Jump to content

Old Snowy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Old Snowy

  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 NHS Hospital Trust and Trendtex Trading Corporation -v- Credit Suisse). The other point to challenge is that MIL have not yet produced an original Deed of Assignment and only ever show the "front page". This document never records the instant debt and nor is it ever dated. From a legal point of view it is simply an apparent agreement that was concluded at some point between some signatories for some unspecified purpose. Put them to strict proof of their assertion that the debt was assigned to them. Signage as far as C2C is concerned is always a joke.
  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 the provisions of CPR r.27.14(2)(g) which allows for damages to be awarded in the event of unreasonable conduct. Make sure you abide by any deadline set out in the Notice of Allocation (it isn't clear from your post whether what you have is a simple notification that the matter has been allocated to a specific court of whether what you have provides a hearing date) with regard to exchanging documents. This may well be hidden away in the small print so so go through it with a fine toothcomb. If the Notice gives a hearing date but no deadline for exchange of documents then the standard return date applies - not later than 14 days before any hearing. This is entirely normal behaviour for Gladstones. The reason? Well there is good reason to believe that they run all such proceedings on a shoestring and probably - at this stage - have none of the evidence in their possession anyway. As far as DE are concerned they have a history (to my personal knowledge) of operating on premises where there is mixed ownership and sometimes the enforcement "creeps" into the area they have no authority to work in. Carrying out a Land Registry search (cost = £3) may well be a useful exercise. In addition bear in mind that although it may well be being kept under the wraps there is a good chance that the PCN was issued from a self-ticketing set-up. By all means write to the court and ask the letter be handed to a procedural judge - then pose the question. What happens is entirely a matter of luck. In some courts judges will leap all over things and issue Orders using their case management powers whilst in others the letter will simply be placed on the file. In some cases they will insist that you make a formal application. Cost = £100. I think the cost of a first-class stamp to estabish which route the court might follow is good value. HTH
  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 (which it may well have been) in a standalone case will not be easy. Sadly, demonstrating a mistake was made whilst "gathering evidence" often adds a degree of authenticity to it that it might not deserve. Were the matter to go to court and the OP maintained the "I did not get a NtD" as is suggested but is then confronted with a print-out of this thread one wonders what might be recommended that he then does? Having now received a Notice to Keeper why does he not simply appeal as the keeper? UKCPS may well argue that he is out of time but then under current regulations they must offer consumers a form of ADR for 12 months. Taking advantage of a PPC's procedural and legal failings is one thing but lying is something altogether different.
  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 land cannot be "relevant, as far as POFA is concerned. That said, built into the byelaws is a clause, though very loosely worded, that allows the airport (and its contractor it seems) to pursue the keeper - UKPPO are not seeking to use POFA as the grounds for their various pursuits but the byelaws. However, that is a bit of guess because even UKPPO appear confused over how they are working things and to confuse matters further both the byelaws themselves and the enabling legislation (Airports Act 1986) make it clear that the byelaws are not enforceable where the "Road Traffic Enactments" apply.
  5. 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 from any offence they may commit under the provisions of POFA or s.21 Theft Act 1968. In any event on the basis of their being unable to obtain DVLA data the advice has got to be: Ignore their PCN's - their only means of obtaining RK details will be from those who respond to tickets.
  6. City Permits have never appeared in any DVLA listing that I am aware of. FOI on its way.
  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 able to obtain registered keeper details in order to pursue you. The use of the word "penalty" makes it clear that the issuer is "trying it on" - no private company or individual can impose a penalty and even if it were purportedly a charge in consequence of a breach of contract/ a contractual fee or by way of damages in trespass the use of the "p" word does for any civil claim. With all that in mind and as this whole thing can only depend on those who respond to windscreen ticket I suggest that the OP does precisely nothing - and certainly does not pay.
  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 aerodynamic qualities of a concrete glider. The author of these papers - or at least what passes for the controlling mind behind them - will undoubtedly be Trevor "Our Trev" Whitehouse and as a consequence I would not be unduly concerned. Nor would I be investing any of my valuable time in calling them - free national dialling or not.
  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 errors by main dealers or traders when making or replacing plates. With respect to the OP much has been made of so-called cloning in the press implying that it is a modern trend. This is of course utter tripe because criminals have been using false plates on stolen vehicles for years - and better you use a number that relates to an identical vehicle. It is extremely rare and tends to be more frequent where the cloned vehicle is in close geographical proximity to the donor. If our MENSA-member parking attendant has misread an "O" for a "D", for example, it is a mistake that is easily repeated. I would not pin all of your hopes on having reported the matter to the police. No one will be actively driving around Newcastle looking for it. By appealing, as suggested, you can guarantee that the matter goes away and will cost PS24 into the bargain (2 x £27 POPLA appeals).
  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 between Day 28 and Day 56) isn't dated until September and therefore renders the document non-compliant. The chances of the car actually having been cloned are near zero. However, the probability of an ANPR-misread or human error is far greater. I therefore suggest that the get your f-i-l to respond as the keeper and send otherwise identical appeals to PCN Parking Services (which is the only part of the Roxburghe set-up that is continuing to operate) along the following lines: That should do the trick.
  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 fine that may or may not be imposed because that would be destined for the Treasury. I accept that an order for costs may be made but that can only cover SWT's prosecution costs - not a payment to CP+ and certainly no profit element. And CP+ will not be issuing these tickets for the benefit of their health. Steer well clear of SWT but press CP+ for POPLA. Were any action to be taken with regard a prosecution then SWT must apply for a summons - "lay an information" - within 6 calendar months of the alleged offence. Anything outside of that and they are out of time. Provided they have done so within that period they can take their time, to a degree, in serving it although any decent DJ is going to apply his molars to their testicles if they drag their heels too much.
  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 ;-)
  15. Thanks Michael. The last couple of sentences from Credit Today were either badly researched or were simply regurgitated by them from a directors' press release. The OFT (prior to it being abolished) had informed Roxburghe originally that they were minded not to renew their CCA licence in April 2013 and an appeal was made to the OFT at that time. In January the OFT gave their determination and confirmed that the CCA licence renewal had been refused. Bearing in mind that the OFT had previously notified Roxburghe that they were "minded to revoke" their previous CCA as long ago as May 2011 this could hardly be characterised as a sudden or, presumably, a knee-jerk decision. Roxburghe, HFO Services Ltd, HFO Capital Ltd and Alasdair Turnbull have all now lodged appeals to the First Tier Tribunal (Consumer Credit). Looking at previous case histroies through the tribunal one might expect a result towards the end of the year. However, so intertwined are the four appellants business that this case might drag on for a while yet.
  16. If, and I say if the Particulars of Claim was issued from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton then it should contained a web address and password that will enable you to log on and look at the claim online. These forms have a printed seal in the space where on court prepared documents have the circle marked "Seal". If the form shows not court details, has no claim number and no seal then it is not valid - as you appear to have concluded. The use of "blank" court documents is by no means unheard of as a means of piling on the pressure. If a court is however named then as a backstop I would consider checking with them to make sure this isn't a set of documents that hasn't slipped through the net. As for DEAL the company is not exactly unassociated with CEL being very much a sister company. As has been suggested already this is likely to be a tax dodge rather than anything else although there may well be a few who would pay up.
  17. I think you may have missed my point. I'm well aware that UKCPS have issued proceedings but why dd it take them this long before they did so - that was my point. I remain of the view that there is something very fishy about this case.
  18. I would not wish anyone to think for a minute that I condone in any way what this chap has done. However, given UKCPS' record I am frankly amazed that they have let this drag on for as long as they have. They are under an obligation (as are all potential litigants) to minimise their loses and, if they truly believed in the righteousness of their case and have the full support of their principal, why had they not issued proceedings well before now and, perhaps applied for a civil restraining order? I find this all somewhat fishy.
  19. I really dislike commenting in these circumstances but it would seem that regardless of posts above the OP's son has attempted to argue that the charge levied was for a breach of contract when it had already been pointed out that the PPC was seeking to enforce a contractual charge. Using the "tantamount to damages" and "should have to prove their loss" points in the argument was destined to fail IMO. A contractual charge is not a payment by way of liquidated damages. It is a charge the PPC argue the OP's son has agreed to pay by not abiding by the conditions displayed.
  20. A couple of things. It would really help if we knew which PPC this was as there are several that attempt - depending on the prevailing wind - to switch from a contractual charge model to that of breach of contract. That said, the fact that the PPC has indicated that the charge was "contractual" suggests that they are seeking to enforce a "contractual charge". I have yet to see signage purporting to establish a contractual charge that didn't fail - usually because it attempts to ban certain parties and then hold them to a contract that they are excluded from as a consequence of the ban. Secondly, it would also be useful to know exactly what the signs say - in toto. There also appears to be an indication that the signs were put in place by the landlord/agent rather than the PPC. is that correct and if so which? The same applies to the "rules for tenants" notices. Who put these up and/or who do they purport to have been written by? If parking is specifically dealt with in the OP's son's AST then that agreement (contract) cannot be overruled/subverted by a secondary contract - regardless of whether that was offered by the PPC or the LL/agent. If this secondary contract is being offered by the PPC then that is doomed to fail, IMO. If the contract is actually being offered by the LL/agent then what it represents is a variation to the AST which they are seeking to impose unilaterally and, it would seem, without adequate and proper notice. Does the AST allow for variation of the parking rights by allowing for rules to be added? The AST is a contract and therefore not only are the written terms relevant but the verbal representations made by the LL or his agent at the time it was made and the OP's son is entitled to rely upon those terms. It would be useful, all round, if the OP's son got together with his fellow tenants and established what those additional terms were. He cannot be held to the terms of a contract to which he was not a party (privity of contract) and so what was agreed between the PPC, the LL and/or the agent is utterly irrelevant other than to establish what rights that contract conferred on the PPC. I suspect that if indeed the PPC is looking to pursue this as an unpaid contractual charge then their signage is likely to have used the words "Permit Holders Only" or "Tenants Only" in which case they have no basis whatsoever for their case. That type of signage means that a group of people, the non-permit holders/non-tenants, become trespassers. If the sign then goes on to attempt to hold those "trespassers" to a contract for doing the thing they are not allowed to - park - is a legal nonsense and the charge fails. That the word "penalty" is used makes it clear that any charge levied - against whomever - is simply a penalty masquerading as a contractual charge and, further, fails on that basis. Lastly, any contract of necessity requires a valid offer, acceptance and consideration (by both parties) and, before any of those elements come into play there must be an intention to contract. If the tenants are permitted usage of the car park by virtue of their tenancy agreements then there cannot be any intention to contract with a third party. Why would they? Additionally, whether or not the PPC allege that they are entitled to interpret a tenant's act of parking as acceptance of their contract by performance (if that is what they allege) is fatally flawed. In my view, on the basis of what has been said thusfar there could never have been any consideration provided by the PPC as they cannot offer something that has already been provided by another party. HTH Finally, is the PPC a BPA AOS/IPC AOS member and if so which?
  21. However, provided the "penalty" is a "good" penalty (i.e. it is commercially justifed) there is no requirement that it be GPEOL. So that's alright then.
  22. I assume that this has happened at the main campus off Cyncoed Road itself (the former teacher-training college - just beyond Cefn Coed Road junction). I suggest that the OP checks out the Uni's most recently published policy (2011) with regard to enforcement action - Read Here. The quote that will sink any court action, should it still be applicable (i.e. has been superceded), is the first sentence that sets out what a CPN is: On any reasonable interpretation of that wording (which is not further qualified nor quoted out of context) it is clear that the intention of the CPN is not to recover any loss the Uni (or indeed Vinci) have suffered but to punish the driver/keeper for the breach. That renders the notice a penalty which, as any fule kno, simply doesn't cut it from a civil proceedings point of view. However, as this policy predates POFA 2012 it may be as well to be a little cautious and establish whether a new policy has been brought in. On a general assessment Vinci do not "do" court.
  23. +1 To add further to the situation: The roads around the airport are subject to byelaws and as a consequence POFA does not apply (not "relevant land"). If the OP has not identified themselves (or anyone else) as the driver then any action that might be taken could only be directed against the driver who VCS will have not the slightest idea of the identity of. More importantly, VCS, as prospective claimants, have a duty at all stages to mitigate any closs they claim exists. In these circumstances they will have to explain to the court how it was that their staff (in their camera car) were assiduous enough to watch the car stop but apparently took no action to advise the driver to move on and thereby prevent any (so-called) loss. They have fallen foul of exactly this before and, as I'm sure their MD will not forget, were backed into a corner by the judge (Judge McIlwaine at Scun.thorpe County Court, 16 May 2012 in VCS -v- Ibbotson) - who demanded that the esteemed Simon Renshaw-Smith (the MD) come to court and explain what it was he thought he was doing. That is after telling VCS's advocate that she would need to bring her toothbrush with her if she pursued one particular line with the court. Needless to say VCS left the court with their tail firmly between their legs. Were VCS to ever take this to court then I'd eat my hat. Newlyn are simply debt collectors with all the clout of a wet fish - not that they would ever want anyone to believe that.
  • Create New...