Jump to content

emmaTPockets

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About emmaTPockets

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I still have to confirm that I am the keeper and put the reg mark on - or does the address suffice?
  2. I have received a letter before claim from your litigation department. I dispute the claim. I am the keeper of the vehicle – registration mark ……………………. No contract exists between the company and the keeper and no liability is accepted. Your claim is flawed and misrepresentative. You have no locus standi. I deny that any contract exists between myself (the keeper) and the company issuing this letter before claim – I was not the driver of the vehicle on the day therefore not the user of the site to which this alleged liability refers, nor was I present at the site on that day. Other a
  3. Sorry Andy , if you are referring to the last flippant comment. I definitely won't put that on! The being snotty bit is not in me I'm afraid. But I'm tenacious and will not baulk . I just need to get this letter sent out. I have seen the pre - action protocol and that's what has minded me just to be straight to the point. Other snotty letters have still resulted in the same trajectory from what I have read so far.
  4. I could add *poobum ? I like the way you sign off dx ...be back soon
  5. I acknowledge I am ..............the keeper of ......... I was not the driver of the vehicle in your letter nor present at the site on that date. I cannot be held liable for the actions of the driver nor does the speculative claim meet conditions requiring keeper compliance with any alleged contravention. I deny any contract with the company. I would strenuously defend any claim against me. Do not persist in sending these or any other notices.
  6. Just a note @sh3ffield the 2010 contract is on one of the threads - not easy to read but is there.
  7. Thanks All - I appreciate your input - I was working on this when FTM and BN posted above. Could you please read and give your thoughts? Question 1 - the name on the letter before claim is a X from the Litigation department(perhaps I shouldn't name him on here?) but on your snotty letters you specifically name SRS - what do you recommend I use? Question 2 - An alleged 'outstanding balance' needs to be received by May 3. (I am not paying obviously as I don't admit to the alleged liability and the request is not compliant).This 'suggested principle debt' should be
  8. Hi All - thank you for your contributions - I have been doing my reading up and will come back with the letter - hopefully tomorrow. (that is today now -29th I got distracted in my lockdown studies) Please could anyone confirm whether the reply form must be used - is it part of the pre- action protocol ? Off to check Civil Procedure rules. Dear .... I am in receipt of a letter before claim from your 'litigation and debt department'. After reading the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 it states that a 'creditor has the right to recovery if all the ap
  9. Thank you @brassneckedI would have replied sooner but I couldn't get back on the site. I thought I'd crashed it by trying to upload a photo which I had previously copied from another thread. I'll look at the parking prankster.
  10. I understand that not identifying the driver is important. In this instance the keeper is also unaware of the car park terms and conditions and the PCN NTK did not show what car park charge, if any, existed at the time. A photo of the most recent signage was posted on another thread, but that has not been provided to the keeper by the company . If they (the keeper) have never been there, or seen signage to explain the charges, the NTK is not clear why a PCN is necessary as there is no explanation of the tariffs. From the photograph of the signs
  11. I have some thoughts ... in no particular order yet. Thank you @anniebattlemum for yours and @dx100uk - the timing is a day out to comply then? ( They state themselves - the 2nd working day from the issue date) There is no mention of the specific mention of POFA 2012 - there is mention of Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) 2002 and a request to the DVLA, then later in the paragraph that images/data is held on file in accordance with Data Protection Legislation? Interestingly I note that the keeper is 'invited' to (i), (ii) or C - (in this instan
  12. HI @sh3ffield did you ever hear anything more about this? ( I hope it's okay to ask?)
  13. Thank you @anniebattlemum , I'll post in the other thread from now on . Hope you are doing okay in lockdown - and all the family are managing okay too?
×
×
  • Create New...