Jump to content

Bonfire

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bonfire

  1. In May last year I sent a watch by Special Delivery Guaranteed before 1PM to Casio for repair. When the watch arrived at Casio’s repair centre the padded envelope was ripped and the watch was missing. I claimed through Royal Mail’s website for compensation for the loss, but despite apologising for failing to meet my expectations and admitting liability, they stated that under the terms of the product I had failed to meet the criteria where they could provide full compensation. They provided no more information than that, but they did include a cheque for £7.65, which was the cost of the service. I spent five months going through the various escalatory processes, and each time their excuses for not honouring my claim changed; I had not provided them with enough evidence to prove the watch’s worth (I had long since lost the receipt and it was no longer in production, so the best evidence I could find was using links to websites that showed its RRP – but were not accepted by RM); I had not provided them with the original packaging nor the original receipt for postage – I provided both, but then they claimed my packaging wasn’t adequate. My final act of complaining to the independent postal review team didn’t work either as they just parroted the Royal Mail’s decision. I submitted an MCOL against them earlier this year (make sure that you address it to Royal Mail's registered address, as others have found to their cost that having to change the address where papers are served can add to the expense of the claim). Royal Mail’s defence was the usual case law of Harold Stephen & Co from 1978, and that I failed to meet the conditions of the UK Post Scheme – without a reciept for the watch or a copy of a bank statement they claimed I couldn’t provide evidence of value; they claimed that I had not packaged it properly and referred to packaging guidelines within the Postal Scheme for perishable, fragile and bendable objects; they claimed that I had no contract with them even when buying “an insurance” to compensate for loss or damage whilst in their care. So I had my day in court - my hearing was before Deputy District Judge Lindsay in Brighton on the 26th June. I had to concede that they had me over a barrel with the case law, that the government gave them a lot of (unfair) protection, but I argued that it was blatantly unfair that RM could accept a valuable item into their care, lose it, then have no claim in contractual law whatsoever against them. But the conditions within the UK Postal Scheme are challengeable. The RM’s legal rep claimed that the padded envelope was not suitable for a fragile item such as a watch. The Judge agreed with me that a stainless steel watch is not a fragile item and that my padded envelope was of a reasonable strength to protect it. He also found that I had sufficiently proved it’s value and awarded the case in my favour. Facing a judge and arguing your case against professional legal representation may be a little daunting, but it is worth doing against RM. They think that quoting dozens of pages of case law will put people of claiming against them. Do a bit of research, prepare well and the chances are you'll be successful.
  2. Received this in response to my request for CPR31.14 dcb CPR31 REFUSAL.pdf
  3. So - Details of the claim: Name of the Claimant: One Parking Solution Ltd Claimants Solicitors: DCB Legal Ltd, Direct House, Runcorn, WA7 1UG Date of issue: 27 Nov 19 Date to acknowledge) = 13 Dec date to submit defence = 27 Dec What is the claim for: 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (s) issued to vehicle [AA99 AAA] at Vantage Point (Vantage Point is in New England Rd, Brighton) 2. The PCN details are 01/11/2016, 3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s). 4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. 5.Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. 6.The Contract entitles C to damages. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £160 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages 2. Interest at a rate of *8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hererof at a daily rate of £0.04 until judgement or sooner payment. 3. Costs and court fees. What is the value of the claim? £274.31 Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim ? The claim is from the parking company Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? N/A
  4. Received this today. There is a factual inaccuracy - At no point did I agree to pay; in fact I never got in touch with them. It doesn't have the feel of a court generated letter. The County Court 'Crown' stamp has a photocopy quality. And the address? The County Court Business Centre? PCN 20191128.pdf
  5. Hi Honeybee - this thread is not accepting new replies, but I received  a "claim" purporting to be from Northampton County Court  Business Centre. Can I post to the thread please?

     

  6. So safe to ignore this as well, or do I need to respond to them?
  7. So, since my last post we received another letter from ZZPSS and now a letter from a firm of solicitors called Wright Hassell. If ever there was a prize for nominative determinism, they would win surely! We have 10 days to get in touch before they take this further... IMG_6185-2.pdf
  8. EricsB - Sorry, but I haven't touched the pictures I uploaded. But I appreciate your advice. If they send me anything else I'll post up here.
  9. Sorry - still confused. So the sign on the parking machine that states 'Vehicles overstaying paid parking time are liable to a penalty charge of £60' doesn't mean that? I would like to understand the nuance of what you say so that I understand what my grounds for appeal are. Should it actually state that the driver/keeper is liable, not the vehicle? How can a vehicle be liable, right?
  10. EricsB - I am confused by your reply. The machine does state that if you overstay then you will be liable for a charge of £60. Received this today. Is it still worth pursuing an appeal with One Parking Solutions or has that option been lost? zzps.pdf
  11. Not much signage on the machine, but plenty of identical signs smattered around the walls. Signs.pdf
  12. Thanks EB. I'll try to get to the car park to take pictures ASAP.
  13. Evening all. I wasn't the driver in this case and I only became aware that a PCN had been issued and Notice to Keeper had been received about two days before the 28 day deadline to pay. I have uploaded the PCN and the NTK (2 pages). I would appreciate advice on what to do next, particularly whether the NTK is valid (see howler on page 1, third paragraph!). All pages have been redacted - please let me know if I have redacted too much! I haven't contacted One Parking Solution yet. 1 The date of infringement? 01 Nov 2016 2 Did you appeal to the parking company? No If yes, has there been any response? If no, have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) Yes Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? Yes 3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) No 4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK, did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process? [it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances] N/A 5 Who is the parking company? One Parking Solution Ltd Thanks, Bon NTK1 redacted.pdf PCN redacted.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...