Why do you ask.? If you are not disclosing points you are on dodgy ground.

Most of the big ones dont seem to bother

'Parking Charge' then.

Well its important to use the right terms

You have to ensure you comply with ciivil procedure rules on pre action protocol. ie making sure the letter before action is correct etc

If you do issue a claim, ensure you issue a correct letter before claim

Well done on holding out:)

definately appeal

They will most likely decline your appeal,

But you will win at popla with this sites help

The 14 days is only irrelevant to chasing the driver.

Yes do a simple appeal, tell them if they decline you require a popla code.

When you get the code come back here

Yes they do

no but if you get genuine court papers then come back to here for further help

Ignore these jokers as not real court paper work:)

But the advice still stands.

Anpr are the joke end of the parking world

You really have to wonder about people who cant take good advice,

got parking ticket today on the 23rd feb but i got 14 days before i got to pay full amount and if i got to wait for letters in the post and things that 14 days will soon be over

You need to change your mind set immediately and stop thinking about paying it. You wont be paying it. The 14 days is therefore irrelevant

Right in that case await the notice to keeper in the post. Do nothing ekse until then

No you dont pay.

Is this the first letter in the post from then? Do a simple appeal first of soon be sure to ask for a popla code if they reject. When they do come bk here.

Anpr are the joke of the ppc world

And give more "duff" advice

I think that may well be in the pipeline

time will tell

News report just in.

Its tagged on the end of this thread

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86932

My apologies Mr Lasty705 but I have been rather busy advising a chap on a case between him and Ransomes/Proserve today in the Ipswich County Court. Ransomes case was dismissed as Broadsword has said.

 

As requested I have posted the Hamblion case and whilst you direct readers of this thread to paragraph 26 can we start with paragraph 22 please?

 

This states that "The issue firstly is as to whether the warning notice is a contractual obligation and I am satisfied that it is". So, there we have it, the Judge said that the nature of Proserve's operation means that there is a contractual situation and not one of trespass. So I think that that is one nil to me in terms of not misleading readers.

 

Shall we move to your hallowed paragraph 26. It starts by the Judge saying that she is only considering Trespass in terms of what the quantification of damages would be, if there was a trespass, and not whether any trespass took place. Shall we now move to a rather important set of nine words in paragraph 26? They read "I do find there to have been a contract". I think that that is fairly clear. Two nil and game over.

 

What has to be recognised is that Hamblion was business suing business such that Hamblion did not have the protection of a whole raft of consumer legislation that my man had this afternoon. Also, in the Hamblion case the judge was not afforded the benefit of considering the following key factors and which were placed before the Judge this afternoon:-

 

1. You can't add VAT to damages - VCS v Ibbotson. HMRC is investigation. In a skeleton argument submitted by Counsel today it was clear that any VAT collected was kept by Ransomes. HMRC is investigating. I think that is about £20,000 odd which appears to be due to HMRC.

 

2. Mr Robson of Ransomes admitted, under a Statement of Truth that they actually receive service charge income from the occupiers on the estate to cover their costs for parking management. What? I hear you say - they get paid for managing parking on the estate and then want to be paid by the motorist as well?

 

3. Mr Robson of Ransomes admitted, under a Statement of Truth, that if any damage is caused to the roads/footpaths by parked cars then the occupiers will have to pay to have that repaired. What? I hear you say - Ransomes don't pay for any repairs but the occupiers do? What? I hear you say. Does this mean that Ransomes don't actually suffer any loss? What? I hear again - how can you make a claim in the County Court to recover a loss if you haven't suffered a loss? Back in the day when I litigated in Courts you couldn't - perhaps they have changed the rules? Anyway, my man won.

 

4. Mr Duff signed an application to Court, under a Statement of Truth, on behalf of Ransomes, to say that Ransomes suffered a loss. I wonder if the Cambridge County Court, which granted Mr Duff his licence to operate as a Bailiff, would be interested?

 

5. The DVLA is trying to investigate Proserve and, as we know, Mr Duff has not been co-operating. The DVLA say that their understanding is that Proserve do not undertake parking enforcement services so do not have to be in the BPA to get data. The DVLA has now been passed a signed witness statement from Mr Duff in which he states, under a Statement of Truth, that his company is a parking enforcement company but do more than your everyday general parking enforcement company.

 

7. In the skeleton argument, submitted by Counsel on behalf of Ransomes today, it is clearly said that Proserve are under contract to provide parking enforcement services. OOps. This is on its way to the DVLA. So, as I see it there is no further need for the DVLA to seek to engage Proserve in discussion - Mr Duff's sworn statements, and Counsel's skeleton arguments are enough. Time to step up the plate DVLA

 

8. Mr Duff signed a declaration to the DVLA to say that he would only use data to pursue claims in trespass. He uses that data to pursue claims in contract and the skeleton argument did spend some time reminding the Court that the Judge in Hamblion had decided that they manage under contractual arrangements with motorists. Obtaining data for one purpose but using it for another incompatible purpose is a contravention of the second data protection principle and which the DVLA is trying to investigate. Do the DVLA need to engage Proserve in an investigation when they have Counsels' arguments before a Court? Probably not but that is up to the DVLA. I wonder if the Cambridge County Court, which granted Mr Duff his licence to operate as a Bailiff, would be interested?

 

Ransomes asked for the right to appeal todays decision and that was granted. It will be interesting to see what their grounds are. Could it be that the decision today has provided the Court with substantial evidence that it can refer to in the other 700 odd cases Ransomes/Proserve have in the pipeline such that they may also lose those cases? So the grounds of appeal are "we are going to lose well in excess of £100,000 if this decision stands and all our other cases are shot to pieces so we have to fight. It's not about the legals. As Jessie J said "it's about the money, money, money.".............But didn't they say that they had been paid service charges by occupier so nthe estate for parking enforcement? Oh yes that's right....I nearly forgot.

 

Now shall I post on here all the defence papers used so far, for this community to use? Should I post those witness statements as well? It's a conundrum.

 

I anticipate that by the time we get to an appeal hearing the DVLA should have terminated Proserve's rights to use the data already obtained, and suspended its right to access the DVLA data base, so all those cases should not be heard anyway. So the money money money may be lost. Ah well just have to rely on the service charge income.......

 

Mr Duff may wish to take advice on whether he can lawfully further process my chap's data, and everyone else's data in order to pursue litigation. Is it time for Ransomes to stop digging and to actually manage the estate according to appropriate legal protocols. We commented in court today that Ransomes approach to parking enforcement was legally dysfunctional. It's time to get it right. Is that too much to ask for?

 

According to today's decision the demands for money my chap received were not valid. You can form your own view on what demanding money you are not entitled to means in law. Lasty705 you sent me a personal message in which you commented that Ransomes/Proserve acted lawfully. You also indicated something that only, in my view, my chap and Mr Duff were aware of. Are you Mr Duff? If so, perhaps you would be kind enough to consider a review of the manner in which parking is dealt with on the estate so that this kind of mess does not arise again. Sometimes you just have shrug your shoulders, accept what has happened and get on with life -cut your cloth and all that. Sleep tight

esmorobbo

 

I have been desperately typing the notes about this case and then noticed that you had beaten me.

 

The significance of this case this afternoon cannot be under estimated.

It is indeed a significant result and sounds like they deserved their all you can eat buffet!!

Ii-Ii, What?? They will "bale out" before paying the court.

Your defence is Bomb proof .Talk to me, Why are you worried?

Sorry this is awful advice. Pe will not bale out. Do you have idea of how many cases pe attend in court each week?

If you can't give proper advice don't give it

Possible trolling....

I would close any bank account that is linked to PayPal first of all so they can't try and take it.

There is not a lot PayPal can do apart from trying to sue you

i wouldnt bother for what its worth

And surely if they refused to sign. For it then royal mail would have a record of this and return to sender? If i put the return address on the back?

Recorded post is not recommend for parking companies

Come back to this thread when your popla code.

Just concentrate on getting your popla code for the moment.