Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   Sorry I probably wasn't clear enough. He had lived in the flat until December 2022 with Dementia by this time it was unsafe for him to have capacity to live on his own and he had to move into a nursing home. We had left it too late to apply for power of attorney so approached a solicitor in March last year for Deputyship. We were still in the process of dealing with it by May 2024. He passed away a few weeks ago and the solicitor was contacted to halt the application and we will just pay the fees of what work he has done up until now. My wife was the named person on her dads bank account but we didn't have the ability to alter any direct debits hence the reasons for applying for Deputyship as we were having problems trying to stop some payments coming out of his account Eon being another difficult company. We kept his flat on from December 2022 - August 2023. it was at this point I contacted Sancutary housing to inform them he was no longer living in the flat, it had been cleared out and was ready for a new tenant and that he had Dementia and had moved into a nursing home December 2022 and explained the reasons why we kept it on. As the named person to speak on his behalf I asked them what proof they needed in order to give notice on the flat e.g proof of dementia and proof that he was living in a nursing home and anything else they wanted. The lady in the upstairs flat and some of the other residence in the street had asked about him and we had told them he had moved into a nursing home. The lady in the upstairs flat wanted his flat for medical reasons so asked us once we had given notice could be let her know and she'll ask them if she can have it. We explained the difficulties and it was left at that but I did tell her I would let her know once notice was given. I contacted the company by email a number of times and also telephone conversations and nobody followed it up and it wasn't till the end of February this year that the housing manager for the area wrote to our home address to ask about him that he had been to the flat a couple of times and nobody answered and he had asked some of the residence in the street and they hadn't seen him for sometime. There was an email address on the letter so I contacted him and copied in the last 2 emails I sent Sanctuary regarding me wanting to give notice on the flat for at least 9 months explaining that it went ignored as well as telephone calls. I also stated I wanted to have his rent payments returned from the date I wanted to give notice which was from August 2023 as the bank wouldn't let us stop the DD without POT or deputyship explaining we were in the process of Deputyship. He gave some excuse about not having POT to cancel on his behalf and spoke to someone in HR and said he would contact the nursing home to confirm he was there with Dementia and if it all checks out we can give notice on the flat which came to an end on the 22 March 2024. There was not mention of back payments for the rent already paid or the fact I had asked to give notice in August 2023. Despite someone living in the flat from 1st April they continue to take DD payments for the flat and have taken another 2 payments of £501. another concerning thing despite Eon not allowing us to cancel the DD to his account the lady upstairs informed Eon that she was moving into the flat February 2024 and Eon refunding the account to his bank and said in an email sorry you are leaving us and canceled his account. Something they wouldn't let us do but a stranger. She also changed her bank account to his address despite the fact notice hadn't been given on the flat yet. So we need to find out how much information Sanctuary actually had for her to tell her power company she was moving into the flat in February despite the housing manager only just getting in contact to find out where he was. So a complaint is going into Eon and Sanctuary and we are going to take advice and ask the bank to charge back the rent. My wife hasn't taken the death certificate to the bank yet to inform them of his passing.  
    • Yes, I believe the Starbucks was closed at the time the car was parked there 
    • hi lolerz many thanks for your reply and help. My 2 months has passed i was waiting until the court proceedings started. As i went through this process not that long ago, i shall look back at my old thread for how to respond. Ill get the docs scanned soon thanks.    
    • Dave, You're probably thinking along the same lines as me. The NTK says "The reason for issuing the charge notice is: Parking longer than allowed" From memory, I think one of their stupid rules is that if 'Bucks is closed, you're not allowed to park at all.
    • Yes, Nick is spot on. Also, can you remember if Starbucks was closed when you were there?  I ask as I'm trying to work out what MET reckon you did wrong.
  • 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

URGENT Parking firm taking me to court and demanding my insurance docs? WHAT!?????


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5738 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

Guest courtupdater
Hi, courtupdater. Would you object to posting a full breakdown of these costs?

Regards

 

My notes read:

 

£137.61 for the charge + interest to date of issue

£4.35 for interest from issue date until yesterday

£25.00 Court Fee

£25.00 Hearing Fee

£50.00 Attendance charge

£116.00 Travel Costs

£4.50 Parking Fee

 

All this will be confirmed when the order comes through, I was told this takes about 10days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest courtupdater

 

The recent Excel Parking cases were lost by the PPC. From what I have seen no correctly defended case has been won by a PPC.

 

Do you know anything about the Excel case, with the exception of what you have read in the newspaper ?

 

Have you spoken with the defendant in that case ?

Have you seen the court transcripts ?

Do you know on what basis the case was lost ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I see, not for the first time mr factual court updater is changing his story. Apparently the defences are not available on the site after all as he earlier told us. They are available by PM he now tells us. He has been repeatedly challenged to post the defence used and has failed to do so. I am not a lawyer but I would be able to tell what a pukka defence looks like and so I am sure would others. So, go on court updater do that so we can all have a look. Unless you are afraid we would draw other inferences that is.As for the other two cases, as this individual is already speaking with very forked tongue I for one would not believe they even exist, far less that anyone from here has been involved in the defence. Until I see definitive evidence, which I suspect will be far from forthcoming.To courtupdater, why is it so important to you and CPS to discredit pepipoo and CAG? Did thery hurt your fellings at some time?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the general principle about CAG/PePiPoo cases is not to publicise them until they have won ... and if they lose, deny all knowledge.

 

Whereas the general principle of CPS cases is: find an undefended/poorly defended case, win it and try to pin the poor defence on pepipoo/CAG members without any basis for doing so. Hmm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it having looked at CPR CPS will get a copy of the defense statement before the hearing. They could very easily post them up. Or put them on their bragging page and say "look here is a 'proper defense from CAG/pepipoo' and we beat it". It would back up their claims that internet forums are 'bad for people and that folks should just pay up'. I wonder why they haven't ? . . or do I ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

or.......& I'm not claiming this has happened, get a mate to accept their details being put forward to the courts as a parking debtor then win the judgment, as the 'defendant' doesn't actually defend........... the 'defendant' pays up within 1 month (or at least the court is told that) so no harm done then claim it as a victory;) wot u tink

Link to post
Share on other sites

or.......& I'm not claiming this has happened, get a mate to accept their details being put forward to the courts as a parking debtor then win the judgment, as the 'defendant' doesn't actually defend........... the 'defendant' pays up within 1 month (or at least the court is told that) so no harm done then claim it as a victory;) wot u tink

 

Does seem possible given the scams this lot have tried to pull in the past (posing as Scottish, female, PPC victims and a hundred other stupid IDs). They are looking more and more like a knock off watch salesman: "It's a genuine Rolex, honest guv". You just have to substitute: "Pepipoo were involved in the case, honest guv". Yet it has to be admitted CPS are one of the more entertaining PPCs, even if most of us laugh at them, not with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanna bet it will apply to there like very soon. After all they meet Noo Labours employment criteria to a tee. 1st be an uneducated bully & 2nd be an uneducated thug

Backed up by a "brilliant" in-house legal team of course and outstanding pieces of legislation like the PSI Act.

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

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

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest courtupdater

So, here goes:

 

Court commenced approx 14:15

The judge looked at all the evidence, including copies of the correspondance sent from the defendant in which he stated "take it up with the driver".

The other evidence was viewed (photos of vehicle parked in front of the sign) - clear terms and conditions for the issue of a parking charge and stating not to park if they did not agree to them.

The evidence was heard that 'take it up with the driver' was a poor argument and the defendant has an obligation to assist wherver possible under the pre-action protocol and this type of obstructive response was not helpful.

In the event of the defendant actually bringing another party to the court hearing and for those to accept liability then the original defendant would still be liable for wasted costs for the hearing today as they have received ample opporunity to do this.

The court considered the dunlop case and a case of clydebank shipping when looking into penalties, it also considered the case of currie - this was dismissed as there is no such thing as a 'free' carpark - even in supermarkets the consideration is more busines, more profit etc...

The area in which the defendant parked was not a public parking area and as such the defendant had no lawful reason to be there, the signage clearly stated this and the defendant (and a reasonable) person would have seen and understood the signage and the charges for parking there - a concious decision was made to park and a charge received.

The defendant did not appeal or complain once the ticket was issued, he merely ignored it and thought it would 'go away'.

Sorry ... The Unfair Contract Terms Act was also considered - the court found that the defendant had opportunity to move his vehicle before a charge was issued, in fact they parked and left it there - It was noted that it is not for a court to enforce terms on parties that have been agreed, by actions.

The charge was upheld with the limited costs as already explained.

 

So .. there it is in a nutshell ... you can either beleive or not beleive ... The facts I have stated - you can get a copy of the full transcript from the court (after paying the fee etc..)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm in a nutshell all right. From what our CPS troll now says it appears that there was no defence at all submitted by the defendant. All that is mentioned is letters saying take it up with the defendant. If there was in fact a defence then the troll has been requested on numerous occasions to post it so that we can judge for ourselves whether it was a pukka one. He has refused to do so and I for one read into that that there is either no formal defence, only template letters which surprisingly enough did not succeed, or that the defence is not a a properly drafted one at all. As for the rest of the facts as related by our very biased friend, I would not believe a word of it, he has already posted a succession of untruths and shown himself to be far from credible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest courtupdater

Genepool (obv an old member with a new name) ...

 

They used ...

Take up with the driver - FAILED

Unfair Contract Terms Act - FAILED

Dunlop & Clydebank Shipping cases for penalties - FAILED

Currie v Misa case for No consideration so no contract - FAILED

 

There was 1 other case, dismissed as irrelevant, that of Lordsvale Finance (sorry did not pay much attention to that one)

 

So .. What would a proper defence consist of then ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Genepool (obv an old member with a new name) ...

 

Oh dear the old CPS paranioa returns.Let me put it in capital letters as there is clearly some fluff between the ears of this latest CPS troll: PLEASE POST THE DEFENCE. Posting random case references proves NOTHING. If ther is an obstacle to you posting the defence please tell us what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read the 'victory' where the defence, if any, was poorly presented or worse none existent I fail to see where CAG or Pepipoo was involved.

 

Furthermore it's clear from the post in question that had anyone from CAG or Pepipoo been involved the claim would have been dismissed forthwith

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest courtupdater

Now Now, you have been fed a little bait to keep you going.

 

All will be revealed in the goodness of time, would hate to ruin your fun this early into the game.

 

The "experts" on here (and the other expert site :rolleyes:) know very well why the defence has not been posted ... be aware the OP still has 14-days to appeal so would hate to prejudice anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest courtupdater

This is also strange .. PePiPoo has asked its members to come on here and copy the posts made about this case to the site..

 

Yet it does not allow a response, just wants to feed its visitors the same old rubbish ... Mr Foster & Co you should be ashamed ...

 

Barring someone you disagree with, so they cant question you ... typical coward !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...