Jump to content

DragonFly1967

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    2,225
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by DragonFly1967

  1. Just a quick update for this. I've had a letter from LowLife parking this morning "rejecting my appeal" (yeah, you know, the one I never made) apparently, I'm "out of time". Who knew At the bottom of the letter it quite clearly states: "Registered Office: Ranger House, Queens Road, Barnet, EN5 4DJ". The only problem with that is that their registered office address changed to 10 Flask Walk. London. NW3 1HE on 25th April 2019. I can feel a complaint to Companies House coming on
  2. Just to keep the thread updated. This is what got sent to DCB Legal in the end, and, just for peace of mind and to be able to prove to a Judge that they did receive it, it was sent as 'signed for' which they did this morning. Have it! Dear DCBL/DCB Legal et al. Thank you for your “LETTER OF CLAIM” dated 12th June. Rather unfortunately for you, I was not born yesterday. Therefore, please pay very close attention to the rest of this letter and do your own research into the matters raised herein before taking any further steps. I strongly recommend that you consult with your client and ask them for the full details of the vehicle mentioned in your LOC. I’d be tempted to ask them for everything they have as they’re quite clearly not giving you all of the information that you’re going to need should you wish to continue. Of the 20 Highview references mentioned above, should you wish to bring a claim, as you’re the legal experts (allegedly) you should already be aware that 16 of them are fatally flawed. I’m not going to give you any information as to why as I’m quite sure that you’ll be able to figure it out for yourselves before you waste any more of your own time, and more likely, your clients’ money. Suffice to say that I had imagined that knowing the full facts of a case, before sending out a Letter of Claim would be the most basic of prerequisites. I’m sure that your Law Professor(s) would be very disappointed in your lack of even simple understanding of the law. “Must Try Harder” will be, I’m sure, a familiar phrase to you. Unless you’ve had the tea boy write to me by mistake? As the County Courts work on a balance of probability basis, and as 16 of the 20 are fatally flawed, I think it would be fair to assume that the remaining 4 tickets are also defective in some way even if there had been a contract formed between your client and either the driver or myself as keeper. Which I can assure you is not the case. Once you have read, acted upon and understood the above, if you and/or your client wish to go on and waste Court time by proceeding to issue a claim, then I shall look forward to meeting your representative(s) on the day. I would suggest that you have them “bring a toothbrush” (see VCS vs IBBOTSON (1SE09849) for details). District Judges do rather tend to take a very dim view of being lied to and having their time wasted. I can’t imagine why. I think that probably your best (and cheapest) course of action would be to write to me one final time to notify me that all matters have been dropped by yourselves and/or the claimant and to apologise for wasting my time. As your client has no doubt instructed you in this matter, I shall also be making a formal written complaint to the British Parking Association for your clients breach(es) of the BPA CoP for AOS members. I dare say that your client will be hearing from their trade association in due course. I will also be writing the DVLA to raise matters with them for your clients breach of KADOE via the EDI. lil ole me Recorded Keeper of the vehicle at the time. CC: Highview Parking. ...................... Not that the letter two matters will make the slightest bit of difference of course. One must be realistic after all
  3. The letter is written correctly, it's just the contents of it. I'm just going to let them waste as much of their time and money as I can, so I don't want to give them too many clues. If they work it out before they spend any more money it won't be anywhere near as much fun
  4. Well, I thought it best to be a little bit restrained as, in the unlikely event that this goes anywhere near a court, I'd be happy to produce that, rather than one containing all of the rude words that I can think of and several more than I'd have to Google Their LOC is laughable really (for reasons that I won't go in to on a public forum (you never know who's reading it)) but if they do decide to take this to court, they are going to loose, spectacularly!
  5. Oh, I will be responding. I know I have to, (CYA and all that ), but I most certainly won't be using the reply form that they seem to be insisting that I use. Cheeky swines! I'm really just wondering how savage to be, do I keep it businesslike or go full on, give them both barrels and tear them a new one?
  6. Well, finally, after almost 4½ YEARS of PCN's from LowView Parking, and countless letters from them, DR-, SCS Law and DCBL I have finally received a 'Letter of Claim' from "DCB Legal" (well, someone is getting ideas above their station!) Maybe I'll finally get my all expenses paid day out at Bristol Justice Centre I have until 12th July to respond to their 'Letter of Claim' according to them. I'm just wondering in how many different ways I can tell them to go and take a very long walk off of a short pier and that if they think they've got a snowball in hell's chance, to bring their A game to court with them. Their claiming that I owe (Highview, via them of course) £3,000 and that I must complete their 'reply form'. I've got some really bad news for them
  7. As far as civil law goes, I'm fairly sure it's pretty consistent throughout the UK, with a few minor "tweaks" for the Scots I don't think that civil law in the North of Ireland is that much different to the mainland. So yes, they would be operating under UK civil justice laws & rules. What they most certainly don't have is the POFA, so again, it's a shame that you've appealed this and more or less confirmed that you were the driver as there was no way that they could have come after you as the keeper. But, regardless of any of that, you've still most certainly got the benefit of supremacy, so if they want to be silly and waste lots of their own money trying to beat you at court, I'd let them carry on, just for the craic. They're going to lose if they try Go down the supremacy of contract route with POPLOL and as soon as PEA see your appeal, they're likely to fold as they're well aware of what will happen further down the line if they don't.
  8. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?488566-Parking-Eye-Mayflower-terminal-short-stay-car-park-**-PE-Folded-at-POPLA-**
  9. They didn't want to contest it because they realised that you were better informed than they'd hoped. Well done I'll update your thread title.
  10. I've redacted it for you If you're going back tomorrow, you could end up with a nice collection of these. Although, you'll have to go some to beat me As of 150618.pdf
  11. Well, yes and no. It can be important to 'go through the motions'. Excel (with the aid of their pet solicitors) are serial litigators, even though 99% of the time they don't stand a cat in hells chance of actually winning a defended claim, and certainly not one that's well defended. As for Lots more than Excel will ever admit to They'll claim that they have a miraculous success rate. But 99.9% of those successes will be default judgements. Just have a search of this forum and the Parking Pranksters blog It'll be important for us to see exactly what you've received so that we can pick holes in it. Excel don't tend to use the correct wording on their NtK's that would make a keeper liable in any event. Regardless of what they might've put in their silly rejection letter.
  12. There's a 0.1% chance of a successful appeal with the IAS, read up on other Excel threads and you'll see why. However, that doesn't mean that a) you owe them any money and b) they'll be getting a single penny out of you. As well as the forum sticky in post #2. Can you also scan (or take a picture of) anything that you've received from Excel (redact anything that can identify you, ticket numbers, bar & QR codes) and the exact wording of the appeal that was rejected by Excel.
  13. Good news about the ticket(s) at home then, although you'll need to stay on the case to make sure that they do actually get cancelled.
  14. The surgeon is wrong I'm afraid. They certainly can take you to court (anyone can take anyone to small claims court), but the question remains whether or not they will.
  15. Moved to Bailiffs - Help with Dealing with Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents including HCEO
  16. Give it a couple of days and then check with the court that they've been notified as well. It wouldn't be the first time that these shysters (much like Gladrags) have told the defendant(s) that the claim is discontinued only to never inform the court of the same and then the case is decided on the papers in the defendants absence (while they believe that there is no case) and they get a default judgement. A complete abuse of the system of course, but if they did it and got caught, they'd just claim it as an "administrative error" and get away with it.
  17. I'm still going through this at the moment, but here is a link to the Wiltshire Planning portal and the original planning application. https://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/Search/DSA,737606 On the original plans, 51 car parking spaces were applied for and granted. No time limit was ever asked for and was never imposed as part of the permission! I can't find any application(s) or grant of permission(s) to vary that. And this is without going in to any permissions that they probably haven't got for their signage and ANPR cameras. Game, Set & Match I reckon Best to keep this information under your hat for now, it'd be useful if these clowns ever decided to try and take you (or someone else) to court, but not a great deal of use as far as an appeal to Brittania and/or POPLOL. But at least you now know that their claim for your vehicle overstaying their self imposed 2 hour time limit are completely groundless.
  18. Make sure you point that out to the Judge, especially if your vehicle was not parked on the bit that is leased to Excel Oh, and something else in case it hasn't already been mentioned elsewhere in the thread... Any debt collection costs that they're trying to claim for should be dismissed from the claim. The POFA (make sure you take a copy) does not allow for any additional costs to be passed on to the keeper.
  19. I've redacted that document properly for you No need for measurements, just get some good photos of the signs including their surroundings so that we can see them in context.
  20. Shame you've already appealed. I'd be interested in hearing their grounds for requesting keeper information beyond a single letter saying "Pretty please, tell us who the driver was... Oh, go on... Pleeeeeease". As for "Supremacy of contract". What does your HA Tenancy agreement have to say about parking at the property? Forget what your landlord is called this week for now. What was written in to the tenancy agreement that you've signed is the important bit.
  21. Oh dear, they seem to have gone all shy. Perhaps they will come back with an answer in another 4 years
  22. GSV Link (closest I could get) https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4861275,0.245761,3a,15y,248.51h,86.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAXcaT6RaikczpCcflgW5KA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en Not quite sure how on earth anyone is supposed to read that signage from a moving vehicle (at any speed).
  23. Can you have a look at this thread please. Copy and paste the relevant bits of that (along with your answers) to this thread so that we can see all the details. Also, scan, redact and upload your NtK to the thread so that we can see what Euro Car Prats have inevitably got wrong. Do nothing else (no appeal etc) until we've had a look at everything and give you some advice
×
×
  • Create New...