Good morning everyone, All the recent publicity with PPI deadlines etc, caused me to go back through the past when I realised I had a loan with Welcome, and had been told I had to have PPi otherwise I couldn't get the loan. Did an SAR with Welcome and got the paperwork back. It say's that the broker for the PPI was now out of business, but the Policy was ultimately underwritten by Aviva Do I go after Aviva regarding this? Many thanks in advance

Good morning everyone, I have just checked online and they issued a discontinuance 12 hours after my filing my defence.... Hopefully I'll at least get LiP costs out of this, shame they never got a butt kicking from a judge

Received in post this morning, letter from CEL that the pcn has been cancelled and the claim discontinued.... Well it wasn't when I entered my defence last night......wait and see what the county court have to say I guess

thank you

Quick question....does asking for LiP costs qualify as a counterclaim??

Thank you very much ericsbrother and everyone else. I have had an email from the BPA stating that they intend to contact CEL to explain themselves. I'll be entering my defence this evening as I don't want them to drop the case before I have had a chance to a) embarass them and b) claim LiP costs. I'll come back as and when I have further news on this.......Thank you all once again

thank you for your reply ericsbrother, fair enough about the damages, I realised after I had sent to appeal to POPLA last year that this foolish. My issue here now is that POPLA have said that their signs are non compliant and at the bottom of my adjudication they say that my appeal should be allowed, they also made a mistake at the start of the adjudication saying it was unsuccessful (obviously CEL don't bother to read past the start of such adjudication and have now launched a county court summons against me.) I have acknowleged service of the summons In the light of this adjudication, I planned to contest the court summons on the grounds that they have been told my appeal should be allowed

Have already acknowledged service, whats my next step to cause maximum hell for this company.... Background, I work for a local authority, we deliver to schools,charities etc....I hate these private [EDIT] companies because they feel that by targetting my employer, they are onto an easy buck..... I know you will think I'm mad (crazy even) but I take these tickets on in my own name and fight them as far as I can.....

Good evening everyone, I have received a county court claim from Civil Enforcement. As usual I apealled to popla initially and got turned down; I have just re-read the adjudication; Decision Unsuccessful Assessor Name Lauren Bailey Assessor summary of operator case The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to make a valid payment for parking. Assessor summary of your case The appellant’s case is that the operator’s photographs do not prove that the vehicle parked on site. The appellant questioned the accuracy of the ANPR system. The appellant said that the operator has not provided evidence it has the authority to issue parking charges on this land. The appellant said that the operator has not shown the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss. Assessor supporting rational for decision The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal however my decision will focus solely on the parking charge amount. The appellant said that the parking charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. I will therefore consider the prominence of the parking charge on the signs at the site. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that could be expected of the parking operator when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Having reviewed the signage, I do not consider the parking charge is prominently displayed on the signs. The parking charge is written in smaller text that the terms and conditions. It is also included within other terms and could easily be missed by motorists. On this occasion, I do not conclude that the parking charge is “adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”. I will therefore allow the appeal. your attention is drawn to a) the unsuccessful verdict at the start, and b) the final line of the text....... has someone dropped a major one here???? many thanks in advance

thank you for your reply The total debt was nearly £600 and they only went after £297 of it, however the letter from the court says the remainder after payment of this warrant

Good morning everyone, I have been asked by my ex-wife to help her after she got a letter threatening her with bailiffs, She got herself into debt with EE and of course because she was dealing with depression she started to "bury her head in the sand" The consequence is that The lovely Leeds Losers (aka Lowell) have got involved, I only became aware of this situation after she got a letter from the county court, saying that they were about to get the bailiffs after her. My question is, why have they only chosen to partially enforce the judgement, this is something I have never heard of before? because of her depression etc she is not sure she received a letter of assignment etc, would it be worth having a go at getting the judgement set aside(however I have paid the amount they enforced, just to stop her having to deal with bailiffs) Many thanks in advance

Just received a pcn for failiure to comply with a street sign from a London council. The date of the alledged offence was 17/10/17. and the date of the pcn is 12/12/17 is this outside of the timelimits for such service obviously they've got the details from the hire company many thanks in advance

Thank you for your replies, with regard to the name issue they have modified/changed their surname....with regard to the DPA, the bailiff and the office dicussed full details with third parties... Marstons have now admitted they have not got a paragraph 15 (Force entry) warrant

No she hasn't she's lodging a Stat Dec at the magistrates court

Good evening everyone, Been a while since I posted on here, anyway; My ex-wife has managed to get herself a speeding fine that was sent to a previous address. The Bailiff, from Marstons Holdings has been handwriting the usual drivel about coming with a locksmith on the phone until I got involved, She has been to the police about the threats, the bailiff has admitted that they do not hold an order to force entry and now seems to have backed off a bit. My question's are; a) The only bailiff I can find whose name remotely resembles the name on the paperwork is different (i.e abbreviated)......is this an item of interest b) The name that appears on the register is listed as working for M^&%tons group and she claims to work for M*&stons holdings, again is this of interest c) She has been discussing the case with my ex-sister in-law and my son, is this a potential breach of the DPA? Many thanks in advance for your valued opinions Madmatt