Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ah good. changes things then. but you must reply to them within 30days. we'll deal with that later.   now why are you getting this letter if the agreement you said earlier is in your brothers name? should be in his name its also not on that they did that, it was obvious you could not get the credit , so can you clarify please who's name is on the agreement too?   what is also not very nice either is they scammed you into handing the car back under i would assume voluntary surrender, whereby you owe everything, rather than telling you you could voluntary terminate only owing to the 50% mark.   can you expand upon the how the handback came about and what they did and didn't say?   all of the above if true bodes well to p'haps buffing this debt away .   dx
    • Hi dx,   The letter does not have any title but, it does have attached to it a reply pack with an income and expenditure form included.   No problem, I'll scan and upload the agreement tomorrow so you can have a browse. Just as an aside, the agreement does say on the top of the page hire agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. So I was wrong.   Thanks!
    • Thank you both. My defence was as vague as their Claim.   1. I am the defendant in this claim and litigant in person. All allegations made by the claimant are denied.   2. The defendant does not recognise the alleged agreement xxxxxxxxxxx as mentioned in the particulars of claim therefore it is denied that any such agreement exists.   3. The defendant has requested copies of the alleged agreement under Data Subject Access Request, Consumer Credit act 1974 s.77/8 and Civil Procedure Rules 31.4 but to date the claimant has failed to provide a copy of this document.   4.The defendant has also requested copies of the default and termination notice for the alleged account xxxxxxxxx as required to legally enforce the alleged debt, but again the claimant has failed to provide either.   5. In addition the defendant has requested copies of statements for the alleged account xxxxxxx showing the amount of monies allegedly owed to the claimant. To Date these have not been provided.   6. The defendants view is that this claim is vexatious and an abuse of process as the claimant has failed to provide any documentation to support their claim and respectfully requests that the said claim be struck out.   As an aside, I noticed that the 'statement' they did provide had a different figure on it to what they are claiming, so I will hopefully be able to flesh out quite a bit in my skeleton argument.   Spam 
    • 80% refund sounds like a very good deal* as they are entitled by law to deduct an amount from the refund to reflect the use you have had of the item over the 12 months it has been working.   So you could argue that a deduction of 20% for one year indicates that they expect it to last for at least five years, and probably longer.     * Think about it this way - would you pay 80% of the value of a brand new iPad to buy a second-hand one that somebody else has been using for over a year, or would you expect to get it cheaper than that?
    • Hi WoodDD.. Neither Case was cited in the VSC WS... however, MR D form VCS threw in VCS v Ward & Idle for the Judge to consider during the hearing. The Judge did not have time to review this. I believe he may have had a quick scan but decided it wasn't relevant at the time.. By not relevant, he didn't elaborate if it was not admissible or anything else..   Hope this helps..   Regards Tom     
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3097 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

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have had (bad) experiences with this outfit and I thought I would share those here.

 

Briefly in terms of the facts, I was driving a friends car and had it clamped in an area of Bow, East London where there was not any signs showing I couldn't park there. It turned out that the signs had been pulled down. My friend paid in cash for the release to the tune of £235.

 

In the eyes of the law, where there is no sign prohibiting parking, the clamping is illegal, as the driver/owner has not consented to the risk that his/her car may be clamped (Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest is the relevant authority). Having discovered this, I felt it was worth the fight and so I disputed it with Parking Control Services in the first instance and received their computer generated response telling me to seek legal advice. I actually happen to be a trainee solicitor and so I followed this through to the Courts.

 

I issued proceedings in the County Court and Parking Control Services didn't even bother to file a defence. I obtained judgment in my favour, naively thinking at the time that I would get my money back. However the following is crucial to anyone thinking of chasing these cowboys:

 

1. Don't be fooled by their smart website and fancy EC2 postcode. This is a PO Box address.

2. Their registered company address is some obscure address up in Park Royal, North London. This is likewise a shell outfit.

 

One further point, it may be prudent to check out the company before you begin on the long process of suing them. If the company has a whole host of County Court judgments against them, they probably won't pay up yours either, so its worth doing a search against them. This can be done online at www.registry-trust.gov.uk for a fee of £8.

 

Any questions on this, I'll do my best to respond and clarify.

 

A salient warning. This is the reason myself and others recommend sueing the clamper and landowner jointly. Obviously it pays to check both. But it is easier if you get the judgement against the landowner as they have something tangible (i.e. the land for the car park) that can be "seized" and sold and used to pay any judgement.

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

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

 

One further point, it may be prudent to check out the company before you begin on the long process of suing them. If the company has a whole host of County Court judgments against them, they probably won't pay up yours either, so its worth doing a search against them. This can be done online at www.registry-trust.gov.uk for a fee of £8.

 

Any questions on this, I'll do my best to respond and clarify.

 

NB: Please do not directly rely on this as legal advice. The above is intended as helpful guidance and the writer accepts no responsibility for any inaccuracy or any losses that this may incur.

 

 

..which is why it is always recommended to sue the clamping firm AND the landowner jointly. You are far more likely to get your money back from the landowner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi

I am delighted to be writing to you

I have had the same saga as you

I have a lot of useful info' that I could pass on but not on here as "they " might be reading these posts and I dont want them to know all I know

Write to me with your latest news and I will tell you mine

[EDIT]

Cheers

andrew

Edited by Rooster-UK
Email address removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

With all respect to adunlop, it is always advised against anyone engaging in private e-mails with another member unless they know the member to have been a member for a long time with a history of good advise.

 

adunlop is a new member, and although may be well intentioned, it has been known that PPCs join as "helpful" members, but simply want to get members with a current problem to write to them giving out valuable personal details which can then be used in a possible court case.

 

If adunlop can offer helpful info here in the forum board it will be most welcome, but I would advise against anyone going "off board" for advise which cannot be verified by other members as being good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Words of wisdom, Crem.

 

Email address removed.

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

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

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

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

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Crem

Just to say it is not "advice " I have but INFORMATION These are different things. How can I put information on here that which might be seen by the Company that we are trying to get our money back from. They will see it and take steps to thwart us maybe. Also what is a PPC?

cheers

AD

Link to post
Share on other sites
Parking Control Services Limited (registered company number 06043819) is not the same as "Parking Control Services" who I was unfortunate enough to deal with.

 

Parking Control Services is their trading name, their company is Magnaco Ltd, Registered office: 7-11 Minerva Road, London NW10 6HJ Registered in England & Wales No: 04809559.

 

As a footnote to this whole ordeal, I would love to hear from anyone who has also had a successful judgment against Parking Control Services. If £750 is owed to debtors, it is enough to make an application to court to wind up the company. If I could find enough people who are also owed money, I would consider looking into making such a joint application to finish their operation and get our money back as secured creditors. It is not something I have looked into extensively, but its the only option I can now think of to get my money back!

 

This may be unlikely, but if you have got a judgment against them then please contact me and we can see if we can take it further still!

Hi,

I have obtained a CCJ for £1500 against them which HCE bailiffs are trying to enforce. I did pay by card so have considerable evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I have obtained a CCJ for £1500 against them which HCE bailiffs are trying to enforce. I did pay by card so have considerable evidence.

 

 

See if you can get the bailiff to seize their PC and printer first. They may not be worth much, but just think how many other people will be greatful that you single-handly stopped them receiving more [problem] mail. :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
See if you can get the bailiff to seize their PC and printer first. They may not be worth much, but just think how many other people will be greatful that you single-handly stopped them receiving more [problem] mail. :-D

 

:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in Purley

I got clamped in Bow E3

I am trying the credit card route - see if they can persuade company to pay

I am trying to find items of value -has anyone seen a warehouse? They have a van delivering parking stuff Where does it park at night

Court have sent me a copy of Court Judgement as well as the company so am considering finding Mr Gill or Mr Ireland Director of Magnaco / PCS

and hassling them for the money they owe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in Crystal Palace They appear to operate from the Crawley area. I also have one of the addresses where clamped cars are taken. Happy to help find Gill or Ireland. am using credit card route may get address where that is registered at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have got Irelands address in Crawley Let me know if you want it or want to go there some time. Its a medium sized detached house backing on to park land in a culdesac judging by Google Earth. I spoke to him today through the PCS free phone number and he confirmed he lives in Crawley. He refused point blank to pay me even though I have a Court Order! and said he personally is not liable due to it being a Limited Company and the company have no assets I said I would try to have Credit Card status removed and have written to HSBC Mastercard. I am thinkiing of copying the letter to all the other main cards so they might do the same. Without cards who can pay them (him) Ireland. I have Gills address in Iver Bucks confirmed with Electorial Role. I know Ireland was the contact 2 years ago when a Housing Association had a contract with them so he seems to be the leading light so far. I suspect he works from home as all the offices are bogus Why do you think they operate out of Crawley? where is their car pound? They might store their vans there overnight.

Edited by adunlop
adding stuff
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why it is worth suing the PPC AND the landowner. Trying to make the judgement stick against the landowner would probably be much more successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why it is worth suing the PPC AND the landowner. Trying to make the judgement stick against the landowner would probably be much more successful.

Absolutely right. At the very least the landowner has land the car park is situated on to lose. They are hardly going to want to have property seized for a small debt.

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

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

Did a bit of digging and have also now found ireland's address. According to Crawley Council he was granted planning consent on appeal to use the garage as an office to run a wheel clamping business including parking vans! I have advised my HCE bailiffs. I have also advised Barclaycard who are sending forms.

 

I have a problem suing land owner as my car was stolen and left on a PCS site by the thieves. it was then then taken to a pound (breakers yard) in Dorking by PCS. I don't therefore know where it was left originally! PCS would not give it back unless i paid their ridiculous fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be careful approaching ireland in person. I get the impression that he may not be too helpful. The wheel clamping guys I met to get my car back were on the generous side!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the warning but........I am thinking a few of us go or have a Demo day down in his cul de sac with a few posters saying what a dodgy operator he is ie he has no proper offices and that he works at home and does not pay his debts. We could make it a summer party and we might find out a few things from his neighbours in our quest to get our money back. There is also the tax and VAT route I am checking if his BMW M5 is a company car as Bailiffs could seize it if it is. Any other ideas gratefully received

Link to post
Share on other sites

:)If he's operating under limited liability then its worth finding out from Companies House what that amount is. AIUI if the company is capitalised with say £1000 the shareholders are personally liable to up to that amount.

 

Might be worth a look. You might be able to use it to grab his Beamer.:)

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

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

I have copy of accounts for 07 and 08

Authorised shares are 1000 @ £1 each = £1000

"Alloted, called up and fully paid 1 ordinary share of £1 each = £1"

I dont know the difference and anyway how do you find who the shareholder is or are? - I guess its ireland as he has signed the accounts

At another place it says Called up share capital £1

Profit and loss account £114112

Shareholders funds £114413 Again dont know how to interpret these figures Help please

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have copy of accounts for 07 and 08

Authorised shares are 1000 @ £1 each = £1000

"Alloted, called up and fully paid 1 ordinary share of £1 each = £1"

I dont know the difference and anyway how do you find who the shareholder is or are? - I guess its ireland as he has signed the accounts

At another place it says Called up share capital £1

Profit and loss account £114112

Shareholders funds £114413 Again dont know how to interpret these figures Help please

 

The details should be held by Companies House. The company officers are the people you need. (Director(s) and Company Secretary). By law the company must make an annual return listing these people and contact addresses for them.

 

I've think I've got some information on the allocation of shares which I will try and find when I get home tonight and post up.

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

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...