Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I Know I will get flamed for this , but for once time only I am with MET . The so called  “graffiti” is there to help people , Parent and child bays , Disabled bays , and electric charge point bays are all there for a reason  , just suppose you had an electric car and it was in need of charging ,had children in the car and need extra space to get them out ,had a disabled passenger who needs extra space . how would you feel  if the bay was obstructed . I have no doubt the experts here will guide you to having the parking charge cancelled . But morally ………..
    • I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that   I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that.
    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are 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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. 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 understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
  • Our picks

wennol

Shop Car Park

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4308 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...