Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you need to ring northants bulk and ask for a copy of the judgement and the claimform by email pdf. it is quite usual for them to not have a copy of the claimform. so you need to record the call and ask them to read out the particulars of claim and the address it was sent too.     old wives tales , if you have a debt owing that shows on your credit file or you know exists from say the last 7yrs you should NEVER move without WRITTING to the debt owner with your new address. never run from debt which falls within the above .     all mortgage style SLC loans that were not deferred with erudio following the gov't sale in 2013 and that did not have a court claim raised within 6yrs are SB'd.   drydens simply did this because they wrote to your old address, got no response, and knew they'd get a default roboclaim CCJ where no human checks anything.   shot yourself in the foot.      
    • yep.   if all these are still owned/with the original creditors and you are not paying any powerless DCA's  then little point in any CCA requests at this stage unless any (non OD A/C's) are say pre 2000 opening.   our pro rata letters are the way to go you'll find those in the debt collection section of our library.   get any income payments on going or otherwise moved into a parachute A/c.   it is most probable that whatever you do most A/c's will be defaulted once this is done if not already. bearing in mine your wish to re mortgage or move in a future, it is most probable that the quicker you do default , the earlier a DN will be registered thus the earlier these will not show following their 6th birthday. this might involve you thinking about stopping all payments now ensuring this does happen, then resuming payment under a pro rata scheme self administered , once this happens.   just be aware that no DMP providers will ever question enforceability, should that be relevant.     
    • LL would have Absolutely no chance of getting the smart meter changed back.....
    • slow down ...read what i'm asking , stating and trying to clarify.. it all might seem useless or totally irrelevant but it's important information moving forward with the whole situation and useful in the SPC claim moving forward     there was not 2 loans - the litigated OD is not a loan but it appears from your comment here..     sorry but then you did get scammed on many fronts... they allowed you to settle the loan exploiting your confusion over thinking it was the litigated account. they didn't tell you either and they would also have been aware of your statement filed response form:   The respondent had a junior account with the Bank of Scotland since a young age.  The Bank of Scotland offered the Respondent a loan of around £2500. This Respondent serviced the loan until losing her source of income and ran into some financial difficulty resulting in defaulting in servicing the loan.   they settled for a discounted sum... why? we usually find this is because they hold no enforceable paperwork at all. or was full of charges , charges could have been the discount or it could have been due to 'a business decision' ...   but sure as eggs is eggs there is no way 1st credit would not have raised a court claim for both the OD and the loan unless there was a very good reason. they didn't that smells...badly.   OD 's are notoriously difficult to litigate upon if defended properly...but with a loan in the same claim, with enforceable paperwork, they would have almost been guaranteed to win.   it's also a shame you didn't come where before you did anything but we are where we are.   now the above might seem harsh..even petty but our posts are not only for you and your issue they are also for future readers that find us via search engines or read like threads here alerting debtors to frequent pitfalls and innocent wet myself actions many do that all these dca's will and have exploited time and time again over the last +40yrs .   i'll try and get around to properly redacting all your pdf's tonight and get them back up. but before i finish and get on with the above........the status of the claim as it stands now.   From what i can gather the claim now hinges upon proving her ex at the time settled by a discounted payment to HBOS well before the sale to Intrum and the SPC Claim.   In all honestly and with regard to your comments in your previous posts upon his character, i seriously doubt this ever happened. the disclosures from Intrum contain all the OD statements , should that have happened, it would be detailed in those.   there is little point in the claimant hiding that info as they would be in far more legal trouble should they have doctored them than insuring a mere +£1k claim win. Even 1st credit wouldn't pull such stunts.   Sorry but there is little point in requesting HBOS to attend any future hearing, nor hoping the SAR shows anything different to the statements the claimant has disclosed . That will cost you more money , and more money in terms of the claimant attending another hearing.   there is one exploitation i see. that being the mention of a default notice. the claim states:  The respondent fell into arrears under the Finance Agreement. A Default Notice was Issued by the Original Creditor .   now default notices are not issued for OD A/C's (which ties in to the possible loan confusion and scam settlement i mentioned) . This tallies with a common mistake that many DCA's, including why i keep mentioning 1st credit, which is the previous name for Intrum, made on numerous claims and was one of the reasons for the name change. To Hide that They lost many Statutory Demand and court claims over the non existence of a DN or proof of it's issuance by the OC (a DCA can't issue a DN) .. No copy of a default notice is fatal to to successful  litigation.   even though in this OD case one was not ever needed. (Poor particulars of claim showing copy and paste, and never expecting a claim to be defended but responded to by a wet themselves response , which you did by settling a loan which you believed was the claimed debt when it never was)    other than that you indicate you made an OOC F&F offer in 09-20  have you advanced this option since ?   dx
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4190 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...