Jump to content


Site Team
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by FTMDave

  1. You've obviously done loads of research into why their claim is total pants - excellent work. You have a great chance of seeing off these fleecers. Take the steps dx has suggested tomorrow.
  2. Regarding your point (3), involving debt collectors is a normal procedure and also no big deal for the person being pursued as debt collectors have no power to do anything. It's the trying to make you bankrupt which is serious and as you rightly say "an attempt to bypass due process and the County Court". You need to change this bit - obviously if you & BF decide to send your draft above.
  3. There - the obvious changes made: Dear DCBL, cheers for your Letter Before Claim. I had a good laugh at the idea you actually really thought I'd take such tripe seriously and cough up! As usual you'll have done no due diligence before sending out your bilge otherwise you'd know full well your client's case is complete pants. Your client has scored a big own goal by adding £60 Unicorn Food Tax. Wooops! Judges don't like these made-up sums, do they? Your client can either drop this hopeless case or get a good kicking in court where I will go for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spend it all on a foreign holiday now that we can all travel again, while all the time laughing at your client. I look forward to your deafening silence. COPIED TO UK PARKING CONTROL LTD
  4. If you send that you will definitely be taken to court. There's no reason for the fleecers not to take you to court. You admit that you know nothing about the case and you make basic legal mistakes: they have every right to bring a case within six years; CPR 27.14(2)(g) has got nothing to do with their inflated charges, it is a procedure used when someone loses a court case, has to pay the other party's capped costs, plus extra costs for unreasonable behaviour. As for "without providing anything in support of your client's claim" from their point of view you've had several letters before (which you admit). Send that and they will be straight on MCOL and in a few days you will have a county court claim I pointed you in the direction of a snotty letter which was written for someone who, like you, had no information about the original "offence" and is therefore generic and suitable for use by you too. It should be sent word for word (apart from obvious things like the addressees). It makes you seem like someone who would just make a hole in the fleecers' pockets if they did do court. The idea is that they will leave you in peace and go after some mug instead - although of course there are no guarantees.
  5. They are idiots. Not exactly a grand apocalyptic threat is it - pay up or ... ... we'll send you another letter, so there! Relax & ignore them. But do come here if they really do send the Letter of Claim.
  6. That's not what we had in mind. The time to be sending SARs was way back in March or earlier when you first heard from them, not at the last minute when you're on the eve of a court case. You need to write a snotty letter so the idiots realise (a) you haven't moved so no chance of a backdoor CCJ and (b) you're a pain in the backside who would cause them big trouble if they did do court. There's a suitable snotty letter in post 32 at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/439586-futuregladstones-anpr-pcn-paploc-funfair-bridge-st-stourport-on-severn-worcs/page/2/#comments Obviously change things such as the addressee details and the amount of the Unicorn Food Tax, add the PCN number and send off tomorrow to both DCBL and UKPC, otherwise you could well get a county court claim form. Use snail mail, not e-mail, if this does get to court, using e-mail would mean they could file documents at one minute to the deadline full of lies which it would be too late for you to counter. If you want to send a SAR as well to find out what this is all about, then fine, send the SAR in a few days' time, but to UKPC only.
  7. There's a problem though LFI. The OP is adamant that the original PCN was from Excel, but they didn't keep it. The OP doesn't have the original PCN. When they CPR'd Elms, they sent everything bar the PCN, which suggests they had something to hide and backs up what the OP said. When the OP SAR'd Excel they didn't reply, again which ties in again with what the OP has told us. When they SAR'd VCS they did send a PCN, which could easily have been forged by Simon. The WS will contain a PCN but probably this forged one. I was hoping the DVLA would confirm the involvement of Excel but they haven't replied either.
  8. Great work BN. Can you get the call or at least a tapescript to the OP? So in Simon's world, whenever the OP gets a job it's her responsibility to contact every single PPC in the whole of the country to check if they administer the car park in question and if so apply for a permit. I suppose alternatively she could cycle there the evening before even if the place was several miles away in the heart of winter just to see if there were signs belonging to a PPC Good luck to Simon arguing this before a judge.
  9. OK, thanks, please do so when you have time. If you want a good laugh, read post 14 at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/435008-smartcst-anpr-pcn-paploc-wrong-reg-hardwick-road-stockton-on-tees/?tab=comments#comment-5111577 This is a letter mainly the work of forum regular Lookinforinfo. It contains all the legal arguments about why you're in the right. It was sent in May after a threat by the parking company to take a motorist to court but strangely the parking company have been conspicuous by their silence since!
  10. From the link I put up copy and paste the part about ANPR capture (which i presume your case is) and then answer the questions to the best of your ability. Do it here, no need for a new thread. We'd like to see the original PCN please. If you want to upload the rest, OK, but it's not really essential. We can guess that PE wrote pages & pages of tripe that you didn't abide what their signs told you to do. POPLA agreed. While all the time there is the proper law in England & Wales which says you're in the right.
  11. Don't worry, there is a legal term called "de minimis" which means "the law does not deal with trivialities". You paid. Parking Eye got their money. You don't owe them a bean. We haven't seen a parking company take anyone to court for a long time over incorrect registration cases, simply because they know they'd lose. BTW it's not a fine, it's an invoice, a private company doesn't have the power to fine someone. Can you please fill in the forum sticky below? We may already have experience of the car park and the fleecers have to send their documentation out according to a legal time frame and often they don't -
  12. Are we sure the fee is £100? I'm searching & searching and only see £100 quoted when the other side consents.
  13. Indeed they do, cut & paste bilge as BN says. However, that's very, very good news for you. I see that you included Supremacy of Contract in your defence. This is an extremely-important legal point. Ambreen has ignored it when talking about your defence. Presumably she agrees you had Supremacy of Contract. She certainly hasn't argued against it. It's common sense that residents will at some point have work done on their properties. What are tradespeople like you supposed to do? Is there a temporary permit scheme? There's nothing mentioned by Ambreen and nothing on their signs. Essentially they're making it impossible for you not to be charged, which is an unfair term. Ambreen mentions a contract. Can you post that up too? It's highly likely VCS have messed up there. Anything from the DVLA? You need to draft a new version of your own WS now, try and group the points together as explained in post 146.
  14. No real harm has been done but the thing to remember is that rogue solicitors like BW Legal who are in cahoots with the PPCs are simply conmen. They're solicitors, they know the law, they know about "de minimis", they know the money isn't owed but carry on regardless. That's why forum regular lookinforinfo prepared the snotty letter you found to show their sordid little schemes had been sussed and it would have been better to send them the whole thing. Once you start discussing evidence with them they will come out with every lie imaginable to try to get you to pay. It's complete nonsense to say the grace period ended because you went to get a quid from the chippy, what you did was no different to going back to your car to get some change, for example. You've been through PAPLOC now, they sent the Letter of Claim, you told them where to get off, relax now, yours is not the next move.
  15. The points you've made in themselves are fine. The problem is the tactics. In the past we've had Caggers who prepared long, detailed defences, full of superb legal arguments that had had been excellently researched ... ... which gave the crooked solicitors at the other end advance notice of the defence and they had months & months in which to think up lies to counter it. Best to keep the defence as generic as possible. After all VCS's PoC are vague, so what's good for the goose ... At https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/393251-received-a-court-claim-from-a-private-parking-speculative-invoice-how-to-deal-with-it-hereupdated-jun-2021/ scroll down to Q2) How should I defend? Just use that generic defence. If you can, adapt the defence to refer directly to the points in the PPC's Particulars of Claim as you've been doing above. A good example is in post 66 here https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/431494-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-47-stopping-in-a-restricted-bus-stop-stand-robin-hood-airport-doncaster/page/3/#comments
  16. Did VCS really number their points as you set out in post 35? They generally just write a generic wall of text.
  17. Just remembered! Now I know this is no laughing matter for either your or your parents, but I guarantee if you read the following http://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 by the end you won't be able to contain the giggles On a more serious note, quote this in your WS as a persuasive case in (5). Here there is VCS, someone who left the site, no locus standi, lots of stuff similar to your parents' cases. And VCS took one hell of a hammering!
  18. Don't worry about the questions - that's what we're here for. I'll try and flesh out the arguments and answer your questions at the same time. Let's use "I" to refer to your mum as it's her WS. 1. Sequence of events Describe briefly that the driver parked in the retail park and visited Citygate garage, thinking it was part of the retail park. Upon return to the vehicle there was no windscreen ticket or indication of any infringement. Later I received a PCN for parking in a restricted area, then various threatening letters, after a Letter Before Action which I replied to and finally a claim form. 2. Locus standi VCS are not the landowner. The contract they have provided is not with the landowner, it is with another company, it ran out in 2018, the company it is with went into liquidation in 2019, the contract cannot possibly be valid. 3. No keeper liability VCS should be suing the driver, they have not established keeper liability under POFA (you know all about the 29-56 day stuff, quote it all from POFA). (Yes! Good find on their sign! Include the sign and say VCS maintain they have images that can identify the driver and yet have not identified me as such). (Yes, keep it vague as to who was driving, it's up to VCS to prove, not you. They could easily have used POFA correctly but have complete contempt for the law so haven't). 4. Planning permission VCS go to great pains in their WS to emphasise their signage, none of which I disagree with. However I do not believe they have planning permission for these signs which is a criminal offence under Town and Country [Advertisements} regulations and means no contract could be formed. I have requested proof of planning permission from VCS by means of a CPR request but they have not replied. I have searched XXXXX council planning portal and I cannot find planning permission for the signs. Their CoP incudes that they must obtain all legal permissions yet they have not done so (look up the bit on the IPC CoP): (You can't prove a negative. The work you've done here is more than enough. They have to prove they have planning permission yet have not). 5. Predatory practises These are forbidden by the CoP (again, look the section up) (a) The driver did not find the Notice to Driver on their return to the car although it appears in VCS's photos. As the car park is patrolled, it is unlikely that a member of the public removed it. I believe the patrol officer photographed it and removed it. This is a well-known tactic used by PPCs so that the motorist misses the chance to pay during the discounted period. I enclose a statement by Mr XXXXX which confirms what i say. (b) The driver visited Citygate garage which is a matter of metres away from the retail site, in fact the driver thought it to be part of the site. The patrol officer could easily have mitigated the loss by informing the driver of their mistake, yet did not. (c) The parking violation alleged was to have left the site, yet the PCN is for a completely different violation, parking in a restricted area. The area was not restricted, there were no permits to show or payment to be made, it is a free public car park. This error was made either out of incompetence or deliberately to confuse me and make it impossible to appeal. In any case in their WS VCS are alleging a completely different breach of contract that that stated in their PCN and in all their previous correspondence I would point out that the patrol officer will not attend the hearing so I will not be able to cross examine him, and I am confident that neither will the WS author since from research I have carried out I have discovered that neither Ambreen Arshad nor Mohammed Wali (VCS's other paralegal) who always write the company's WSs ever attend hearings, presumably to avoid cross examination. Its is especially easy to attend on-line hearings during the COVID pandemic as no travelling is involved. 6. Unicorn Food Tax Easy, copy from Alaska 101
  19. Well Ambreen is mercifully less repetitive than Wally. However, the "meat" of her WS comes down to the same thing. "We put up lots & lots & lots & lots of signs and the driver walked off site". I don't think you need two threads and I think fundamentally your two WSs can be the same based on the arguments in posts 101-105. As you're going to state you think the attendant removed the windscreen ticket and also failed to mitigate your mistake, I'm thinking it might be worth your parents backing each other up. They could each write a short statement saying that on that day they were with "the driver and the driver's party", that they all visited the Citygate garage together which was a matter of metres off site, and when they returned to the car there was no windscreen ticket. Have they got any other proof of visiting the Citygate garage? Did they phone before or make an appointment for example? It also crossed my mind to briefly acknowledge you agree with Ambreen about the signage so that argument can be got rid of (she hasn't got much else). Then I thought, even better, say you agree about the number of signs but that they were erected illegally and go on to the bit about planning permission. Regarding LFI's point 48. Not only will Ambreen not be in court (VCS's paralegals never, ever are) and therefore unavailable for cross examination, neither will the car park attendant who engaged in predatory practises. When you have time post up a draft of your WS and we'll help to tweak where necessary.
  20. So Ambreen rather than Wally this time. Fleetwood Town v Sunderland is taking up my time at the moment but I promise to have a good read of the whole thing this evening.
  21. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which the fleecers whittle on about, what they are supposed to do is to stick a ticket on your car and then send you a PCN between 29 and 56 days after the incident. However, the imbeciles have ballsed it up and followed the procedure for an ANPR capture. This is good news. It means they can't go after the keeper of the vehicle - and they wrote to you as the keeper. They could pursue the driver, but they don't know who that is! That's on top of the gravel car park, "incorrectly parked" meaning nothing, the photos showing your car parked responsibly equidistant between other cars, etc. I've done a search of our old threads and this company has never taken anyone to court, in fact they've never even issued a Letter Before Claim. Mind you, they are a relatively new company so that could change. Anyway, ignore their rubbish but do come back here if they have the gonads to send your a Letter Before Claim/Letter Before Action.
  • Create New...