Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, Firstly, I am a few steps into this whole process so unfortunately I have missed out on the advice which states what I should have done initially. I am hoping I can still salvage my situation from this point. Facts- - I own the flat and the parking bay that comes with it. - The management company have hired a separate company (LinkParking) to manage the parking. - I have a permit for my car but my car was elsewhere which is why I couldn't give the permit to anyone else. - My girlfriend parked her car in my bay without a valid permit, instead we had a photocopy of the original permit- I realise this is where I went wrong but the original permit itself was printed on a piece of A4 paper AND when I bought the flat I was never told about requiring a permit and had issues with these guys before. Unfortunately we appealed to LinkParking with a substandard appeal (I realise this was substandard after reading through everything else on these forums). They of course denied it. We then appealed to IAS directly based on guidance from other websites, copy of the appeal is below- I was issued with a parking ticket on 20/12/2019 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I have responded to this notice and 'LinkParking' have denied my appeal and have requested I contact the IAS. I am writing to you as per Section 7.4.2 from the IPC Code of Practice and would therefore like appeal this notice on the following points The car was parked in my own car parking bay which I OWN. I was still unfairly issued with parking tickets. The lease agreement does not state that I require a permit to park in the bay as I own the property and the parking bay that comes with it as per the HM Land and Registry register. This lease has primacy of contract over any agreement the management company may have with LinkParking and therefore legally is invalid. The large sum demanded amounts to a penalty and/or is not an accurate reflection of any loss suffered so it is not a reasonable charge. The monetary claim is disproportionate, punitive and unjustifiable in total. It may also be an unfair term and therefore in breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The contractual breach can have caused no financial loss whatever to LinkParking or to the land owner. Once again, the car was parked in my OWN bay and therefore did not cause damage to any third parties. The Parking Charge Notice constitutes an invoice for payment. Accordingly the invoiced charge must include an element of VAT. However, the parking charge notice does not state either a VAT registration number or an invoice reference number and so cannot constitute a lawfully valid demand for payment. Having examined the parking charge notice further I believe it is a non compliant demand for payment as the notice wrongly requires payment to be made “within” 28 days of issue which is contrary to statutory requirement that provides a period of 28 days from the date of receipt. As a sign of good faith, I had purchased a permit anyway to avoid any unnecessary hassle for both parties but have been issued a notice anyway which is unacceptable. I understand that LinkParking are appointed to monitor the car park to prevent trespassers and I agree with this but it seems it is the residents that are being 'ticketed' without good reason for parking in their own bay. I look forward to hearing from you. We have now received the following response today- The operator made their prima facie case on 27/01/2020 14:10:48. The operator reported that... The appellant was the driver The appellant was the keeper The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA.. A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle The ticket was issued on 29/12/2019 The charge is based in contract The Operator made the following comments... The appellant parked their vehicle on land we manage and incurred a charge as they were not displaying a valid permit. Our signs clearly advertise the terms of parking and the charges which apply if they are met. The appellant chose to display a very poor copy of one of our permits, it is a fraction of the size of a valid one. We are unsure why they chose to do this and to date we have not received an explanation. We do not have to prove any loss and invoice does not have to have a VAT number on it if the issuer is not VAT registered. Our PCNs have passed audits by the IPC and DVLA. In addition to this I have also looked through all my documentation with regards to any requirements to require displaying a permit in the contract and I can't find anything. I've owned the flat for almost 2 years now and I do not believe I was given any documentation which mentions this. I have also looked at the HM Land Registry document which doesn't state I need a permit and I believe this ties in with the Primacy of Contract (my law understanding isn't the best). I have also contacted the management company last week to request all information from them with regards to giving me copies of documentation which covers car parking, building services etc. so I have everything. What really annoys me is that I didn't cause anyone any damage AND I WAS PARKED IN MY OWN BAY!!! I really hope I haven't messed it up too much and this can be salved. Any help for a response is greatly appreciated! Thanks!
    • Yes DX, both come up as Cap 1, one a classic Card and the other a Mastercard. 
    • Now that you have the proof - I think its time to consider taking legal action against the Bank.  Remind me who made the decision at the FOS? Adjudicator or Ombudsman? 
    • I would be starting by sending Plusnet a SAR and gather all your data......one DD for two accounts...alarm bells ringing.   Andy
    • Its easier if you wait until you get the claimant's statement...then you can use this as a guide on the points they will rely on and then simply respond by refuting or agreeing or offering alternative argument.   Problem is they tend to leave it to the death and you dont have time..or they wait for yours first then counter your points.If they fail to serve a statement at all then thats a good sign that they are getting ready to discontinue the claim....   Here is an example...and I stress example ....no use to you apart from showing you the usual layout into and conclusion.   Witness statement Lob.pdf
  • Our picks

dizzyblonde1966

Can Howard Cohen reconstruct a DN on OC headed paper?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3686 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

Following on from an ongoing case,(but seperate thread for a specific point re DN )

 

Can Howard Cohen reconstruct a DN on original creditor headed notepaper?

 

Cohens issued a court claim against me, apart from the application form with no prescribed terms and innefective NOA, they also in their sworn witness statement included a DN, however it was not a copy of the original as i had the original and the date and amounts were different .

 

So i put this in my amended defence and pointed out to the court that Cohens were trying to mislead the court etc

They have now replied to the court and admitted the DN they supplied was a reconstructed dn from info given to them from the original creditor,

But are now trying to turn it by claiming i have got the original dn so proves it has been served on me etc from original creditor even though i neither admitted it or denied it in my original defence and put them to strict prroof etc,

 

 

I have spoken to the original creditor and they said they have only ever issued one dn,

so it would appear that cohens have knocked their own dn up on ge headed notepaper, is this allowed?

 

The case should be safe anyway as no compliant cca, and im prepared to go all the way, they ahve acted appalingly and abused court process from the start.

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that it is an abuse of the process and a deliberate attempt to mislead the court......(was it radically different ?)...whatever happens make sure you show the judge....


PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, what is stated is my own opinion and from what I have learnt from this forum and my own experiences.

 

DEBT COLLECTION LETTER/SAR/AGREEMENT TEMPLATES ARE HERE - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?65-legislation

 

IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU

 

I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU

 

IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.

Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.

If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.

 

Forum rules - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially so as it was sworn in the witness statement....


PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, what is stated is my own opinion and from what I have learnt from this forum and my own experiences.

 

DEBT COLLECTION LETTER/SAR/AGREEMENT TEMPLATES ARE HERE - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?65-legislation

 

IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU

 

I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU

 

IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.

Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.

If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.

 

Forum rules - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 man, thanks, the date was 1 day out and the amount to remedy the breach was £150 higher on their reconstructed dn,

 

Ive got it all ready and prepared for the judge,he was a lovely man, he wasnt impressed at the first case management hearing with their cca, got another case management/allocation hearing on our amended defences just before xmas

 

Unbelievably cohens on the bottom of their dn admission letter state

 

" we believe the defendant pleads no coherent grounds to dispute the claim,":shock:

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spoke to Howard Cohens on the phone,(as always recorded)

actually a very nice polite gentleman i spoke to

 

he confirmed Howard Cohens did reconstruct the DN, not the original creditor

 

I went on to ask him why they had reconstructed it using ge headed notepaper and he said they were allowed to do this to recreate an exact copy of what it would have looked like:eek: (he wasnt impressed when i pointed out it wasnt an exact copy anyway and was different to my original " ;)

 

So i pushed him a bit futher and asked him was it legal for Cohens to reconstruct a dn and use the original creditors details,ie headed notepaper/address etc

 

He claims it is legal, i asked him if it was an abuse of process but he wouldnt commit,and said it would be discussed at the case management hearing and he didnt want to talk over the phone about it,

 

(yes you can bet your last dollar it will be discussed in court in great detail if i have my way) ;)

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest janensteve

so, they wouldn't have any objection if you reconstructed a loan agreement that said you borrowed £1 ? or a receipt that said you had paid back the said pound plus pence interest ? hhhmmmmm.

 

I suppose adding £150 onto the DN is tantamount o obtaining a pecuniary advantage by fraud which as i am sure all will agree is a criminal offence. How that squares up with the licence issued by the Ministry of Justice or the Consumer Credit Licence by the OFT, i am not so sure.

 

I'd be inclined to make a complaint to the Police

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do the signatures compare on the two documents?

It seems Cohens creativity in some of these matters hold no bounds....


My bite is worse than my bark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im in court this week with this,

 

Dont think the judge is going to be too impressed with howard cohens blatant attempts at abusing court process and their attempts to mislead both myself and the courts with the reconstructed dn etc

 

Got everything all prepared and documented, going to be highlighting all the inconsistencies to the judge, just about everything is wrong with this case

 

The account was in dispute with ge as no lelligble cca was provided

 

Court action was started by Cohens before any LBA ,just a few days after assignment , i never received any NOA before the proceedings

 

The cca is illegilbe and has no prescribed terms,

 

The dn, even their misleading dodgy reconstructed one is invalid as not enough days to remedy after service

 

The noa is invalid as not served properly

 

Hope the judge sees through howard cohens blatant abuse of court process,

 

Would i be reprimanded for using such strong words as fraudulent/ forgery?

 

 

 

DB

Edited by dizzyblonde1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say something like 'Sir, I would contend that to issue such a dubious and incorrect reconstructed document and to purport in a witness statement that it is an exact copy of the original is at best disingenuous, and at worse raises issues the court may look upon even less favourably'.

 

Never use the F word in court!


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say something like 'Sir, I would contend that to issue such a dubious and incorrect reconstructed document and to purport in a witness statement that it is an exact copy of the original is at best disingenuous, and at worse raises issues the court may look upon even less favourably'.

 

Never use the F word in court!

 

Thanks, very well worded, printed it off ready and added to my dn notes ;)

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the reconstructed D/N compliant with legislation in regards to content and the use of prominent and more prominent text?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was the reconstructed D/N compliant with legislation in regards to content and the use of prominent and more prominent text?

 

No, Howard Cohen couldnt/didnt even reconstruct a valid dn ,

not enough days to remedy after service, just says within 14 days from the date on this letter:rolleyes:

 

 

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please confirm for me, do i call the judge "sir"

and do i stand up when talking.

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir or Madam. It's quite informal and you stay seated. Just do what the DJ tells you and always wait your turn to speak - never butt in.

 

Make lots of notes and make sure you can get everything organised in front of you quickly.


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, im in tomm afternoon weather permitting, i should be able to get there ok, just hope the court staff and judge can get there safely too .I will call the court in the morning just to check the hearing is still going ahead.

DB

Edited by dizzyblonde1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i was in court today for my second case management hearing regarding this claim.

Having spent alot of time researching case law and getting my notes in order etc i was really looking forward to showing the judge the admission letter from Cohens that the DN they had submitted in their previous sworn statement they were now admitting was a reconstruction.

 

Anyway myself and the solicitor acting for cohens were called in, i never spoke to cohens solicitor prior to going in,

The judge asked what the basics of the case/my defence was, so briefly explained the credit agreement was illegible and missing all the prescribed terms .

I then started on the DN and how it was a reconstruction and how Cohens were now admitting it was a reconstruction and not a copy as they had claimed in their initial sworn statement,I was hoping the judge was going to pick cohens solicitor up and ask for an explanation from them for misleading the court etc and reconstructing a DN on ge headed notepaper , but dissapointingly he never even questioned her about it,

 

He just turned to Cohens solicitor and said in light of the manchester test cases ,he thinks it best the case is stayed and transferred to manchester pending the outcome of the test cases.

 

So im pretty unclear really of what happens now,?

who decides when the claim starts again, i want to put a new defence in now as well adding a section on Cohens misleading the court in their first sworn statement about the reconstructed DN.

 

Had a nice chat outside with the solicitor representing Cohens, she was a lovely lady and appeared geniunely shocked at the difference between the original and reconstructed DN, and the letter of admission from Cohens that i have confirming it was a reconstruction,after submitting it as a copy of the original in their sworn statement,

 

Anyway havnt a clue really what happens from here,how long can i expect to wait now,and what happens from here,

 

On the plus side, my costs are adding up, but so frustrating that after 2 case management hearings its simply just transferred to manchester,?

 

Any help anyone please?

Edited by dizzyblonde1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

subbing


________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excuse my ignorence

 

whats the manchester test case

 

is it a charge issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
excuse my ignorence

 

whats the manchester test case

 

is it a charge issue

 

Last couple of pages on this thread should bring you up to speed..

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/216538-claim-stayed-due-unenforceable.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

subbing and supporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... the Manchester case has nothing to do with forged default notices!


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...