Jump to content

Old Snowy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Old Snowy last won the day on October 27 2012

Old Snowy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

306 Excellent

About Old Snowy

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. As far as Champerty & Maintenance is concerned it is debatable that the debt is one that is capable of being assigned in the first place (does the PPC have standing?). Additionally, MIL have advertised their litigation service under the heading "Debt Purchase - Litigation without a Legal Bill" this coupled with the fact that they did not have any legal interest in the original debt and have acquired it for the purpose of profit allows one to conclude or at least to allege that they are trafficking in litigation ( Giles -v- Thompson, Simpson -v- Norfolk & Norwich NH
  2. Making an application under Part 31 may indeed be a request but both parties have an obligation to narrow issues and assist the court in achieving the overriding objectives. As has also been said elsewhere if the request was made before allocation then it is entirely valid as at that point all small claims cases are on the Multi-Track to which Part 31 (and Part 18) apply. There is no reason why you cannot continue to press Gladstones to provide the information (though not too often) because the request was made appropriately. You might also like in a subsequent letter to remind them of th
  3. I'm not too certain that suggesting to the OP that he lies indulges in the use of terminological inexactitudes about having received a NtD is necessarily a good idea. Suggesting that UKCPS cannot use the original copy of the NtD is also misleading as clearly their evidence is not limited just to that document but includes at least one photograph or the issuer keeps separate notes and was able to resurrect the correct vehicle details. Used together these (the original NtD, photo(s) or notes or even both) would "prove" that the issuer made a typo - and proving that this was deliberate (whic
  4. I think what Lynnzer is after is the contract between the airport and UKPPO who are their "enforcement contractor". This doesn't have anything to do with any purported contract that may/may not be formed with a motorist. In addition UKPPO have gone through a number of iterations over recent years and the suggestion appears to be that this contract was originally drawn up with one of those previous iterations rather than the current one. You other comments are of course entirely correct except the current byelaws explicitly cover parking (they were signed off by the SoS in 2010) and so the
  5. Do we know which of the cases it is?
  6. I've had the respose to my FOI to DVLA for City Permits. They have made no applications for registered keeper details since October 2012 (and just to make sure a trick was not being missed they haven't had any applications refused either). Unless they are using some other route to obtain RK details (NPC or one of the managing agents perhaps?) then this is unalloyed bullsh*t. Clamping and towing for cumulative unpaid tickets? I think not. Perhaps someone should suggest they research what happened to NCP and one of their minions who clamped a car in pursuit of unpaid PCN's? That's aside fr
  7. The popcorn is on order and I've plumped up the cushions. Seeing what this company has already put on its website its signs should be a sight to behold. Its sounds as they might be used to dealing with customers who don't understand their rights and they've been around for a while. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?339821-held-in-a-private-carpark-against-my-will-by-citypermits. They've been using the "Penalty Charge Notice" wording on their website for at least 2 years. Sounds to me like its time someone took a soggy bite from their rear-end.
  8. As dx100uk suggests if the ticket you've received includes the word "penalty" then any claim they may have is dead in the water. Given that the company uses the same wording on their website http://www.citypermits.co.uk/faqs/ then there's every chance that that is so. The website is extremely thin on details but the company has been around for a while - one wonders on what basis? As the company is not a member of either of the two currently approved trade associations (which is required to obtain DVLA data) - i.e. the BPA or the IPC then they should not be
  9. I also note that Trev is using an N1 format that is 2 years old. Not that its changed that much but they can't even use an up to date document.
  10. If ANPR was to issue proceedings based on this tosh then they would be inviting any self-respecting District Judge to equip them with a new vent. Patrick Crossley claims not to be employed by ANPR but his fellow director at Expedion - Peter McCormick most certainly is - https://uk.linkedin.com/in/petermccormick1. One has to ask oneself why they want to appear to be distanced from ANPR? And one limited company issuing proceedings in the name of a second limited company who lacked any valid contract at the relevant time for trespass (amongst other things)? Methinks that has all the aerodyna
  11. Standard advice here is never to speak to the likes of Roxburghe (i.e. Debt collectors) but always keep things in writing! By all means write to the administrators although I doubt that they will care - they carry no personal risk. In the majority of cases vehicles are "cloned" for only one purpose and that is for use in the commission of crime and are therefore inevitably short-term affairs. Cloned vehicles are not "ringers" and are doomed to be exposed (if in the hands of the innocent) when tax and insurance comes to be renewed. Allegedly cloned vehicles are often simple duplication err
  12. Firstly, the PCN's you have posted at a totsal of 26Mb are a little large, consist of nothing more than has been seen here previously. They also contain detail that could allow your f-i-l to be identified. I suggest that you delete them as is and redacted anything that could be used to identify the case and reduce the file size before reposting them - if at all. The document is entitled Notice to Registered Keeper which would seem to be an attempt to fulfil the Protection of Freedoms Act. The problem is that as the parking event occurred in April 2014 and the NtK ( which should be served
  13. Was the ticket directed at the driver or the keeper of the vehicle? There is absolutely no provision whatsoever for the driver to be made subject of a penalty charge within the terms of the byelaws. However, a vehicle keeper may be liable for a charge if the details of such a charge were displayed in the area. That said, why - if only the keeper is liable - would you post details of it on the vehicle and risk it not getting to the right person? The truth is, as ericsbrother has already posted, that were you to be prosecuted neither CP+ nor SWT would see a penny of any fin
  14. With absolutely no reference to either of the administrators involved in the Roxburghe situation but I was always under the impression that the adminstrators time was dictated by the value of the realisable assets. It always takes longer (and therefore demands more fees) to dispose properly of more valuable assets ;-)
  • Create New...