Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

Hey, can I join your club? Victim of NCP attempted scam!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5631 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

Well, I received this, which I thought was a bit unusual for several reasons. Firstly, it states I was recently sent a NTRK, which I wasn't, this is the first corespondence Ive seen, secondly, the letter arrived the day after the impossibly short 7 days in which I had to act. Secondly, it states that if I want a copy of the ticket that was never attached, I have to pay £10:|

 

I wrote a letter in response saying that I hadn't received the stated correspondance and that I would be contesting this very strongly. I was careful not to state who the driver was and that I would require evidence of the "offence" being commited.

 

Today, they rang my Dads house and left an answerphone message saying "I had to get in touch"

 

You will note that the date of the letters is exactly as they "run out" of time, althoug, they are obviously posted with as little time as possible in which to act. A basic check at the Solicitors Regulation Authority using the number at the bottom of the letter returns no results, which I thought strange.

 

What is the next step? Im not ringing them back, I have sent a letter stating that its the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Do I wait for them to send me a letter back?

Edited by Bimmer_boi
Link to post
Share on other sites

A basic check at the Solicitors Regulation Authority using the number at the bottom of the letter returns no results, which I thought strange.

 

I understand that is because they are not actually a Solicitor (I hear). Other members her know more about it.

 

Why are you communicating with them? You are just encouraging them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that is because they are not actually a Solicitor (I hear). Other members her know more about it.

 

Why are you communicating with them? You are just encouraging them.

 

I was advised by a trainee barrister not to simply ignore the letters. In His letter Micael Sobell claims to be a solicitor trading under the name of Graham White

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Roxburghe letter refers to the "Penalty Contravention Charge Notice (PCCN)". Clearly, as private companies cannot issue penalties, they have no intention of taking that anywhere near a court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was advised by a trainee barrister not to simply ignore the letters. In His letter Micael Sobell claims to be a solicitor trading under the name of Graham White

 

and why did the trainee barrister advise that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

and why did the trainee barrister advise that?

 

No Idea really. Im merely a humble IT contractor, so I can only give advice on computers and servers.

 

What I also am is highly vindictive and should this progress to harassment stage, I will investigate all possible avenues into causing as much hassle for them as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

H White is a trading name owned by M Sobell (who works/ed for Hackney Council I think). Roxburghe use that name. At one stage these letters did not mention M Sobell at all, that detail has been added. I have read that Sobell's licensing of the name to Roxburghe was a breach of law society regs and he had his name removed from the Law Society Register. Maybe he is now back on the register and that is why the name Sobell now appears. G White appears though The Law Society - Find a solicitor maybe it is again time for someone in receipt of one of these letters to write to the law society (where the 'Warrant issue fee' from as a part of the claim I have no idea - but would send copies of the whole pape rchain to the SRA pointing out the all regs broken, assumed RK liability etc etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I received this, which I thought was a bit unusual for several reasons. Firstly, it states I was recently sent a NTRK, which I wasn't, this is the first corespondence Ive seen, secondly, the letter arrived the day after the impossibly short 7 days in which I had to act. Secondly, it states that if I want a copy of the ticket that was never attached, I have to pay £10:|

 

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc345/jethro_jones/DSC02125.jpg

 

and the reverse:

 

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc345/jethro_jones/DSC02126.jpg

 

Then on the 10th, I received this:

 

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc345/jethro_jones/DSC02124.jpg

 

I wrote a letter in response saying that I hadn't received the stated correspondance and that I would be contesting this very strongly. I was careful not to state who the driver was and that I would require evidence of the "offence" being commited.

 

Today, they rang my Dads house and left an answerphone message saying "I had to get in touch"

 

You will note that the date of the letters is exactly as they "run out" of time, althoug, they are obviously posted with as little time as possible in which to act. A basic check at the Solicitors Regulation Authority using the number at the bottom of the letter returns no results, which I thought strange.

 

What is the next step? Im not ringing them back, I have sent a letter stating that its the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Do I wait for them to send me a letter back?

total rubbish.now you have contacted them they.ll think they have hooked a fish.just ignore all letters you get.but keep them safe. you may need them if you want to them report to the police .what you have got is a invioce NOTE A UNENFORCEABLE INVIOCEAT THAT. ITS JUST A LEGAL [problem]. BUT THEY CANT MAKE YOU PAY OR TELL THEM WHO WAS DRIVING AT THE TIME. AS ITS THE DRIVER WHO HAS BEEN DEEMED TO AGREED TO THE CONTRACT FOR PARKING THEREAS IVE SAID TOTAL RUBBISH

Link to post
Share on other sites

H White is a trading name owned by M Sobell (who works/ed for Hackney Council I think). Roxburghe use that name. At one stage these letters did not mention M Sobell at all, that detail has been added. I have read that Sobell's licensing of the name to Roxburghe was a breach of law society regs and he had his name removed from the Law Society Register. Maybe he is now back on the register and that is why the name Sobell now appears. G White appears though The Law Society - Find a solicitor maybe it is again time for someone in receipt of one of these letters to write to the law society (where the 'Warrant issue fee' from as a part of the claim I have no idea - but would send copies of the whole pape rchain to the SRA pointing out the all regs broken, assumed RK liability etc etc)

 

I like the sound of this. Could you mind writing a draft letter outlining the broken regulations and I will do my damndest to put this joker out of business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, after a period of quiet, I received not one but two letters. The first arrived 28th November with a postmark on the envelope of 24th November and a date on the letter of the 20th from Roxburghe drawing my attention to two aspects of case law. Namely:

 

Watteau v fenwick (1893) and Combined Parking Solutions v S J Thomas (2008)

 

I've been able to find out about the first, which is complete rubbish when applied to this, but I haven't been able to find out about CPS v S J Thomas, can someone with access to Butterworths enlighten me?

 

This letter ends with a stark warning about considering my actions carefully and provide the driver details by return of post. If I fail to do so, they will have no alternative but to continue the action against me. This letter is from Steve Dargonne.

 

The second is from Michael Sobell again, telling me I have a final warning that despite many (really???) attempts to obtain payment from me, I have chosen to withold settlement of the amount £140. Im advised that if Im in any doubt as to the seriousness of the situation, I should seek independant legal advice as the consequences of litigation can be far-reaching, such as:

 

Substantial legal costs and statutory interest being added

My name being listed on the register of judgments affecting my chances of further credit in the future

Seizure of my assets by bailiffs

An order to obtain information from judgment debtor

 

It is my responsibility to repay this account immediately and they are putting me on notice that they will refer the matter in seven days.

 

Im assured "that this matter will not go away without solution or resolution"

 

They then ask that if I do not wish to incur the consequences of COURT ACTION (their emboldening) I ,must pay the amount claimed immediately.

 

Continue to ignore or shall I send the harassment letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

CPS won a case earlier in the year against Stephen Thomas. Nothing in small claims is guaranteed and there's always a small percentage chance that the PPC will win. Always has and always will be.

 

Despite the fact they made just around £150 after all that effort and time, and have lost cases in the past - it's purpose is merely a propaganda one (no business is going to travel around the country trying to win court cases that have a low chance of success).

 

Now the PPCs have clubbed together and devised a template rejection letter which talks about Stephen's case, complete with lies about it being a precedent.

 

Ignore both letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"case law" - did they use that term ? if so its complete crap. Small claims civil cases cannot make law - there is no "case law". Roxburghe governed by, inter alia, the CSA and this letter sounds like it breaches Consumer regs so is unlawful and so also against CSA CoP. report them to CSA if they said it was case law.

show us pictures of this letter please - suitably washed of personal details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the PPCs have clubbed together and devised a template rejection letter which talks about Stephen's case, complete with lies about it being a precedent.

 

You notice that they don't mention the Excel case which was lost by Excel in March.

 

It it very much selective propaganda and totally misleading.

 

As lamma has said a breach of Consumer Regs. Roxburghe and the solicitor are acting as DCAs and should under the OFT guidelines refer the matter back to their client.

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

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

Bimmer boi, you should re-edit those letters straight away and delete ANY reference to you personally. (Like your name would be a good start! ! :)

 

I don't know what you mean:rolleyes:

 

the comments apply. CPS v Thomas is not case law. CSA complaint for them. Roxburghe also give the game away as operatng for the managing agent - NOT the landowner also the 'substantial legal costs' is plainly wrong - its small claims court ! SRA complaint for them

 

Have you contact details for the CSA? Im already speaking to someone at the SRA

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...