Jump to content

orfoster

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by orfoster

  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.
  16. It does, as a debt that is up to date, no arrears showing. Shows on one of the 3 CRA's
  17. I sent this in to them on 5 March. Since then the complaints handler has basically been a little childish not willing to respond at all. yes that’s exactly it in a nut shell. I know there is Back Billing code out there but I can’t find it. This says about old bills and also where a dispute is lodged and ignored. Can anyone point me to it??
  18. Haha thanks. I’ll take that as a compliment. I am a senior trade union official but no energy expert. I also sued the Ass of Lloyds Bank in 2014 for Bank Charges and won - it was a widely reported case :).
  19. I wonder if someone can give me an opinion on the below, I've set it out so hopefully it's relatively clear. It turns out her supplier was not the supplier she thought it was, they didn't complete the switch, she only became aware of this in April 2021 when the National Database was shared. Surely she doesn't have to pay the £4k debt? The below was an e-mail I sent to Octopus on 5 March, they've literally not responded to any of it, no formal response, no response for the Data Processing either. I'm really keen to get someone's view on the below situation. Ps she became aware of it as the first step they took was to send a Debt Collector round to her address in January 2021, literally no other collection activities, nothing shown in the SAR either. In summary Mrs G case is that there is no contractual relationship with Octopus Energy, Mrs G transferred to another supplier, raised a dispute with Octopus in November 18 which was ignored at the time of receiving a communication, she has never provided a meter reading and from the information I have seen not only is there no evidence of an implied contract, the evidence shows the opposite to be true. Pursuant to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 it is clearly stated that a "notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer". 'Significant imbalance' means that the rights or obligations contained within the term or notice are significantly weighted in favour of the trader and therefore place a greater burden on OctopusEnergy to show that the terms of the agreement are fair when raising a dispute. Switching Supplier In April 2018 Mrs G requested a switch of supplier from Flow Energy to Economy Energy, on 17 April 2018 she received a letter setting up her Direct Debit with that new supplied and furthershe received an SMS Message advising that the switch had completed. In accordance with Flow Energy Terms and Conditions she duly e-mailed them on9 September 2017 advising them that she was terminating ‘the termination’ the contract with them, she received no further correspondence from Flow Energy and Mrs G made payments to her new supplier. Flow Energy Bills Within the Octopus Energy account there are a number of Flow Energy Bills it is clear that these were never provided to Mrs G, the Flow Energy Statement for 1 October 2017 through to 20 June 2018 was issued on 2 July 2019 this was significantly after the termination of the contract, this was ‘Back Billing’ and shows a debit of £673.78, she was paying her new supplier. Despite this high accrual of alleged arrears Flow Energy made no reasonable attempts to contact Mrs G for payment, there was no contact. However, following her email of termination in September 2017 she made no further payments her intention clearly being to terminate the agreement with that company. Flow Energy further produced a statement on 2 July 2019 for the period of 21 June 2018 to 10 January 2019, it shows a further debit balance of £620.78, therefore so far a total of £1,294.56, again no attempts were made to contact Mrs G about this large debt accruing on her account, something which Ofgem require, no direct debit was in place and she had terminated her agreement and she had no knowledge of this debt accruing. Octopus Energy Acquisition of Flow Energy It was not known by Mrs G at the time but in late 2019 a transfer occurred of the customer book from Flow Energy. Octopus Energy acquired Mrs G account with an alleged debit balance of £2,181.87, both companies would have been aware of this balance at the time and OctopusEnergy would have knowledge that there was no live Direct Debit instruction on the account at the point of acquisition, there were no Debt Collection activities for such a high balance, in the alternative the alleged debt was higher than the industry level of debt as identified by Ofgem by which point reasonable interventions should have taken place for a vulnerable customer. Put simply Mrs G has been treated significantly unfairly by both Octopus Energy and Flow Energy in the allowance of such a debt accruing with no contact or support. Contractual Relationship Aside from the evidence of a transfer to Economy Energy where Mrs G had formed a new contract she states the following. In accordance with Flow Energy terms and conditions Mrs Gill could terminate the agreement the relevant clause states ‘8.1.2 In all other circumstances (except where clause 7.2 applies), you can end this contract by giving us at least 28 days’ notice, or a notice period that we agree to, as long as by the end of the notice period’ following her notice of termination she received no further communication from Flow Energy. Upon acquisition, Octopus Energy allowed the account to to continue accruing debt, with no Direct Debit or meter readings being supplied from acquisition to present date, there was no ‘intention’ for Mrs G to form a contract with either Flow Energy or Octopus Energy following her termination in September 2017. There must be an 'intention to make a contract'. Both Mrs G and Octopus Energy or Flow Energy must intend to be legally bound by the contract and both parties must understand what the contract actually means, this requirement within the Consumer Rights Act simply cannot follow as there was no intention to make a contract, the contrary is evident. Fairness There is a significant amount of inherent unfairness because when Mrs G received what she deemed was a ’suspicious’ email in late 2019 she responded on 12 November 2019 and clearly raised a dispute, she has already provided a copy of this e-mail but it states 'you are not my energy supplier, please remove me from your lists', Octopus Energy failed to respond or engage in any dialogue with Mrs G, she could not have made it clearer that she did not recognise or acknowledge the account. In the alternative, save as to the arguments clearly set out above, hypothetically had Mrs G been a customer, Octopus Energy have an obligation both in statute, Ofgem rules and Octopus Energy’s own fairness policies to recognise vulnerable customers and provide support. Octopus Energy have allowed a debt of over £4,000 to accrue on the account with no contact, this is entirely unfair conduct and creates an imbalance between the consumer and the business. Data Processing This e-mail has been copied to the Data Protection Officer for Octopus Energy as Mrs Gill is ‘objecting’ to processing and requiring ‘erasure’ of information, the relevant ICO Guidance is ‘Principles for the Reporting of Arrears, Arrangements and Defaults at Credit Reference Agencies’ which sets out the key principles for processing. Mrs G objects to that processing on the following grounds. 1. The data is being processed is not fair or accurate, I have clearly outlined above why it isn’t fair or accurate. 2. There is no agreement or right to process that exists in any event for you to process data, Mrs G terminated her contract in September 2017 and has shown no intention to form a contract since, there is no lawful basis for processing. Mrs G requests Erasure of information shared with the credit reference agencies, this is because the information has been processed unlawfully and against the 1st and 4th principle, more specifically the data has no lawful basis, is not fair and is not accurate. You have one calendar month to confirm if you are complying with Mrs G request. Outcome Mrs G does not acknowledge there is a contract in place with Octopus Energy and does not acknowledge the balance, she raised a dispute which was not responded to and Octopus have allowed the alleged account to reach a significant level of debt with no reasonable steps taken to address it, this constitutes an ‘unfair relationship’, despite full knowledge that no payment method had never been in place and a dispute had been registered, she does not acknowledge the account or balance and therefore the account should be closed with no further action. Further, as outlined above there is no lawful basis for a company with no contractual relationship with Mrs G to continue processing her data and therefore this information should be erased and destroyed.
  20. Amazing win based on UTCCR's, we wouldn't have won on BCOBs though, the judge was not interested in BCOBs in the slightest. The judgment is a really good read but it won't let me link in to where it is online from here, I don't have a copy on my work PC. I'm so over the moon with it. The hearing was 23 June and it took till yesterday for the Judgment to arrive!!!
  21. Hello everyone, Yes I got back from my honeymoon to receive the judgment which was amazing. However, we wouldn't have won on BCOBs, the judge didn't like that at all in Court. It was won on UTCCR's. So so over the moon, although we wait to see what Lloyds next steps are.
  22. If there isn't a moral case I'd turn up outside their shop with a clipboard and a survey asking their customers walking in if they believe what has happened is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. I'd think they'd soon resolve the issue, as long as you are on public property. (ignore me its just my frustrated idea).
  23. Contact details for T-Mobile (EE) CEO [email protected] You will eventually get a reply from their Executive Office.
  24. Morning, great, thanks. Yes, the loss being claimed is the fact we made a decision to fix the mortgage rate at that time based on what the advisor told us, that was a higher rate. Had we been told the truth we would have stayed on a standard rate so to be able to change if we found a better provider. We fixed for 5 years thinking we had the security if that makes sense so the interest adds up, that's essentially the claim I'd bring. I can get my ex taken off soon anyway because of the length of time passed.
  25. Ok, I have now had enough of the Halifax on this. Summary of claim; Joint mortgage - only I want to sue though Incorrect advice given by email in July 2008 by mortgage advisor. Question is can I bring a claim myself although its a joint mortgage? Also would this be under professional negligence or breach of contract? The words professional negligence are a bit scary and the pre-action conduct looks a lot more intensive and ideally I want this to stay in the small claims court.
×
×
  • Create New...