Jump to content

shamrocker

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,447
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by shamrocker

  1. Ok, thanks. Have you read up on other cases to get an idea of what might be a suitable response?
  2. Post up a copy of the letter (hide any identifiable information first).
  3. You had a killer argument that was well supported, so it would make sense to not spend time on other arguments which are more difficult to persuade. The claimant isn't particularly clever really, and was probably just blinded by what they thought would be an easy £600 (your hard earned cash!).
  4. Awesome - great stuff! They're lucky it's only £95 they owe you. Bet you're glad it's all been resolved, finally. Was there any mention of the fact the parking space is not on land managed by the claimant?
  5. Well done! This is more than likely the end of it, but you should check with the court at some stage that they've officially discontinued. They can still chase you for the debt, and they might, but you can just ignore. If they were to issue proceedings again, you can refer to this case in your submissions - it won't reflect very well on them if their case is similar to this time. The chances of them trying again are probably slim though.
  6. Ok, as long as you've satisfied yourself that how you're angling it puts you on a firm footing. A lot of people read stuff but often don't understand how to use it. Good luck!
  7. Have you read any other forum threads where the claimant disclosed the same type of screenshot and it was not deemed sufficient by the judge?
  8. Admission of something is one thing, but is it legally enforceable?? I sense they wouldn't be quoting an online forum if their case was watertight. Would be interesting to see what they've disclosed.
  9. johnbomo - how do you rate your chances with this, in view of the evidence put forward by the claimant?
  10. Thanks for coming on here to update us Coupon Mad. It's a pity that DJ Harvey didn't give the entrance signage the same savage treatment as other aspects of the case. I can kind of understand why though, in the greater context of things. Thanks again. Sham
  11. Sorry, I haven't got any additional information on the case or defendant. Has the journalist got the URL for the MSE forum post? They could probably attempt making contact themselves, maybe. Sham
  12. It's nothing to do with me. I just found it on a parking tickets group that I keep an eye on (albeit I far prefer the tone and content of CAG on this subject - by a long shot) and, as it had originated on MSE forum, I would expect there'll be some updates posted on there. I haven't had a chance to look yet, but I can't imagine it being too hard to find. It's a good one though. I have to say, it all felt a bit surreal when I read it. You become accustomed to the constant fear of 'judge lottery' and then along comes this little beauty to brighten up your day.
  13. Glad you seem to be enjoying the read! Just a word of caution, the person who posted this warned against naming individuals as it's likely the affected companies will lean on the forum to take the material down. I don't know how valid this is, but I'll say it anyway and leave it to admin to advise accordingly. It's great to see these shysters taken to task though.
  14. This may have been posted on here previously, but I picked it on Facebook this morning - it reportedly originated on MSE forums. DJ Harvey, at Lewes County Court, dismissed the claim of One Parking Solutions and was rather scathing of OPS in their judgement. It's well worth a read if you've not read it before. There are some real nuggets in there that will be of use to us mere mortals. One Parking Solution v Ms W 5 Feb 2020.pdf
  15. Considering the stage you're at with this and the amount at stake, I'd be going the extra mile to ensure I get it over the line. You should only need to present your main arguments anyway - nothing particularly detailed....all the detail is in your WS. Shouldn't demand very much time really.
  16. I was just giving you info about MPS for the hell of it really, so you're aware of the link to a number of bars and restaurants within walking distance of you. Also, site named on the ticket - i.e. Metropole Chambers, is also the same as MPS's registered office! AS Parking have no part to play in this. The ticket issuer is Alliance Parking UK Ltd, which is still active. Anyway, I wouldn't be too surprised if they have their wires crossed when it comes to a valid agreement with the landowner, and they have definitely made a mess where POFA is concerned. Just keep that recent letter safe and ignore them until until such time as a Letter of Claim arrives. Be aware though, you may have to go through the process of defending a claim on this - needless to say, you'll get plenty of help from this forum.
  17. Alliance are a mutation of Millennium Parking Services / Millennium Door & Event Security - a cowboy operation, like many other IPC members. Have a read of the article in the attached link - note the name of the MPS owner and the establishments he's involved with in Swansea (some just around the corner from you). You might want to choose to avoid them... They had a parking management contract at Llandarcy Academy of Sport (notoriously difficult to get parking at due to the many activities going on), whereby you could phone up and pay for the required parking duration....£2 for an hour, £3 for 2x hour, etc - but I recall someone telling me they tried to pay for parking and it would only give them the most expensive option, which was £8! Hmmm...
  18. NTK is well out of date, as per DX's advice above. It is also in breach of POFA as it does not offer you the early payment discount. It would be interesting to see if they have a valid agreement with the landowner...I helped someone with a case just around the corner and they messed up on this point. It is critical that you do not under any circumstances identify the driver, despite the fact the vehicle was parked outside your address.
  19. You thought correct - there is a time limit to issue the notice. Would it be possible for you to take a photo or make a scan of the document and post it up here for us to see? You'll need to remove any identifiable information first though.
  20. I will bow to anything you advise on this subject Andy, but my interpretation, assuming the s.88 snippet I quoted is current, is that the DN must specify a date. The only hard and fast rule is that the date must not be less than 14 days after date of service - therefore 7th + 16 = 23rd November. Considering the fact they've given the OP until 24th November, their DN is valid in that respect. However, I'm struggling to understand why it is ok for the creditor to take an action (i.e. terminating the agreement) that s.88 says it can't do prior to the date specified on the Default Notice. Terminating the account on 22nd still wouldn't allow the statutory remedy period anyway - right? All said, even if I am correct, would it likely matter to a judge? I know you've previously made the point that the agreement was terminated by MBNA, but it appears to me that the Claimant argues that the DN was not issued by MBNA, yet shoots themselves in the foot by messing up on their dates with their own DN. Hope that makes some sort of sense.
  21. Andy, just for clarity - if the Claimant's DN provides an explicit remedy deadline date of 24th of November, how can they terminate the agreement on the 22nd November? Does the 24th November not have to pass before they can terminate the agreement, as stated on the DN? See below... 88Contents and effect of default notice. (1)The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify— (a)the nature of the alleged breach; (b)if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken; (c)if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach, and the date before which it is to be paid. (2)A date specified under subsection (1) must not be less than [F114] days after the date of service of the default notice, and the creditor or owner shall not take action such as is mentioned in section 87(1) before the date so specified or (if no requirement is made under subsection (1)) before those [F114] days have elapsed.
  22. So, the Claimant can either go with: 1. No DN was ever issued. 2. They issued a DN, but terminated the agreement prior to the date they gave the defendant to remedy any alleged arrears. Either way, it's not looking very good for them.
×
×
  • Create New...