Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • 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.
  • 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

OT Stuff from Parking Forum


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5788 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

Sorry I have not been active been busy

 

Nevertheless, my information is a part 16 amended claim has today been submitted and served on the parties concerned

 

I understand this thread has been printed and retained.

 

It would now be totally unappropiate to discuss an ongoing claim so all parties should refrain from making comment.

 

I an sure the defendant or his legal adviser will confirm such when they get tomorrows post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

WHAAATT !!!

none of the parties here apart from the OP are bound by any court procedures (real, imagined or proposed), and the OP is pretty clear the case was kicked out and clearly feels not bound.

Is it even possible to have sub judice consideration for a civil case - especially one that has been kicked out according the first hand report we have here.

 

Where did you get your information Mark ?

 

How on earth do you think a plea to 'please don't talk about it' will carry any weight - or that anyone will pay attention.

The OP only has concern for papers received from the court does he not ?

I am sure Perky's ego is smarting what with the press being lined up but this can't be the first properly defended case he has faced. And it very likely won't be his last I would guess....I'd even take a bet on that.

Why he even turned up is a puzzle - and mob handed as well. Maybe he was going to get his whole crew in the paper afterwards . Now that is a thought - did the press take pics of the CPS crew ?

 

Is that the best that Perky could come up with to handle the situation after all these hours. "please don't talk about it".

 

Can hardly type this for the paroxysms coursing through my body and for that I thank you.

 

Who cares what Perk posts ? (hey, is that a good logo or what ?)

 

or maybe it could be

"Who knows what Perky 'just knows'"

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My contact states the order, by the judge who obviously felt intimidated by the witnesses and press attention ordered a part 16 particulars of claim in 14 days

 

Far from struck out, the judge was obvioulsy an arse and did not understand part 7e of the very rules he us supposed to adbide by.

 

 

 

I suppose this bit has been printed and retained then? :shock:

PPCs - Don`t pay their begging letters, don`t fall for the $ cam................. IGNORE PPC invoices

 

 

:amen:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thnking about this case - and all the others on Perky's 'informative' legal page... unless I am mistaken in this the Civil Procedure Rules implemented from October 2nd 2006, grants public access to any statement of case, including particulars of claim and defence.

Not only that, this access is retrospective. Civil case records normally kept for about five years..

 

What regular posters we got who live near the courts that Perky documented in such detail for us ? Wouldn't it be good to get the particulars of claim and defense in those cases from the Courts ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a bit pointless anyway as there is nothing libellous in any posts on this thread

and nothing remotely prejudicial to any pending cases - would the judge read the forum or allow it to colour his opinion ?

Not a snowballs...

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It has long been known that forums have insiders who regularly assist with supplying of ip and other details.

 

It is also a fact that some long standing members who are very vocal and seem to be against parking are in fact from ppcs themselves and do an excellent job of obtaining information...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thnking about this case - and all the others on Perky's 'informative' legal page... unless I am mistaken in this the Civil Procedure Rules implemented from October 2nd 2006, grants public access to any statement of case, including particulars of claim and defence.

Not only that, this access is retrospective. Civil case records normally kept for about five years..

 

What regular posters we got who live near the courts that Perky documented in such detail for us ? Wouldn't it be good to get the particulars of claim and defense in those cases from the Courts ?

 

like most things, there is a world of difference between reading (which I am sure lamma has) and understanding .. You are incorrect in your understanding but thats todays task for you

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has long been known that forums have insiders who regularly assist with supplying of ip and other details.

 

It is also a fact that some long standing members who are very vocal and seem to be against parking are in fact from ppcs themselves and do an excellent job of obtaining information...

 

Can you back up these allegations with some facts, viz:

Who are the forum insiders?

Who are the long standing members that are from PPCs?

 

PM me if you like.

 

I am not sure why you post here if you are asking users not to discuss matters, all you do is invite comments by posting.

 

Indeed, I am not sure why any of the PPC lot post here, all they seem to do if inflame matters, it would be a different story if they posted something constructive. It just seems like a lamentable effort to defend their position.

Edited by GuidoT
Added link

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest the OP checks his facts or in fact if lamma is correct a quick call to the court and ask them what the order stated will clear all this up.

 

I would expect that once the OP has the real facts he will openly state he was wrong and confirm what I said 2 days ago thus being the original particulars if claim were to be removed/struck off as the judge felt they were not enough and new ones filed within 14days

 

This I undestsnd has been done so the case continues .. No change / no progress / its a non event

 

Over to the OP to confirm

Link to post
Share on other sites

why would anyone advertise the name of a person who helps them ?? :confused:

 

The moment the names are revealed it all stops.

 

As for posting, I agree it is now upto the OP to next update with the correct version of events and make necessary modifications to posts and title where appropiate as anything else is pure speculation and takes us no further forward so its prob best to end conversation here and let the OP be the next poster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would now be totally unappropiate to discuss an ongoing claim so all parties should refrain from making comment.
Not any more than it was inappropriate for the press or ourselves to making comments on what was happening or the possible outcome of the OFT v banks case. Not any more than it is for you or me to pick a case, any case, criminal or civil, and discuss it ad nauseam, the pros, the cons, the maybes, the wheretofores and the what ifs.

 

As long as people keep matters civil (as in polite, not as in court! :rolleyes:), they can discuss to their hearts' contents.

 

No offence, dear, but if you're trying to intimidate CAGgers into silence, you've really picked on the wrong crowd. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

scottish_mark - some simple questions for you:-

 

1. Are you in regular contact with one of the parties in this case?

 

2. If so, can you obtain a copy of the judge's order and post on here?

 

3. If you aren't in regular contact, then how are you getting your information?

Link to post
Share on other sites

dear oh dear Mark. Once again an attempt to pull the wool over the board's collective eyes. Once again not a snowball's chance of it working.

 

See The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (No. 3132 L.17)) - Statute Law Database

 

plus there is much available commentary about the exploits of jounalists who have used this to trawl through the filed claims to get story information.

 

Anyone who wants to get the particulars of claim as filed by Perky or any other PPC just has to go to the Court.

 

ANYONE can go the Courts that Perky had detailed so kindly for us and get copies.

 

Mark, are you using the same legal team the Perky does ?

 

To make it abundantly clear to Mark and the other PPC posters here the text from the statute says;

(2) Any other person who pays the prescribed fee may, during office hours, search for, inspect and take a copy of the following documents, namely—

(a)

a claim form which has been served;

(b)

any judgment or order given or made in public;

©

any other document if the court gives permission.

(3) An application for permission under paragraph (2)© may be made without notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are to believe some of what scottish_mark said, it would appear that the judge was not happy with this sort of claim being issued through Moneyclaim online.

 

Since Moneyclaim online only allows 1080 characters for a particulars of claim, perhaps he reasonably felt that the defendant required more information as to the nature of the alleged contract within the Particulars.

 

Based on some of the ropey signs that are seen in some carparks, that's not too surprising:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/144436-how-does-sign-measure.html

 

And if this were generally the case, it would presumably hit Perky's business plan quite hard not to be able to use Moneyclaim online.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even using Money Claim Online can hurt his business in paid car parks. If the defendant made a 'Part Admission' in response and in that offered to pay any admitted missing parking fee then the clear penalty nature of the rest of claim should clearly fall.

Of course for free car parks its a different game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't follow. that clause just allows immediate requests for other documents.

That's not how I read it. I understand it as without notice to the parties involved. Since 2© requires the court's (ie judge) permission, I can't see how any demand can be made without notice to the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if this were generally the case, it would presumably hit Perky's business plan quite hard not to be able to use Moneyclaim online.

It would mean him having to get the correct claim forms from the county court office and filling them out himself and doing everything manually. Also the cost of filing said claims would increase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do have to wonder sometimes whether all leave of senses is being taken. In the past few days we have had: Weird hints about a forthcoming Oldham case when no-one from here was even aware that it existed, bizarre arrangements being made for local journalists and photographer to attend a preliminary hearing (when the worst it could have got for the defendant was that the particulars were not struck out and a full hearing was ordered), a county court judge twice being called an "arse" and accused of not knowing the law on a public internet forum due to his making a negative decision in the eyes of the claimant (the striking out of the entire particulars of claim), subsequent attempts to portray that decision to strike out the particulars as not negative at all but positive or neutral (if Monday was not a "defeat" I would love to know what a "win" looks like) and now more bizarre allegations apparently attacking the integrity of CAG staff and apparent attempts to frighten or intimidate site members that their identities will be discovered.All this over a court case involving a private parking ticket. Not exactly a matter of life and death. It appears that the PPC has itself elevated the issue to these "hothouse" levels by constant baiting and trolling and statements such as that it could never be defeated in court. Other PPCs in the main just get on with it (although I am no fan) but this PPC seems unable to refrain from acrimonious exchanges with those who legitimately disagree with it and appears to be trying to prove a point in some kind of "campaign". With that in mind and ignoring further provocation, which I am sure will not be long in coming, I will leave it there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems clear that both sides are playing their cards carefully - I guess the rest of us will have to wait for the full story and in the meantime, speculate like mad!

 

There was a case in the tenancy forum where a claimant turned up expecting her claim to be heard when in fact it was a procedural preliminary hearing which technically she lost because the judge moved the claim from part 8 (in that instance the defendant later settled in full before the claim was heard).

 

So I would guess that the claimants here were in the same situation - they didn't know that the hearing wasn't about their claim because the defendant is running legal rings round them. Hence the press etc.

 

It probably doesn't add to the argument as to whether tickets are enforceable, but it shows that it's not as easy as CPS claim it is to try and enforce them, and it shows that CPS are no more competent than other PPCs who've resorted to the courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...