm not 100% sure at the moment whats happened. Its for our current property, I know TVL paid a visit last year, because some payments had been missed on the TV licence. Obviously been to court, other half says she was unaware it had been to court until she received a letter.

     

    I'll pm you the name of the agent, he genuinely does not show on the register, only on the application list.

  2. We've had a visit from a CDER enforcement agent regarding a TV licence fine/debt.

    Upon checking the register of enforcement agents, the bailiff named on the Warrant of Control, (the same chap who was on our doorstep) is nowhere to be seen. He is, however, showing on the list of applications to register, with a hearing due on 26/04/21. 

     

    So, what can we do?

    I'm guessing if he's not yet certificated he shouldn't be enforcing the warrant?

     

    What's the best way to deal with this. 

  3. 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?

  4. 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 - 

     

  5. 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

     


     

  6. 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 - 


     

  7. 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? 

     

  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. did you file your defence?

     

    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...

  10. 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".

  11. hi here is aerial view and a photo of said entrance the address is Nicholas way

     

    the date of said offence was 8/2/18 the first notice sent to the company which owns the lorry was dated 9/2/18

    they then told preserve who the driver was and we received notice dated 19/2/18

     

    I have already uploaded everything I have received but if you would like me put it on again I can

    will ask him to get photo of signage today if he can and I will add later

     

    I assume they got the companys name off cctv as logos all over it

     

    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.

  12. Name of the Claimant National Car Parks Limited

    claimants Solicitors: BW Legal

     

    Date of issue – 09 August 2018

    1.The claimants claim is for the sum £248.84 being monies due from the defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention which occurred on 28/08/17 in the private car park/land located at Ipswich Tacket Street, Ipswich IP4 1AU, in relation to a vehicle, Seat Alhambra Stylance TDI registration mark XXXXXXX.

    2.The defendant was allowed 28 days from the PCN date to pay the PCN, but failed to do so.

     

    3.Despite demand having been made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

    4. The claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of £0.04 from 28/08/17 to 08/08/18 being an amount of £13.84.

    The claimants claim includes £60.00 costs as set out in the terms and conditions.

     

    Signed BW Legal services Ltd, claimants legal representative.

     

    Will upload copy of POC later

     

    What is the value of the claim?

     

    £248.84

     

    The claim has been issued by BW Legal on behalf of NCP.

  13. Hi.

     

     

    When you have the information to hand, could you supply us with the information requested in the forum sticky please? This will help us to advise you.

     

     

     

    https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465231-Received-a-Court-Claim-From-A-Private-parking-Speculative-invoice-How-To-Deal-With-It-HERE***Updated-Aug-2016***

     

     

    There seems to be a typo where you talk about 28/08/2018. What should that be please?

     

     

     

    HB

     

    Should be 28/08/17!

  14. Where to start?

    Last year I had a PCN from NCP regarding allegedly parking in Tacket Street car park, Ipswich.

    I could have sworn I appealed but on checking my email outbox, it seems the appeal was never sent!

     

    having had a few threatening letters from BW Legal about the matter,

    last week some paperwork from the court came through the door and they (BW Legal) have issued proceedings against me on behalf of NCP.

    It was issued on 09/08/18 and today I have been online and submitted acknowledgement of service.

     

    The question, how do I proceed with this?

    Bearing in mind I failed to appeal to NCP and POPLA.

     

    They are saying on 28/08/17 I committed a parking contravention, no mention of what contravention or the time it was alleged to have taken place.

     

    I had driven in to the car park, dropped off my step daughter and her friend and then returned roughly 30 minutes later to collect them.

    They have ANPR images of my vehicle entering and leaving, but not of leaving the first time or re entering later.

    I dropped them off, returned home quickly then returned to collect them.

     

    I'll try and post copies of the paperwork when I get home.

    The claim is signed by BW Legal as opposed to an individual.

     

    So, best way to proceed with this?

  15. The saga continues! T

    I'm still receiving emails, letters and text messages informing me my payments are overdue, and that I've been charged £15 for a letter telling me I'm in default.

     

    I've spoken to them and they claim it's the 'system' generating the letters and not to worry etc etc.

     

    I've also received their damage appraisal in which they claim there is £1800 of damage to be rectified!

     

    I have disputed this, as I feel a lot of what they have listed falls into fair wear and tear.

     

    They've listed all four wheels as needing repair due to scuffs and corrosion, yet on the auction report for potential buyers the wheels are said to be in reasonable condition.

     

    There are various things they've listed, from needing a valet, through to various scratches, and a headlight (didnt need a headlight when it left here, and at the most it would have needed a bulb, it had a HID kit retrofitted).

     

    Its an 11 year old people carrier and it sounds to me as if they expected the car to be presented in showroom condition.

     

    I'm not sure if Startline are aware the car is being held at an auction site about 20 miles from where I live, so it won't be too much of a problem for me to go and inspect the car if need be.

     

    Hopefully this has worked, both the auction report and Startline's damage appraisal should both have uploaded.

    VendorReport.pdf

    2018-JUN-13$6428110.pdf

×
×
  • Create New...