Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner 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. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Moorcroft Debt recovery


loubyb
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4998 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello jed told you to watch this space. Got letter which is now stating agent will call round rather than pre court division. They are running scared now. Threatened to sue them for harrassment & demanding money with menaces. Sent them copy of my last letter as they chose to ignore it first time round. Once again watch this space.

 

I'm watching, I'm watching.:D

jed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi lightning,

 

Good to see Moorcroft have demoted your case, that has to be worth something and maybe tell you something as well, i.e. they don't have legally supportable docs?

 

They are still trying it on with one of ours and have escalated to "Notice of Intended Litigation", full of all the usual ifs, buts, maybes and please call us to talk it over. Ho b****y ho!. The others they have sent to DML now who are even funnier.

 

regards

oilyrag.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm watching, I'm watching.:D

jed

Hi Jed. Latest letter from moorcroft now from their compliance dept hoping for a speedy solution. Told them how flawed their letter was. They assured me that they are acting for a client but still do not offer any proof. They still want me to send a letter to their client for the relevent documentation but I put them straight on that one telling them where the responsibility lies. Waiting eagerly for their reply ha ha. Catch you later

 

Regards Lightningd

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Jed. Just got another letter from moorcrofts compliance dept. They say they have assisted me in every possible way & have once again asked me to send £1 to Citibank for a copy of the original agreement. Told them the onus is on them not me & have no intentions of contacting Citibank. They also say they take harrassment & bullying seriously so I have sent a letter back asking why they send out threatening letters. Told them I now intend to ignore them until I get these documents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Oily. Last letter from Moorcroft asking me to send £1 to Citibank for copy of agreement. Told them not my responsibility but theirs. They say they have assisted me in every way so Ive told them why havent they complied with my requests. They say they take harrassment & bullying seriously so Ive asked them why they send out threatening letters. Catch you later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hi Jed. Quite some time since i have contacted you. Moorcroft seem to have handed things back to Citibank. These sent out documents of t&cs but said due to the act of 1998 they do not have to send a signed & dated copy. Wrote back & basically laughed at them.

Catch you later.

Lightningd

Edited by lightningd
spelling error
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi lightningd, I've just read this thread again from start to finish, and what a difference a few months make!

From being not too sure what to do, you have gained in confidence in how to deal with these clowns.

You say they 'seem' to have handed back to Citi, have they wrote and told you this? They normally do.

I would not do anything now, just wait to see what happens. I'm pleased to see you are in control and not them.

jed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jed. Just received letter from capquest saying they will accept reduced figure or start legal action on or around aug 25. As amount now is only £175 from £300 plus, might offer £10 per month or call their bluff. Undecided at present but it would get them off my back. Will report them though to oft &ts. Will also threaten them that if i find they have broken any laws will start legal proceedings against them. True to form got letter today (sat).

Catch you later when i have decided.

Lightningd

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its entirely up to you lightningd, what you decide to do, but if it was me, I wouldn't give them a penny.

This 'reduced figure' thing is their final pathetic attempt at getting at least something off you to pay for the

letters and time they have spent on sending you this drivel. Its looks like they are not going anywhere

near a court to me.

Good luck.

jed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jed. Thanks for reply. This concerns an account with cap1 who brought in capquest to do their dirty work. Already got a letter to post to them mon calling their bluff.

Still awaiting reply from citibank having told them of moorcrofts antics.

Will keep you informed on both fronts.

Regards

Lightnind

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jed. Ha ha. Sorry for laughing(no i`m not). Just had a letter from those nice people at Capquest. They have told me that they are now taking my account off their company system. Please wait until i wipe the tears from my eyes(tears of joy). They say they did not know about the dispute with Cap1. Funny I told them that in my first letter which they chose to ignore. So they have gone from going to put it in the hands of their solicitors to thanking me for trying to resolve the matter. A bit of knowledge goes a long way or perhaps they didn`t want to wait for the reply back from the Financial Ombudsman. Cap1 will have to deal with me themselves if i so choose.

 

Catch you later,

 

Lightningd

Edited by lightningd
grammar correction
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...