Jump to content

orfoster

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

orfoster last won the day on December 28 2006

orfoster had the most liked content!

Reputation

122 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hi all thanks for the previous comments, I'll detail the billing history a little later when I've got the dates etc in front of me, it's complicated I guess in that both companies relevant here went bust and the ones taken over have limited data. Yes she moved to Eon and is also more of the view now that she should ignore it until they come to take pre action. I have considered a complaint to ICO though in respect of the no permission for data to CRA, I tend to find the ICO are far more fair in their determinations. I don't intend on taking it to the Ombudsman though, I think that won't assist, I've had limited success with them in the past.
  2. Just seeking to dispute the debt really. There are a few issues I have with all of this and I know that her case has some weaknesses 1) Surely the Energy Company had to be aware of the debt building up, in fact it should have indicated a vulnerable customer. 2) A review should have identified that there had never been a Direct Debit in place. 3) Debt Collection activity should have commenced, thus identifying the issue and mitigating the debt. It's just a general fairness argument, maybe I'm wrong. Thanks for the backbilling info.
  3. Thanks for this DX, I've made changes to the defence below. I think they are ready to go... 1.The claim is for the sum of £107.04 being due from the Defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a contractual breach which occurred on 28/05/2020 in the private car park/land at George Braunton - Exeter Road Braunton Devon EX33 2JJ In relation to a Peugeot XYZ, registration mark XXXXXX. 2.The PCN was issued as the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions as displayed. 3.Despite demands, the charge remains unpair. 4.Pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily date of £0.02) from 28/05/2020 to 14/05/2021 being an amount of £7.04. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of Practice. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 3 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance, it is denied that the Defendant received any offer or accepted a contract. The Claimant was only allegedly contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that the Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant is not in a position to state if the Defendant was the driver at the time. 4. The Claimant has not complied with CPR 31.14 dated 19 May 2021 request for evidence of an agreement with the landowner. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 4 is denied. There are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge. 6. It is denied that the Claimant entered into any pre-action conduct prior to issuing this claim. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to evidence its cause of action and contractual costs and what loss it has suffered. The Claimant is further put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Particulars of Claim are denied in their entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all.
  4. Thanks all, How is the below as a Defence, I've taken it from the post quoted above and tweaked it? 1.The claim is for the sum of £107.04 being due from the Defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a contractual breach which occurred on 28/05/2020 in the private car park/land at George Braunton - Exeter Road Braunton Devon EX33 2JJ In relation to a Peugeot XYZ, registration mark XXXXXX. 2.The PCN was issued as the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions as displayed. 3.Despite demands, the charge remains unpair. 4.Pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily date of £0.02) from 28/05/2020 to 14/05/2021 being an amount of £7.04. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of Practice. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance, it is denied that the Defendant received any offer or accepted a contract. The Claimant was only allegedly contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant is not in a position to state if the Defendant was the driver at the time. 4. The Claimant has not complied with CPR 31.14 request for evidence of an agreement with the landowner. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. There are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge. 6. It is denied that the Claimant entered into any pre-action conduct prior to issuing this claim.
  5. Yeah its an ANPR site but when I visited it I can't see any ANPR pointing on the exit.
  6. I think they were in the car park 25 minutes, they deny this and say that's too long because they'd already been waiting for the fish and chips on the road, they don't think they were waiting more than 10 minutes in the car park but we can't prove that.
  7. Yes we have the Account Reference, payments were via DD, Payments Continued until Economy went under (she wasn’t communicated with) when we did a SAR to OVO they provided very little information They hold essentially a line on a spreadsheet. She made payments to them for just over a year, she didn’t realise the payments to them stopped. Do you think OFGEM might hold information about what happened with the switch?
  8. Morning, No she hasn’t moved, certainly not during the period in question. Moved 4 years ago. There has been nothing disclosed from BW other than the PCN and the Final Demand letter. DRAFT Defence - I haven't mentioned the signage being POOR, I'm not sure how to word it? 1. The Defendant received the claim XXXXX from the County Court Business Centre on 19 May 2021. 2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre action correspondence. 3. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: - The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the Defendant as the Claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR Part 16 and practice direction 16 7.5. In this regard I wish to draw the Courts attention to the following matters; A) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the any agreement. the method the Claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, how they became due, or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant's claim. B) The overriding objective of the CPRs dictates that the case should be handled at a proportionate cost. The defendant recognises this duty and refrains from making an application for summary judgement at a cost which exceeds the claims value but asks the court to strike the claim out under its powers, of it’s own motion. 4. It is denied that the Defendant has entered into a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim states the contract was entered into between 28 May 2020. 6. On the 19 May 2021 The Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents in respect of the claims particularised by the Claimant under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14. 7. The Claimant responded in part in a letter dated 6 June 2021, received on 4 June 2021. The Claimant has refused to provide evidence of their right to operate at the Car Park. There has been no Pre-Action Conduct by the Claimant prior to the Claim being issued. 8. On the 19 May 2021 The Defendant sent a Subject Access Request to the Claimant, to date the Claimant has not responded. 9. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed, part of this proof must be that the Claimant’s right to operate on the land. 10. The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for the Defendant to fully plead a case or in the alternative the Claim should stand struck out. 11. The Defendant respectfully requests the court for permission to amend the defence when the full details are received, with cost being met by the claimant. 12. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all. 13. The Claimant is claiming for more than the original alleged debt and is abusing the process.
  9. The date of issue was 3 June 2020. we don’t know when she received it I’m afraid.
  10. Thanks. I thought as much. She was buying Fish and Chips (she’s registered keeper) her husband was driving. He pulled into the car park and waited for her while she had a couple of issues with the order and drove off. They’re saying she didn’t pay at all, well no, he didn’t realise it was a private car park. Do I mention signage in Defence or just that no contract was entered into?
  11. Apologies - here are the images again Car Park Shot 3-merged-compressed.pdf Here is the PCN again - Parking Charge Notice-edited-compressed-edited.pdf No letter of claim from them was received. SAR was also sent to Premier Park Ltd on 19 May, no response yet. This is for my sister, she tells me she had nothing after the final reminder in August 20. Yes this is ANPR although I cannot see where the camera is monitoring the exit, although they do capture the back plates of the car.
  12. Name of the Claimant : Premier Parking Ltd Claimants Solicitors: Bw legal Date of issue – 17 May 2021 Date for AOS - Acknowledged 19 May 2021 (Deadline 4 June 2021) Date to submit Defence - Friday 18 June 2021 What is the claim for – 1.The claim is for the sum of £107.04 being due from the Defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a contractual breach which occurred on 28/05/2020 in the private car park/land at George Braunton - Exeter Road Braunton Devon EX33 2JJ In relation to a Peugeot XYZ, registration mark XXXXXX. 2.The PCN was issued as the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions as displayed. 3.Despite demands, the charge remains unpair. 4.Pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily date of £0.02) from 28/05/2020 to 14/05/2021 being an amount of £7.04. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of Practice. What is the value of the claim? Amount Claimed; £167.04 court fees: £25 legal rep fees: £50 Total Amount: £242.04 Signage at Car Park (which in my view is POOR). Response to CPR Request bwlegal-2-compressed.pdf Parking Charge Notice etc as supplied within the CPR Response above. They won't supply proof of landowner.
  13. They weren't doing anything, she didn't know anything about it and then one day in January they sent a Debt Collector to the door, no letters, no calls, straight to doorstep collection. I e-mailed them raising the dispute and they held off any collection activity. Would gladly let it ride but am aware they will recommence and she is worried about the debt collectors calling with her kids there, otherwise I would just ignore them. We could just do nothing now, wait for them to recommence and say there is a dispute and they've failed to reply?
  14. Sorry, yes it shows £4K balance but no nasty markers, it shows 'all up to date' on CRA. No, the moment she found out she was still with them she switched to Eon (Octopus didn't oppose the switch), that was a few months ago. Nope, didn't receive the bills, they say she did, they say she 'read' the e-mails, however despite asking numerous times they won't share 1) the e-mails or 2) the read receipts they refer to. They aren't in her inbox she said the welcome e-mail she had (November 19) that she disputed went into her Junk and she regarded it as that as well but she still replied disputing it, prior to that all the Flow Energy bills she never received and the ones they are saying she had in 2020 she didn't receive either, obviously those are within 12 months though. Despite the complaint being lodged on 5 March 2021, and really dispute was raised before then too, they will not respond to the issues, no formal response. I note that they are in breach of Energy Company complaints Regulations The Gas and Electricity (Consumer Complaints Handling Standards) Regulations 2008 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations prescribe standards for the handling of consumer complaints by regulated providers and for the supply of information to consumers about the prescribed standards and levels of compliance with... .
  15. We did a SAR to OVO they acknowledged they weren't the supplier, absolutely no data about why the switch didn't go through, neither Economy (Ovo) or Flow (Octopus) are able to say why the switch didn't go ahead, no there wasn't a balance with Flow. I think my worry about this is, the consumer believed that she was in a contract with Economy and entirely behaved as such, she disputed Octopus and they ignored her, she didn't pay them but paid Economy, however the fact is Octopus were registered as her supplier. The issue though is that if they failed to support/collect/contact her at all, that must be unreasonable? Obviously she is terrified about paying the £4k.
×
×
  • Create New...