Jump to content

BMX bandit

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Appreciate your in depth response and I fully agree that this whole sham of an industry is operating in a parallel universe reliant on fear factor to trick the unsuspecting public into paying extortionate and baseless charges which only encourages them to perpetuate their behaviour! Interesting that the case they quote is not relevant but again this is scare tactics Thanks for the reassurance, I did look up the case you mention re loading, Seems that it had to go to appeal to be overturned but still the right outcome!
  2. No not in this pack, Just a copy of the original NTK from Apr 21 and a Final demand from May21 both of which are included in this thread. The jump to £170 came when it was handed to ZZPS in June 21 who showed the addition of a £70 admin fee for late payment and debt recovery fees. It then went to £182 with letters from QDR solicitors in Jul and Aug 21. Back to £100 in October in a letter from OPS and a return to £170 with numerous letters from DCBL bailiffs and then legal over 6 letters from Nov 21 to now including this latest one. Hope others can comment and advise on any action required
  3. Hi Folks, so the long running saga continues, latest comms after my letter in response to their LOC is a raft of paper from DCB Legal containing a copy of all the letters they have sent me over the last 15 months, along with lots of photos of my car and blown up photos of the notices around the car park and the pay and display machine ( albeit not the machine on the level which I was on ?) The covering letter is attached. I'm not really sure what to make of it? They are saying the charge is correctly issued and owed- of course they would. They state its private land- does that make a difference? They've been instructed to act for their client They seem to justify the additional costs as being valid and cite a court case It states if not paid within 30 days that a claim will be issued without further notice I guess its the last point that gives cause for concern, is this a further LOC then? What's the collective advice on how to react ? Thanks in advance 2022-06-15 DCBL response.pdf
  4. Thanks as always for your helpful comments folks, Understand the fine line approach and whilst a valid point I agree the POFA aspects are best kept in our pocket for future use if needed- I think yuo were referring to Posts 58 & 59 FTM Dave, On my feed I make this one number 62. Captured the addition of holiday and copy to OPS ,so for completeness, Here's where I've got to: Letter of Claim dated 25th April 2022 Many thanks for your LOC. I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the idea you actually thought I'd take it seriously and cough up. I was not parked but loading at the time referred to in your punitive claim, which was a protracted process due to the COVID restrictions in force at the time. You might have been aware that there was a pandemic ravaging the globe and while lots of businesses went under and most councils showed leniency in charges and rules, you and your parasite peers seem to have ramped up your activities in pursuit of unsuspecting members of the public during a period of high stress and human suffering. Now you know and I know and now you know that I know all the reasons why your set up at Vantage Point is complete pants. In fact it should be renamed ‘taking ad-vantage point’ Regarding the £70 Unicorn Food Tax, here is some homework for you and your greedy clients. Go and look up Point 9 of the government's Code of Practice. Good luck getting away with that one in front of a judge! You can either drop this foolishness now or get a complete hammering in court, the choice is yours. If you continue I will of course enjoy obtaining an unreasonable costs order against you under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spending the dosh on a nice foreign holiday while all the time having a great laugh at your expense. I look forward to your deafening silence. COPIED TO ONE PARKING SOLUTION
  5. How's about this for a starter- Too much detail ?? Many thanks for your LOC. I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the idea you actually thought I'd take it seriously and cough up. I was not parked but loading at the time referred to in your punitive claim, which was a protracted process due to the COVID restrictions in force at the time. You might have been aware that there was a pandemic ravaging the globe and while lots of businesses went under and most councils showed leniency in charges and rules, you and your parasite peers seem to have ramped up your activities in pursuit of unsuspecting members of the public during a period of high stress and suffering. Now you know and I know and now you know that I know all the reasons why your set up at Vantage Point is complete pants. In fact it should be renamed ‘taking ad-vantage point’ Regarding the £70 Unicorn Food Tax, here is some homework for you and your greedy clients. Go and look up Point 9 of the government's Code of Practice. Good luck getting away with that one in front of a judge! You can either drop this foolishness now or get a complete hammering in court, the choice is yours. If you continue I will of course enjoy obtaining an unreasonable costs order against you under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spending the dosh on a nice foreign while all the time having a great laugh at your expense. I look forward to your deafening silence.
  6. Thanks Dave, Wow- Yes Point 9, does spell it our quite clearly but I guess this process started before the official ruling, I assume its not advisable mentioning that in the letter as it makes even more of a mockery of the claim if they ever did really take it forward
  7. Hello all, The saga continues and here we have an LOC which I think is the point at which we gear up for a snotty letter ? IF so is the advice to reply towards the end of the 30 day window 2022-04-25 DCBL LOC.pdf
  8. Yes that the one Zydeco, Seems they re following their tried and tested approach- lets hope this saga follows the same pattern as yours. Appreciate the feedback
  9. Uploading letter referred to in the last few posts for completeness 2022-02-04 DCBL.pdf
  10. So I sent the snotty letter as agreed and have received the attached in response, It says they want payment in 14 days to prevent further action- I'm assuming the advice is to ignore this deadline and not to respond? 2022-02-10 Parking eye response to snotty letter.pdf
  11. Thanks so much for your replies guys, Much appreciated and kicks it down the road a but further. I think it was the way they titled the letter that made me doubt myself. I imagine many others have lost their bottle at this stage and paid up which is why they keep on with the harassment tactics! I've lost count of how any letters I've received from various parties regarding this issue and just when I think they've given up another one lands on the door mat, I hope it follows the same pattern as you have experienced Zydeco and these companies cease their parasitic activities!!
  12. Hello, I Received another letter today from DCBL titled 'Notice of intended legal action' Should I take this as the equivalent of a LBA or LBC and prepare a snotty letter first line of response or maintain silence?? It states "we have now referred the matter to our client to review commencing legal action" I'll upload it in the next days but compared to the LBC I received for another case , it doesn't indicate that I need to respond within 30 days or include a response pack with how to pay etc. The other case is with Parking eye and I assume not all companies take the same approach Appreciate your valued advice/ guidance
  13. Thanks for the advice, so now the full proposed response below, Just one question on the phrasing of who was using the car- Are any of the 2 suggestions below OK or do you have a better SENDERS ADDRESS TOWN POSTCODE Dear Parking Eye, Re: PCN no. xxxxxx Letter Before County Court Claim Many thanks for your LBC. I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the idea you actually thought I'd take it seriously and cough up. A person in the vehicle was an NHS patient that day and I can prove it. Or The car was being used by someone who was an NHS patient on that day and I can prove it Now you know and I know and now you know that I know all the reasons why your set up at 175 Preston Road is complete pants. You can either drop this foolishness now or get a complete hammering in court, the choice is yours. If you continue I will of course add xxxxxxx Medical Centre as a third party to the claim and then enjoy obtaining an unreasonable costs order against both of you under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spending the dosh on a nice foreign holiday now that borders are reopening while all the time having a great laugh at your expense. I look forward to your deafening silence. MY NAME COPIED TO xxxxxxxxx MEDICAL CENTRE
  14. Having thought about the response to the LBC, I think the draft as kindly offered by FTM Dave is pithy and direct enough to send the message without need for any further embellishment, As I mentioned I plan to post it next week so just ask a few points of guidance please -Do I add a name and address of the sender at the top of the letter? -Do I need to add 'Without prejudice' ??? -If adding details of sender, Should the letter be from myself as the owner or or my wife as the driver and patient- this may change the text of who was the legitimate NHS patient but I don't think that's an issue is it ? -Should it be signed ? Thanks in advance
×
×
  • Create New...