Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Honestly you are all amazing on this site, thank you so much for your help and time. ill keep an eye out and only return when i receive a claim letter for sure also, i updated my address with amex and tsb before i even missed payments. the initial address was my family home but i dont reside there. to avoid a bombardment of letters there i have now updated my address, will they send all threats etc to the new address? Or old address?   do you reccomend i send both tsb and amex my update in address via a letter?
    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
  • 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

Very Urgent Help Req PLEASE! - County Parking PCN Rec'vd.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5724 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 received a PCN on my vehicle whilst someone borrowed it to visit a family member in hospital last week. I have scanned images if they are of any use? but I am a little worried that I may not be able to dispute it, as the car was parked in a car park of an NHS Hospital, but was still given the PCN by County Parking Enforcement Agency Ltd, a PPC.

 

The vehicle was left for 20 mins, as the machine did not take notes, and it took 10-15 mins to waste money in their shop in order to obtain change, when the driver returned to the car, there was a "Parking Notice Enclosed" wallet, with a Parking Charge Number advertised on the top.

 

Would I be in my rights, or would it be adviseable to ignore this, then dispute it, as suggested on many many forums?

 

Any help would be gratefully appreciated, and if I could post images, I have them scanned in and uploaded to photobucket.

 

Thanks in Advance,

 

Ann Ony-Mous

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check first of all if it is a proper PCN issued by the council.

 

Just had a look at their site and they are a private company.

 

If it is not, and it will have the address on it, then it is not enforceable.

 

Why not put your scan here for checking - remove any identifying words first though.

Edited by Conniff
added information
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Conniff, thanks for the quick response.

 

It does not allow images to be attached unless I have made 5 posts or more.... however... Images are located at photobucket .com/albums/a132/mylupo/parking/

 

The address on the PCN is a Po Box in Northampton, and the ticket machine (when paid for) gives out tickets in the name of MK General Hospital.

 

Thanks for the assistance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, I dont suppose you can advise, is it because they are threatening further action through a county court or a debt collector? And because they threat to take actions which cannot legally be taken? Or is it under other provisions of the mentioned laws?

 

Thanks very much for your assistance, I will certainly be donating to keep this site alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is faking an official ticket - and that yellow cover envelope is a big no no as well.

you need to know the proper parking regs and the laws they are breaking.

Just keep all the letters they will send you safe - you may get a chance to use them against them !

Link to post
Share on other sites

a [problem].

a fraud (fraud act 2006 section 2) and in violation of

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 No.

 

don't even bother with them

 

Where under section (2) are they comiting an offence ? - This parking ticket/invoice has been taken off by the driver and the (presume) RK has now found, so the person who parked and accepted the contract (OK OK .. if the terms were clear ... blah, blah, blah)

 

And under which section (EXACTLY) are they breaching the unfair trading regulations act ??

 

I am NOT saying you are wrong, but just reading the ticket, to which the DRIVER has taken off ... just want to know your angle ??

 

We can all post whole acts / legilsation .. but people need to know in their specific case what is relevant to them ...

 

YOU may be right, I am not guiding to an argument but just ACTUAL clarification in this 1 case of the acts you have qutoed the PPC have broken.

 

The RK should just say who was driving and get on with his life, he borrowed the vehicle to someone in good faith, why should he deal with this ??? let the person who parked deal with it ... I am sure the RK has something better to do with his life....

 

If I borrowed my car to someone (GENUINE) and he/she got a ticket of any description (1) I would be MAD (2) I would expect them to deal with it and not give me any hastle and I CERTAINLY would not take any blame/hastle for it....

Edited by correction999
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point too. I would like to know under which acts or laws they are breaching, as it could become a legal battle, but at the same time, the driver did breach the terms of parking too by not purchasing a , so no fraud was commited to a degree, however, they did take the p*** by not giving the driver of the car time to get some change to use the machine.

 

I dont want to pay the fine, granted, but who would? It's sick to think that the car was parked right next to A & E of a hospital, facing away from the signs, and that someone out there is targeting people who may be mourning, or may be attending an emergency, or a dead person etc etc.

 

These people need putting in their place, and such sites like this are perfect to help Joe Public from being targets of money-grabbing parking companies like this.

 

Thanks for information so far peeps, all this because the person who borrowed the car did not have £2 on them to buy a ticket!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

correction999,

you can find out in court next time you take a parker there. Let me know one of your car parks and we can do it face to face it court if you like.

Or consult your in-house legal team maybe. or just read the Acts - as a PPC yourself you need to be familiar with them, plus a few others.

 

accord-mk,

you are under NO obligation to name the driver nor can the PPC force you to do so. Even though one or two have have some off the wall ideas about this.

Crrectionn99 is 'pro PPC' as you ca see.

penalties unenforceable, only loss can be claimed (if any) and then it is due to the landowner. Almost invariably the contract the PPC has with the landowner does not confer rights. if you owned a massive car park would you give landowner rights to a shady company that makes its money by tricking people and has a business model with no basis in law. Me neither.

happy to oblige via PM if the ACTs are troublesome. Before stepping into the ACTs suggest you read the PPC stickies to get a good grounding then you will easily be able to identify the failings of this PPC (and all the others). Then get familiar with real council issued tickets so you can see the differences. the transgressions against the two acts mentioned should jump off the page at you then. but it does probably take a couple of hours of study. more fun than the telly as afterwards you can advise all your friends and they in turn can pass it on to their friends.

Edited by lamma
Link to post
Share on other sites

mk, it is 'not' a fine, only courts can fine, this is a penalty charge and should be refered as such.

 

Did he in fact breach the terms of parking, does it say that you are not allowed to leave to get change.

 

In one of the very very rare occasions one of these have gone to court, the judge asked if it said anything under the 'you will be liable to a charge' of how much that charge will be. He then went on to say 'as it does not, then no charge can be levied'.

 

You will receive letters increasing the charge with each letter, but they are not enforceable in the courts. I have posted the following on a few occasions, this seems like a good time to repeat it.

 

But the far more important issue was that the judge found there was no justification for the £100 fine. He said it was a penalty charge and therefore unenforceable by the court.
Link to post
Share on other sites

correction999,

you can find out in court next time you take a parker there. Let me know one of your car parks and we can do it face to face it court if you like.

Or consult your in-house legal team maybe. or just read the Acts - as a PPC yourself you need to be familiar with them, plus a few others.

 

As normal, if you dont know the answer just avoid answering the question.

 

If you say something breaks a law, then you should give the OP the reasons why (not just posting a link to the whole act) - This way the OP can easily understand.

 

(btw, true I work for a PPC, but we dont take people to court as we clamp and theres no need to)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)

 

Just incase you CBA to read it, here it is:

2 Fraud by false representation

 

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and CHECK

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or CHECK

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and CHECK

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. CHECK

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied. CHECK

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

 

Therefore, as a result of making the representation that "you are required to pay" and "(2)(a) it is untrue or misleading, which it is as the PCN is designed to mimic a Council PCN, and it addresses the RK as being responsible for the alleged invoice, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading." clearly an offence under said act has been committed. Plus the yellow cover is further false representation.

 

 

In addition, the Administration of Justice Act 1970 would cover this as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PPCs also rely on the fact that by driving into the carpark, they have agreed a 'contract'. That is not so - The mere fact of agreement alone does not make a contract. Both parties to the contract must provide consideration if they wish to sue on the contract.

 

This is the reason that private tickets alway fail in the courts when defended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi, just a quick update on this one. I ignored the PPC. I got a letter today asking me to supply them with the driver details if it was not me, and failure to settle the amount within 7 days "may" result in further action being taken through a debt collector or the county court incurring further costs and interest.

 

Could anyone suggest whether or not I should respond and advise them that they should raise this with the driver of the vehicle at the time?

 

I dont want to write to them, but if I dont, surely I cannot justify telling a debt collector that it is in dispute at present?

 

They are also asking for £80 now instead of the original £40.

 

Apparently according to the letter, the offence commited is "Parked in a private car park without clearly displaying a valid permit."

 

Any information would be gratefully appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad the message is going out about these lecherous scummers.!I find it particularly despicable that they cruise the hospital car parks! Also that the NHS lets them, considering we the tax payer probably paid for the car park to be built.! As for "clampers" Correction9999 my day in court is approaching, and so is my money back, plus interest and cost:) However, next time i'm clamped the clamper will end up with a criminal record:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got another reply again today, just as you predicted, advising that I have 7 days to pay or it will be passed on to their debt collection agency?

 

Do I need to write to them at this point, as I believe that you advise to tell them that it is "in dispute" so they are unable to take any of my possessions. However, it is not in dispute in reality as the PPC are not aware that I am not paying it are they?

 

Any advice on this point guys? They are also threatening a second £10 admin charge if I dont pay, can they do this?

 

Ideally I was going to write them a letter, advising of the law's/acts they are in breach of, also telling them to get lost (Harassment act) then tell them that any further letters received from them will result in me charging them £10 for each letter I have to reply with. Would anyone advise against this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...