Jump to content

lookinforinfo

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    5,734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

lookinforinfo last won the day on July 30

lookinforinfo had the most liked content!

Reputation

2,329 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

3,317 profile views
  1. As their NTK is not compliant if you are the keeper you are not liable to pay their speculative invoice. And while the driver may be liable it their name is not divulged then they cannot be pursued. That doesn't mean that they won't still pursue you. Could you please show us what you said in your appeal and perhaps we can nip your case in the bud or should they go to court you could earn a fair amount of compensation.
  2. I have looked at your WS and you make some very good points with just a couple of things that would be better moved around. Under your Sequence of Events at 4.4 you move on to relevant contracts which needs a sector on its own. Also you should make the point that as the Privacy Note was obviously a Note To Driver, the PCN should not have been sent within 14 days but after 28 days. This was an underhand attempt to thwart PoFA by bringing forward the liability for payment but means instead that they issued an NTK which cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Then move on to Relevant Contract which you have already quoted the PoFA guidelines. include that there are two property companies included both of which therefore should have signed the deed. In addition the two property companies and VCS should have been signed by directors and their names and position identified. The deed also required that the signatures be witnessed and named and should not include any director that had already signed the deed. Furthermore neither property company appears to be the actual land owner. Strict proof is needed as to who is the landowner and also the link that allows the other two companies to sign on behalf of the land owner. So VCS have no Locus Standi until the landowner is provided and the connection with the two property companies is proved. Under PoFA their needs to be a contract between the land owner and VCS which governs the behaviour of the motorist. Without that deed, there is no contract with the defendant. As an aside you may have seen on the boundary map that Headford property described themselves as the "lawful Occupier". This does not necessarily mean that they are the land owners they can be tenants just as easily. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/lawful-occupier I would be inclined to take that definition with you but not include it in your list of documents. You have already covered points 5 and 6 so there is no need to repeat. And no need to include Bye laws since there are none. 7] You can delete all of this as you did that now on 4.6 or 4.7 and there is no need to include Excel. They have no signage in the car park and the Privacy Notice doubles up as a notice from excel and vcs but you will notice that only vcs is ticked on the privacy notice. And remove 7.1 as well. 8] you do not know that the first PCN came from excel. I suspect that the mixup on the Privacy Notice caused you to think that and as you threw away that PCN you are on a sticky wicket accusing them. On 4.6 you can include that VCS do not have planning permission for their signage and cctv cameras which is a legal requirement under Town and Country {advertisements] Regulations 2007. Without that permission they do not have the right to erect signs nor install cameras which puts them in breach of their COP where you can include Lord Neuberger's thoughts on the right to use the DVLA when they are not compliant even with their COP never mind the Law. When their WS arrives please post it up so that we can see where they have gone wrong and correct it so the Judge is not misdirected. By the way, I have seen the VCS contract but not the original PCN. If you have it could you please post it up as there may be other ways in which it does not comply with PoFA.
  3. It is a shame that you did not contact the hotel straight away to have their speculative invoice cancelled. Even now it may not be too late to try since the hotel may well agree that the car was allowed to be there.
  4. Did you ever think that maybe they were embarrassed at only having to pay you such a small amount despite all the pressure they had put on you? So they are giving you a second bite at the cherrry to recoup your other claims for time spent on research etc. No neither did I. You just to have to take their supreme idiocy and greed into account.
  5. That is good news for you. Well done for taking the advice of FTMDave and writing a good letter yet agin to Marriott Hotels albeit to someone higher up their food chain. I am sure that PE is not so happy. From your first appeal they were probably already starting to spend the £170 they were looking to make out of you.
  6. l'm Abigale and l'll be looking after your case for you. My goal is to help you get a fair outcome and avoid couri action but I see you failed to pay following my previous letter. I wanted to remind you of the case analysis I completed for you. Results of your case analysis: amount owed f170.00 / ls there clear evidence of a breach of the contract? Yes / Are you liable for this charge? Yes / ls the Parking Operator a member of an Accredited Trade Association? Yes / Does the Parking Operator comply with relevant legislation? Yes / Does the parking site have clear signage relating to charges? Yes / Have we completed a full trace of your contact details? Yes / Has the original discount offering now been lost? Yes / Has the right to appeal the ticket now passed? Yes / Are the charges appropriate and fair as defined by the Parking Trade Association? Yes x Can the client evidence that you intend not to pay your debt? No / ls yorr case eligible for court action if you choose not to pay? Yes Monitoring active: intent not to pay evidence I of 3 collected Our cliewho caresserves the right to take 'no response' as evidence of intent not to pay This letter from Abigale is disgraceful. How can she say that she is trying to get you a fair outcome when you are being asked to pay £170? This is followed by a spurious "analysis". 1] There is no evidence of any breach since we do not know if the double yellow lines are council or Premier. 2] are you liable for the breach as the keeper? No-the PCN is not compliant.. As the driver then? No. In any event Abigale cannot set herself up as the JUdge. 3]are you liable for the charge? NO 4] the parking operator is a member of a discredited trade association. 5] no 6] no idea as we haven't seen all the signage. 7] who cares 8] who cares 9] who cares 10] no the charges are not fair nor appropriate There is no debt so there is nothing to pay.
  7. That was a great result for you. Plus it gives you a lot more confidence should there be a second case. Normally you would expect a parking company to walk away and try someone else. But that would be to underestimate the stupidity and greed of parking companies. Should there be a next time make sure you are aware that litigants in person are allowed to claim for their work done in research not just for a lost days wages, travel and parking. And if there is a next time you could also add a penalty charge since their case would be a waste of the Court's time and putting you under unnecessary pressure. Good job and thanks for coming back and telling us the result. You must be relieved and happy.
  8. I know where you are as my son used to play at Goals several years ago. The Privacy Notice is a Notice to the Driver so it should mean that the NTK arrives between 28 and 56 days later. In addition under PoFA the period of parking must be specified. In other words it needs a start period and a finish period. A single time does not cut it nor does it comply with the requirements of PoFA especially if the photos of the car are not time stamped you could argue that as you have 10 minutes to make up your mind so you could have arrived at 19.00 and left at 19.10. The NTK does not comply either when it comes to the wording of advising that the responsibility of the "debt" is transferred from the driver to the keeper. This section sTates that NTK MUST include a form of words and this one doesn't as it does not mention- (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met). And there are several conditions that haven't been met.
  9. You have only shown part of the PCN. Could you please show the rest of it. Parking Eye are usually pretty good at complying with PoFA but not this time.
  10. It means that their signage, if that is the first sign when arriving at the car park, that the signage is not capable of offering a contract only an invitation to treat. This may help- Offers and Invitation to Treat WWW.LAWTEACHER.NET Offers and invitation to treat are the primary examples of transactions and they have certain procedures to secure interchange between people. This essay will focus on some human rights in the contract law. However, in...
  11. Unlikely until they have seen your WS but not impossible. We don't know what cases they may have lost recently on the same charge as yours for instance.
  12. Their NTK is incorrectly worded to allow them to pursue the keeper. They can still pursue the driver though so it is important that you do not divulge the driver's name. Please note that if you were to write to them you must be careful not to say that" I" parked the car etc . Instead you must state that the driver parked the car so they cannot infer that you were the driver. What they will do is to pursue the keeper under the assumption that they were also the driver [which would not be accepted by the Court ] or hoping that as the costs mount up, that you will bottle and pay up yourself.
  13. I was hoping it wouldn't be too near the entrance so that there was no contract on offer when motorists entered. I would have thought that 5 metres at least inside would not constitute an offer at the entrance. Therefore there is only an invitation to treat.
  14. That is good news. Please keep us posted and if there are still problems we will be happy to give you advice on not having to pay them.
×
×
  • Create New...