Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @FTMDavethanks for guiding me step by step. I have captured the photos night time as well if you see they are not visible even in day time how can anyone see in the night
    • just to clarify one matter everyone....   the statement that 'all road markings within any private land/carpark are mere tarmac graffiti is quite correct.   for dedicated use bays - there has to be a clearly visible sign(s) if one parks in those bays, which must be covered by the relevant council planning permission for poles+signs and elsewhere there must be a sign that details their usage conditions/contract.   dx
    • Don't worry, we're getting there bit by bit.   Tomorrow evening I'll try to deal with your questions.   The photos you've taken are superb - they show the signs as tiny and not illuminated.    
    • Good thinking! I only requested the telephone hearing (in the body of the email) and will send the further note tomorrow to cover all bases!
    • @FTMDave i am attaching the photographs of the Alama park please have a look. Checking your previous post where you corrected some line and suggest some but i could not understand. Is it possible if you edit and delete irrelevant lines.    I have edited little bit but not sure what to add and what to look for   Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. 1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX. 1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE  This is likely to be one of your aces so will need a lot of work once you get photos.  The fleecers have also shown a plan where they claim there are signs (their WS post 12, PDF page 15 which you need to confront).   2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (the bank statement proof exhibit 1).   3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   3.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   3.1. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it was likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   4.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   4. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.     UNFAIR TERM   4.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit XXX) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   5.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   6.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    7.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   5. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.  Is this really in the PoCs? - you need to look and find out. Where to look on PCN letter?   The rest of your section is about the use of POFA at airports which is completely irrelevant.    Adapt LFI's suggestions re POFA and keeper liability -   First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail.   The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   PROHIBITION  This deals with no stopping cases.  Yours in not no stopping so it is completely irrelevant.   LOCUS STANDI   You have quoted a different contract in a different place with a different PPC.  You need to read and try to find holes in the contract they produced (post 12, page 15 of the PDF for anyone looking in). What shall i add here   Adapt LFI's suggestions -   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   8. After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   LFI's suggestion -   They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS  I've cut some bits out as the CoP hadn't been published when the fleecers went after you.  Are you sure the Unicorn Food Tax in the PoCs is £60? ( I couldn't understand this)   9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”   9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’    9.5. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    9.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.     Statement of Truth    Alma Leisure.pdf Alma leisure centre.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

3 legal action - help!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5095 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

I used to run a construction firm and decided, as 3 were offering such amazing deals, to get two for me and another director. BIG mistake in not getting these through the company, for some reason which escapes me I got them in my name. As a lot of people's experiences, ours was horrendous. After hours and hours on the phone trying to sort out the bad phone and bad service I wrote to Bob Fuller (this was in 2003) telling him why I was cancelling the agreement. I received no response. I then started to received letters from a debt collection agency. I wrote to them too telling them why I believed the debt was not due (this was for the months of the contract after we had 'cancelled' the awful service when the phones were not in use). The letters kept coming until I received a letter informing me of litigation. I responded by saying I'd had enough and they should take me to court, at which point I would counter-claim for the months we DID pay for the awful service and the stress etc etc. I heard nothing more. This was in 2005. I forgot about it to be honest and then a few weeks ago I get another letter, this time from HFO services telling me I owed this money! I ignored it (for many reasons) and then a few days ago I received another letter (very threatening) saying I had 14 days to pay or I would be taken to court. I sent a letter including all the correspondence I had about the issue today and suggested they take me to court (and again, I would counter-claim). Then this afternoon I get a phone call asking me what I was going to do about the money I owed. I said they would be receiving a letter from me in due course. I was asked what was in the letter. I told the man on the phone that I didn't believe I owed the money; that I had been in dispute with 3 since 2003; and that they would have to take me to court.

I just wondered if anyone has been through a similar experience and if 3 actually do take people who they believe owe about £300 to court? I believe I have a very good case, it's just that in my life at the moment another stressful event could cause some major health worries. Not that 3 give a monkeys!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of 3 taking anyone to court. They leave that to the bottom feeders who purchase these debts for 20p/£1 and then pursue you and/or take you to court.

 

Against you, is that you agreed to the contract and as such you cannot summarily end the contract without their express agreement. That said,networks are not good at resolving issues like these, so as long as you can prove you had genuine problems and the network ignored you and you can prove this (with copy letters, RD receipts) a judge may take on board the problems and not uphold the action.

 

Do remember, these collection firms are an industry - they don;t care about disputes, they only want their money. You can tie them in knots by asking them to prove you actually had a contract with 3, asking them to support their claim by providing a copy so you can look into it further. You'd be surprised how little paperwork is passed on. You should also have received a letter from 3 saying they were passing the debt onto XXX. In the absence of this, you are right to question any pursuit by 'interested' third parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for this, it's really helpful. I"ve just been reading about other people having serious trouble with HFO.... seeing as I've just sent them a letter outlining the trouble I had with '3' does that not constitute an acceptance that I did have a contract with them? Can I still ask them to support their claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely - your position is that you wish to be helpful and under full disclosure you require them to prove to your satisfaction that they act on behalf of the creditor, or if they have become the creditor by purchasing the debt, then you require evidence of the original contract (as you cannot find one) and any letter sent by 3UK stating the debt was being assigned to them. Unfortunately without this, you will be unable to assist them. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you!!! I'll do that tomorrow and send it registered again, it will arrive the day after they'll have received my small package of previously written letters...

I'll let you know what transpires!

Link to post
Share on other sites

as an addendum - unfortunately I did get a letter from 3 stating that HFO were taking over the debt, I've just found it. Does this change anything with regards to me writing to HFO and getting them to provide me with a copy of the signed agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, if 'Registered' you mean Special Delivery - save your money, Recorded Delivery is fine. As for the letter advising you of HFO's involvement, just file it, and make your issue with them that you want evidence of the original contract to confirm that a 'properly executed service contract' exists.

 

Whilst you await this, add that you also give notice you will be 'vigorously defending' any action they may consider taking.

 

It is not unknown for them to move on to someone else who is easier to intimidate - but DO expect them to sell on the debt to some other firm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth mentioning too that as the debt originated from 2003, there isn't long to go before it becomes statute barred

All my posts are made without prejudice and may not be reused or reproduced without my express permission (or the permission of the forums owners)!

 

17/10/2006 Recieve claim against me from lloyds TSB for £312.82

18/10/06 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

03/02/07 Claim allocated to small claims. Hearing set for 15/05/07. Lloyds ordered to file statement setting out how they calculate their charges

15/05/07 Lloyds do not attend. Judgement ordered for £192 approx, £3 travel costs and removal of default notice

29/05/07 4pm Lloyds deadline for payment of CCJ expires. Warrant of execution ready to go

19/06/07 Letter from court stating Lloyds have made a cheque payment to court

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, thanks. I think thats what Moorcroft did, and then passed it back to 3 who passed it to the threatening idiots at HFO. They have until Dec 2009 and then it reaches the statute 6 years. Maybe I can tie them in knots until then?!:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah - but you keep this information to yourself. You don;t want them noticing and getting some jobsworth to give it a little 'special attention'. Keep that part of your knowledge to yourself until after the date has been reached!

Link to post
Share on other sites

could have done that, if I hadn't sent them a huge file of papers with a copy of my original letter dated december 2003. But expect that they won't even read those letters or pay much attention to the dates. As it is, in some ways (after the reading about the hell other people have gone through) I almost want them to take me to court - they won't win and it will have cost them more than the original 'debt'!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...