Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Can I just leave it as saved and not submit or do I need to delete everything?
    • don't file yet not needed till/by 4pm tomorrow   let andyorch check things over 1st    
    • well the claim is stayed so don't panic for now.   is this the ONLY payment made and how did capquest get this out of you? by phone?   explain what caused you to make the payment and how you did it please   dx                
    • Lovely stuff.    1.The claim is for the sum of £882.53 due by the Defendant under the CCA 1974 for a Shop Direct account with the account ref of ********************    2.The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default notice was served under s.87(1) of the CCA 1974 which has not been complied with.   3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 08/01/18, notice of which has been given to the defendant.   4.The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £70.60 - The claimant claims the sum of £953.13   #####Defence######   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. 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. Whilst it is admitted I have held various catalogue agreements in the past, I have no recollection of ever entering into an agreement with Shop Direct and do not recognise the specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to sec87(1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of a legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1)   4. On receipt of this claim form I, the Defendant, sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of the said request.   5. A further request made via CPR 31.14 to the claimant’s solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The claimant has not complied.   6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim   7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed   8. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.   I will get this put into the defence section. Thank you again.
    • just remove the 2nd part where you mention some reply.
  • Our picks

wennol

Shop Car Park

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4310 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello, I'm new around here. Went to a shop in North Wales today and parked in what I thought was their car park. I was only there about half an hour and when I came out there was an officious looking old chap, wearing a yellow jacket going round looking at the cars. As I was leaving the car park I saw a ticket machine and a notice to the effect that cars were allowed to park free for half an hour and then pay after that. Apparently you still had to get a ticket BEFORE you parked otherwise you would be charged £75. There was nothing on my windscreen to say that I had been booked so can they do anything? Can/Do they REALLY ask DVLA for driver details? If so it's morally wrong surely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can/Do they REALLY ask DVLA for driver details? If so it's morally wrong surely.

 

I guess they will say its morally wrong not paying for a parking ticket if you use their car park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess they will say its morally wrong not paying for a parking ticket if you use their car park.

 

Well as a retired Civil Servant I remember we had rules which prohibited us from divulging personal information to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a multitude of information that can be accessed by the public such as the electoral role, register of births deaths marriages, property details, company details etc etc not much is private these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well as a retired Civil Servant I remember we had rules which prohibited us from divulging personal information to others.

Hi welcome to the forums.

 

You're right. The data protection act is supposed to protect us. However the DVLA makes 30 pieces of silver (£2.50) for every query by a private company. They deem the PPCs to have "reasonable cause". Its been the subject of a few threads on these boards. There are some on these boards who are preparing to challenge the DVLA.

 

If you want more information on the DVLA releasing information have a look on the Directgov website.

 

In the meantime have a read of the Private Parking Charges/Companies guide in the stickies section at the top of the forum.

 

If you receive anything in the post use Bernie the Bolts template letters to respond.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess they will say its morally wrong not paying for a parking ticket if you use their car park.

 

Ah, the parking attendant's blinkered view! ...but is it morally wrong to park in a free car park and not display a free ticket!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, the parking attendant's blinkered view! ...but is it morally wrong to park in a free car park and not display a free ticket!?

 

a) I'm not a parking attendant

b) The car park is only free for 30 mins

c) If you don't get a ticket when you arrive how are they supposed to know when you parked?

 

If anyone is blinkered its you thinking you have some god given right to park where you like for free. The shop in question is trying to run a business not provide free parking for any Tom, Dick or Harry that decides to park there. It is their land which they rent or purchased and have to pay to maintain, if they wish to charge people to park there that is their right. Failing to pay for this service is no different from stealing goods from the shop itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a) I'm not a parking attendant

b) The car park is only free for 30 mins

c) If you don't get a ticket when you arrive how are they supposed to know when you parked?

 

If anyone is blinkered its you thinking you have some god given right to park where you like for free. The shop in question is trying to run a business not provide free parking for any Tom, Dick or Harry that decides to park there. It is their land which they rent or purchased and have to pay to maintain, if they wish to charge people to park there that is their right. Failing to pay for this service is no different from stealing goods from the shop itself.

 

Failing to display adequate signs and then demanding a penalty charge of £75 is as good as stealing from the motorist.

 

I agree with you on the other points about trying to run a business and the right to charge for the use of land is lawful. However as is so often the case with these landowners the methods they choose to try and control the parking are dubious at best and illegal at worst.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Failing to display adequate signs and then demanding a penalty charge of £75 is as good as stealing from the motorist.

 

I agree with you on the other points about trying to run a business and the right to charge for the use of land is lawful. However as is so often the case with these landowners the methods they choose to try and control the parking are dubious at best and illegal at worst.

 

There was signage and a ticket machine surely that would indicate to most that the car park was controlled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I was leaving the car park I saw a ticket machine and a notice to the effect that cars were allowed to park free for half an hour and then pay after that. surely.

 

There was signage and a ticket machine surely that would indicate to most that the car park was controlled?

 

 

I used the term adequate signage. The OP only saw the machine and the notice as he was leaving the car park. This suggests to me that the signage was not adequate.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...