Jump to content

BreadAndButter

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BreadAndButter

  1. No, I dont agree with many points but appreciate the warning - I think excess available credit could hamper me but the research Ive obtained has been mainly Amercian info so I was after any further experiences. I do know of one guy who blogs he has over 22 cards, rotates and makes the companies beg for his business, dump a card and return with new customer perks, I have had some of that too when I joined barclays and american express all of a sudden cards came through the door like junk mail For me, knowing the accounts are active isn't even a question, I do make one purchase on them every now and then to keep them rolling and I never go paperless so i can see for myself everything is good on all accounts. (more paper use is more trees too right?) Im just very good at fine tuning and de-cluttering, so if im struggling to identify why I would be declined for anything I want to know why and how it can be improved and also I want the best apr/perks/cashback, always, which sometimes gets me stung (moving bank accounts for a few hundred quid incentive hurt my file for a while, all ok now despite a certain Money Tips person encouraging penny pinching and volatility.) I enjoyed American express cashback, few perks and made it work for me, purchasing anything things like fuel and calculating, hey thats worth 3p a litre plus shell points, 5p a litre saving on my huge travel costs at the time, no brainer if done wisely Maxing out cards, not my style. Chasing a zero percent zero transfer fee 26 month card however I do see sense in, and Im nearly able to get that with Santander, but i know the accounts have gotta look good. Ill give it some thought, pull the trigger on the cards that dont work for me, when i know i wont need access to any credit (which tbh i have plenty now to choose from) but i am always on the look out for a deal, so currently the Amazon card is appealing as it pays you each time you shop on amazon ,which I do many times a week, that could bring in a nice slice back for the ride then pay it off immediately, the APR is therefor irrelevant if fee free. Cheers
  2. Well that's my choice isnt it? I like credit eing there if we ever need it, car explodes, needs a new turbo, etc. I can afford it so why not. I want to have the best credit and rating for the best deals
  3. I have 4 high APR credit cards, Ill never use them but due to my available credit with each (Around £7k on each) ive been able to get better cards I dont use these cards I have 8 other cards I also rarely use, all have between £2.5k-£10k available - I like them for balance transfers on larger purchases, APR start at 7% upto 25% So, with 8 'good 'cards, 2 I actually ever use, am I limiting myself owning these 4 poor credit high APR cards that I dont use? For example, if i look to get a new card, low APR than I own, then they may look at my file and think I have too much credit available to me (£100k+) and so, i cant have a new card and more credit. One example TSB ,i should have easily got the card, they declined (they since rang me and said I could have it) but initially computer said no. Is that a thing? To have to much available credit? To e, it sounds like a risk factor
  4. OK then, as a final draft! 1. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant , or broke any such contract. 2. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. 3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability. 4. No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach of a Contract Frustrated from the start, due to inability to pass consideration as in fee to park due to inability of the App, the sole method of payment offered to process any payment. Therefore NO Actionable Contract can be deemed to exist
  5. 1. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract. 2. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. 3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability. 4. No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach of a Contract Frustrated from the start, due to inability to pass consideration as in fee to park due to inability of the App, the sole method of payment offered to process any payment. Therefore NO Actionable Contract can be deemed to exist 5. The Defendant has added additional amounts to the claim to try to circumvent limits on legal costs in an abuse of court procedure.
  6. 1. Two parking tickets were purchased using the only method of payment - a mobile parking app. One for initial payment, then an extension using said app. 2.The alleged "breach" of terms and conditions or contract have been aggravated by the App failing to take payment despite confirming the defendant was fully paid, twice. 3.Following the BPA Code of Practice, a 'You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.' This may lead to the member (Claimant) be suspended or expelled immediately from the BPA, investigated and disciplinary process commenced . The Claimant is in breach of this code as the defendant could not fail to be in breach of T&C's whilst being mislead into believing the parking was paid in full 4. Section 34.6 of the BPA COP Suggests inflation of the debt should not exceed £100. The Claimant inflated this to £140. Further breach of membership. 5. Claimant was informed of this App failures during the defendants Appeal, with evidence of other users of the app experiencing the same issues - This appeal was denied. They have failed to make any changes to the system nor show proof of further testing at the time of appeal to act cooperatively as per BPAS terms.
  7. Feel free to rip my defence to shreds or add what you think 1 . The Defendant was forced to use a defective Mobile phone app to pay for the parking fee as there was no other option 2.The mobile App is confirmed 'defective' by firstly failing to process payment, then confirmed again by reviews of other users on the Google App store stating it does not function and users of the app receive a parking fine. 3. The Defendant believed to pay in full the required sum of £1 per hour and additional sums when the app alerted to extend the stay. 4. The defendant extended the stay within the App and believed to pay additional fees, suggesting the initial fee was taken due to this expiry alert. 5.The mobile App was the only payment method accepted and shows Greyfriars in the App visitation history 6. The Claimant has added disproportionate fees to the £1 per hour rate, firstly inflating without reason to £140 within 14 days, then £182 when this was appealed. 7.The Claimant knows their app is faulty, yet continue to make it the only payment method at Greyfriars carpark 8 No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach of a Contract Frustrated from the start, due to inability to pass consideration as in fee to park due to inability of the App, the sole method of payment offered to process any payment. Therefore NO Actionable Contract can be deemed to exist. 9. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. 10.If any outstanding fee is to be considered, it is for the total sum of the time spent at the carpark at a rate of £1 per hour of which the App failed to process. This could be claimed via small claims process.
  8. Thanks, that's all done. Ill get reading other threads for the next steps and Ill get a CPR 31:14 request done. Thanks for your help At this stage, as i haven't had time to read up on other threads i presume AOS is all that's needed at this time or is there a defence i need to make as well now (its suggesting i have 28 days to create a defence) Sorry for my ignorance, ill need to read some threads. thanks
  9. thanks for this is it not worth adding anything to my defence in case a judge looks at it and makes a decision? or anythign to scar eht other party who see my response?
  10. sorry im confused by this bit, the issue date on the form is 23rd April AOS i calculated as 5 days after this date?
  11. Name of the Claimant : Civil Enforcement Limited Claimants Solicitors: S wilson, Head of legal Date of issue – 23 April 2021 Date for AOS - 28th April + 14 days Date to submit Defence - 25th May 2021 What is the claim for – 1.Claim for monies relating to a parking charge for parking in a private car park managed by the claimant in breach of terms + conditions (T+C's). 2.Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T+C's of use. 3.ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site. Debt + damages claimed the sum of 182.00 Violation date 23/11/2019 Time in 10:34 Time out 13:58 PCN ref: Ref849******* Car Registration no.: **** *** Car park:- Greyfriars Total due- 182.00 Ref:www.ce-services.co.uk or Tel:01158225020) The Claimant claims the sum of 202.58 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 20.58 interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to- 22/04/21 Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment Daily rate to judgment- 0.04 Total debt and interest due- 202.58 What is the value of the claim? £277.58 Amount Claimed £202.58 court fees 25.00 legal rep fees 50.00 Total Amount 227.58
  12. OK so after my letter in january they have filed a court claim I really could do without a CCJ over this! Im trying to remortgage, id happily pay the £227 for it to go away an not have no credit for 6 years. I obviously need to file this back, what should be the defence? What do they normally do in these cases as its clear a contract could not be entered into easily thanks
  13. Thanks all, Ill get that off today! Got an email from the store, they aren't surprised at any of this as they've had far too many people complain about the carpark and raised it with their MP aswell. They wish me well but nothing they can do as its privately owned land, with a dogey app. Should i reiterate any of this? Should i also describe why the app is so shocking ly rubbish or is the above letter enough? cheers!
  14. SO, next letter - i guess I state im needing debt advice and a 30 day pause on proceedings? Send asap by post Civil Enforcement Limited Horton House Exchange Flags Liverpool L2 3PF Dear Sir/Madam, In response to your most recent correspondence: I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt, the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.
  15. I appealed via their website, being very careful not to identify as the driver https://www.ce-service.co.uk their appeals is sneaky, it asks if you are the driver and then if you're the keeper before giving you an online appeals form. I didnt check either box I then stated in the appeals text box, the online app did not register me parking, it did show me the vehicle was paid up, it doesn't keep any receipts, but it does show my most recent location was 'grey friars car park' showing i was there and obviously used the app. My bank account did not get charged. ZZPS Ltd from SUrrey, then sent me a letter asking for £100 and £70 admin fee - £170 for an app they use that doesnt work MP just got back to me, he said they are looking to tackle this and will put extra pressure on colleagues to address this issue. No magic waiver however. I was hoping the queen would pardon me (damn) He sent me a link: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crackdown-on-private-car-parking-firms-will-eliminate-unfair-fines#history
  16. WAIT - incorrect data - It was a pay by phone ONLY. Council got back to me, it is not their grey friars but a private one operation Requesting the charge being waived by the land own (QD stores). Im presuming they own the land as its behind their store but not 100% certain. Found out from the council today its private. QD stores MAY own it, ive emailed an appeal.
  17. Hi FTMDave They initially requested £140 within 14 days. This has now gone to £182 after the initial debt collection firm took over (now back with CEL The carpark had two options, pay-by-app and cash, we had n cash hence using the easier app. The app in the playstore has shocking reviews, im not the only one. I wasnext going to get 'their hand' sent to me fromt he data controller, sending the following: Dear Sir or Madam Subject access request ( Data Protection Act 2018 / General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) ) Please supply the data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law relating to myself. - All photos taken - all letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier - A PDT machine record from 23/11/2019 of payments - A record of online payments made using the Google Playstore APP that day - all data held, all evidence they will rely on, and - a full copy of the PCN, NTK - a list of all PCNs outstanding against me and/or this VRN, and I will remind here that any claim must be for all PCNs, not several separate claims. If you need any more data from me to confirm my identity please let me know as soon as possible. It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request for data within one calendar month. If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant staff member. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113. Yours faithfully
  18. Hi - no this is in another town unfortunately. snotty letter, ive tried 3 times to find one, ill try again
  19. sure. here: 1-merged.pdf written to my MP but Im unsure what can be done. The carpark is under council ownership, im not so sure it was previously, but either way. Complained also now to the Bedford council about the practises of their carpark collections. Informed them Ive notified my MP.
  20. ZZPS I ignored and they went back to old tactics, chasing next with a 'Claim for debt' letter. mine continues although I will write to my MP Today
  21. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal the above looks promising. I found their initial 14 day letter from middle of last year, suggesting they wanted to go anothe rroute then the debt collector letter arrived. 6kjtfujp7g7m.pdf
  22. They are certainly crafty sending a letter out knowing time would waste away being christmas period. Im strugglign t fill out the q&A as it was so long ago when they started sending me this rubbish, im not even sur ei have copies of their documents - once they went to the debt collection route i knew all hope was lost for them. I have 3 days to respond, but ill see what i can find , they also dated the letter 16th of December which is wrong, it didnt arrive until the 24th. from the letter before claim sticky: For Private Parking Speculative Invoices (PCN's) if you get a letter of claim or a letter before action please don't use the PAPLOC details here ...neither the reply pack refer/ask to your thread for a suitable letter. So i guess im going bespoke? 1 Date of the infringement 23rd Nov 2019 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] Dont have it but it was within 14 days 3 Date received within 14 days 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Unsure, dont have the original. 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes picture of the front of my car 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Yes, via their website, but not saying i was the driver, just that the car was there. Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Yes, they decline my appeal. I have appealed to Popla, they also declined my appeal. 7 Who is the parking company? Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park & Parksolve 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Greyfriars carpark MK40 1BY For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes BPA
  23. Thanks Id happily pay the parking fee if thats whats owed but £180+ is ridiculous when their app is the one thing that failed. DO i also write to my MP and the MP of the location?
×
×
  • Create New...