Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • is response to CPR rules you sent me - my observations are   1)they havent stated under what law/legislation they make a claim, they have mentioned document they rely on but didnt serve it with application as above   2)they didnt serve application or evidence on me ever! court knows this    3)this is a telephone hearing where no oral evidence is to be given , do we do skeleton arguments or court bundle , when do we give to court - order is to only submit evidence in response 7 days before hearing   4) there are /is a document which gives complete defence to the claim, disclosable at trial , so they shouldnt have sought summary judgement a)i have an email from them ,  a deed of guarantee and indemnity (DOGI) was required for guarantee, pre condition to lending b)i have a docusign email sending request to sign this  DOGI document (not attached it was a docusign login) , c)they dont have a copy of it and havent provided under SAR or specific request.  d) anyone who does a DOGI, is not defined as a 'Guarantor' in the agreement, which is not signed in a personal capacity anyway, e)so in the application they rely on loan agreement having a self contained gurantor section, and the fact my name is next to word guarantor (but not signed personally, no statute of frauds anyways)   their definition of a guarantor-"person named in offer letter who enters into this loan agreement to provide a personal guarantee and indemnity. this definition excludes any third party guarantor who enters into a seperate DOGI"
    • Hi Anney.   Let's give this a bit longer. With the best will in the world, altosbestos hasn't been here very long and we don't know much about them. It would be good to know what forum regulars think about what altos is advising.   HB  
    • thanks for that very helpful, ill make some points on it in a minute just wanted to say they never served me application against CPR, i had to obtain off court a copy. They refer in wtiness st - marked as what they rely to support application a paginated bundle PR1 which apparently accompanies the statement, i can see from the references and amount of pages it should be the loan offer and loan agreement, as you would expect.   so i asked court can i have copy of PR1 so i can check, they just got back and said  claimant has never either in electronic database or in paper, served a bundle PR1 with the application,    there said it was claimants job to serve everyone and me- so ask them      i was about to and i had a thought, they havent submitted any evidence in support of their application why remind them !   in theory judge will get to hearing and go where is your evidence of this agreement?   and for the record they are very sloppy and do make major mistakes in their paperwork, so this isnt unusual
    • You can draft the letter before action yourself and send it against the individual that's not giving you clear responses. No need to involve solicitors at this stage.   I would recommend you do it today, start maintaining a paper trail. 
    • Obviously the real proof will come when the contract is revealed.   In the meantime you could write to the DVLA asking who applied for your data back in 2017. And show them the signage where both companies are listed and ask in view of who asked for your details, did the right one apply and what is their view on both companies showing on the sign.   Is this legal and explain that you are in the middle of a Court case and they may be called.
  • 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
      • 31 replies

Minster Baywatch PCN Claimform - xxxx hospital, xxxx (city)help!


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4194 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

Hi

 

This is my first post bu I have read a lot of the other similar posts, though speicific advice would be useful.

 

I was parked at a hospital in Newcastle without a pay and display ticket and received a "Parking Charge Notice" from Minster Baywatch (based in York(?)) for "A valid pay and display ticket was not clearly on display" adn "a valid permit was not clearly on display. As with all the other posters, it alos has notive that a £50 charge is now payable but £25 will be accepted in the first 14 days.

 

It also has however that "Legal action will be taken against the registered keeper if unpaid. Further costs will be incurred" but more worryingly, "Alternatively on your return to this car park you vehicle may be subject to additional parking fines. Your vehicle may be immobilised or towed away to recover any outstanding debt."

 

As I visit the hospital every month, I'm wondering, should I just pay the fine (I've gathered that there's no point appealing and that I should wait until they contact me before using one of the templates telling them to "take it up wiht the driver" - who - between this forum - MAY have been me) and do they have any legal right to provide additional fines and/or immobilise/tow away my car?

 

pieboy

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It would be an offence to clamp or tow your car. Any member of society has go through the county court to claim any alleged debt and just taking goods is theft.

 

Private companies have no powers to issue fines, so that's a load of cobblers too.

 

Legally, they are not entitled to £25 or £50 - they are entitled to the cost of the P&D ticket. You can either completely ignore them, or you can send them a pound coin in the post, point out that this is all they're entitled too and to forward it to the landowner if required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Al27, Could you confirm whether there are any sites on the net or law that can be quoted to Minster Baywatch with regards to them not legally being entitled to claim anything other than the P & D charge.

 

I had brought a ticket which was not displayed properly and they have taken a picture of my car and registration number. The ticket was on the drivers side window which they failed to see and apparently didn't take a picture of that side of the car. Also is this not a breech of Data Protection as my vehicle reg can lead someone to my personal details? Also the storage of such a phot would surely be on their computer system, how do I know what that picture could be used for if it fell into the wrong hands, I feel that this is an infringement of my rights and protection of my personal data. I have written to them explaining this but they just wrote back saying that a picture of a car is not classed as personal data. I have sent a copy of my ticket which was brought in good faith. Now they insist that I pay within 14 days.

 

After reading your response I am now enclined to send the £1.70 which they claim I didn't pay, would then dispute the fact and insist that they can charge a fine of £40 if paid in 14 days, if not then £60 thereafter ?? Any help wouuld be appreciated !

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you've already bought a ticket and even sent it to them?

 

Well, job done then. They offered a service, and you paid for it. Displaying a ticket is optional - if you bought a jumper in Debenhams, they can't fine you for losing your receipt!

 

There's no point trying to reason with them or explain the law - they just want to make some cash. They know the situation full well, but are hoping that you don't.

 

Expect more letters before they give up and go away. They can 'charge' any figure they like - the £60 is no more enforceable than £40 or £10,000.

 

You've done your bit. Sit back and ignore.

 

By the way, I don't think it's a breach of data protection to take a photo of your car I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Al27, you clearly dont know what your on about.

 

If you park on private property and their is signage saying that permits/tickets must be displayed or you will recieve a parking charge then this is what you must do, the term is pay and display, not pay and put it in your pocket / put it on the floor / put it behind the tinted section of your windscreen / put it face down so you cant read the time and date of expiry etc etc..

 

If you park your car then you have agreed to the terms and conditions and therefore entered into a contract.

 

The parking charge is for breach of contract, weather you bought a ticket or not is irrelevant.

 

Its quite simple, if you dont agree with the restrictions on privately owned property then dont park there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
It would be an offence to clamp or tow your car. Any member of society has go through the county court to claim any alleged debt and just taking goods is theft.

 

Private companies have no powers to issue fines, so that's a load of cobblers too.

 

Legally, they are not entitled to £25 or £50 - they are entitled to the cost of the P&D ticket. You can either completely ignore them, or you can send them a pound coin in the post, point out that this is all they're entitled too and to forward it to the landowner if required.

not true trust me i know

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go on then ruddiger123, explain away why you think thats not true .......

 

Troll alert !

All opinions & information are the personal view of the poster, and are not that of any organisation, company or employer. Any information disclosed by the poster is for personal use only. Permission to process this data under the Data Protection act is NOT GIVEN to any company, only personal readers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be an offence to clamp or tow your car. Any member of society has go through the county court to claim any alleged debt and just taking goods is theft.

 

Private companies have no powers to issue fines, so that's a load of cobblers too.

 

Legally, they are not entitled to £25 or £50 - they are entitled to the cost of the P&D ticket. You can either completely ignore them, or you can send them a pound coin in the post, point out that this is all they're entitled too and to forward it to the landowner if required.

 

 

In response to the person who requested an explanation as to why the above post was untrue.

 

Firstly it is not illegal to clamp or tow a vehicle (unless you live in Scotland). Would a government authority, namely the Security Industry Authority, issue vehicle immobilisation licences if it were an illegal act:?:

 

card_vi.jpg

 

Secondly, correct a private company cannot issue fines (unless contracted by the local council to conduct civil enforcement), this is why parking tickets are called ' Parking charge Notice' not 'Penaly charge notice'; the ticket is a charge not a fine.

 

penalty_charge_notice_white.gif

 

Finally with refrence to the comments regarding the amount of the charge, a business can charge what they wish for a product or service, you will find the charges printed on the car parks signage. If one of the charges is applicable to vehicles not following the terms and conditions of the car park then so be it, it so happens that the charge is requested after the charge is incurred, the P.C.N is in effect an invoice. If you do not agree to the charges then fine just park else where.

 

The mistake a lot of people make is that just because a car park is readily accessable to the public it is still private property and if you are not prepared to respect the land owners wishes then you have no right to be there. Put yourself in the landowners position if he did not have measures in place to sort out parking fee dodgers (who do not want to pay their way in life like everyone els), no body would pay. If no one paid the car park would close down and there would be very limited parking across the country, is that what some of you want:idea:

 

Parking enforcement is a necessary evil !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

all the PPCs have to is act lawfully and legally. have yet to see a set of paper from any PPC that is either. In very many cases they do not even have the right to form any contract with driver. which PPC do you work for/run ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, correct a private company cannot issue fines (unless contracted by the local council to conduct civil enforcement), this is why parking tickets are called ' Parking charge Notice' not 'Penaly charge notice'; the ticket is a charge not a fine.

 

penalty_charge_notice_white.gif

 

 

You can call it what you like, it is still quite obviously a "penalty charge" based on it's size relative to the breaking of a particular term on an alledged contract.

 

As a term on a contract therefore it also falls foul of consumer acts deeming no term can be "unreasonable", which again it clearly is.

Edited by crem
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one small part of the "lawfully and legally" problems they face. Of course if a PPC did act lawfully and legally their business model collapses !! here is something from the FSA about unfair contract terms. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/speeches/tmcl_slides.pdf

Edited by lamma
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a term on a contract therefore it also falls foul of consumer acts deeming no term can be "unreasonable", which again it clearly is.

 

Whats unreasonable about insisting that motorists pay for their parking:-?:-?:-?

 

With reference to the amount of the charge usually between £30 and £75 if paid within the discounted period; the profits are not as high as you think.

 

The fee has to cover:

wages / staff training / fuel / vehicles / a ridiculous amount of admin / DVLA fees / printing / signage / pay and display machines 3-8 grand each / maintenance of machines / repairs to vandalised machines / commision to landowners.

 

The fees are quite reasonable taking the above into account, tecnically we :eek: oops, THEY could just clamp / tow and charge in the regeon of £400 to get your car back COMPLETELY LEGALLY but the good guys dont.

Link to post
Share on other sites
all the PPCs have to is act lawfully and legally. have yet to see a set of paper from any PPC that is either. In very many cases they do not even have the right to form any contract with driver. which PPC do you work for/run ?

 

If you have written permission from the land owner you have the right to form a contract with motorists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have written permission from the land owner you have the right to form a contract with motorists.

 

not if the landowner has not given you the appropriate rights - which the majority do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just one small part of the "lawfully and legally" problems they face. Of course if a PPC did act lawfully and legally their business model collapses !! here is something from the FSA about unfair contract terms. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/speeches/tmcl_slides.pdf

 

Take a look at the top of page 2 on your link; basically they state that a contract is considered fair if the terms are clear with no hidden pitfalls.

 

Generally parking companies signage / contracts comply with this statement

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whats unreasonable about insisting that motorists pay for their parking:-?:-?:-?

 

With reference to the amount of the charge usually between £30 and £75 if paid within the discounted period; the profits are not as high as you think.

 

The fee has to cover:

wages / staff training / fuel / vehicles / a ridiculous amount of admin / DVLA fees / printing / signage / pay and display machines 3-8 grand each / maintenance of machines / repairs to vandalised machines / commision to landowners.

 

The fees are quite reasonable taking the above into account, tecnically we :eek: oops, THEY could just clamp / tow and charge in the regeon of £400 to get your car back COMPLETELY LEGALLY but the good guys dont.

 

oops you have let the cat out of the bag - but relax we all knew it anyway. fees for losses. the cost of running your business is your affair. and losses to the landowner not you in most cases. If you are so sure then take up the Pepipoo challenge that Perky can't manage to do. Unless you are Perky (again) so which PPC are you ? did the cat get your tongue when it escaped the bag ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Take a look at the top of page 2 on your link; basically they state that a contract is considered fair if the terms are clear with no hidden pitfalls.

 

Generally parking companies signage / contracts comply with this statement

 

read the rest of it. and the accompanying speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tecnically we :eek: oops, THEY could just clamp / tow and charge in the regeon of £400 to get your car back COMPLETELY LEGALLY but the good guys dont.

 

Clamping is only a remedy (and a flimsy remedy at that) for "trespass". If you park with one wheel over a white line in a private car park to which the public have been given reasonable access too, you cannot by definition be "trespassing". Therefore clamping would be an illegal remedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

here's an update.

 

Because I'm living between 2 addresses, the letters are going to one address and then being forwarded. AS a result I'm receiving them about 7-10 days later.

 

I today got one from Roxburghe debt collectors saying that £100 is now due and that in the absence of payment or any valid dispute they will pursue this matter - with or without my coopoeration and that it will be passed on to Solicitors, Graham White to review the case rfor potential legal action.

 

Up to now I have just been ignoring the letters. Is this routine, and at what point do they usually stop? Should I write a cease and desist letter asking for evidence?

 

pieboy

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to Minster Baywatch PCN Claimform - xxxx hospital, xxxx (city)help!
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...