Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

ciupas

Parking Behind Yellow Line

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3646 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

Can you advise please...?

I have parked my van in front of gate of the office building or more precisely sideways on the driveway behind yellow line (there was another car parked right in front of the gate)

I thought that if you are parked behind yellow line its private property.

Anyway I’ve got ticket for the following contravention: 624 Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of road other than carriageway.

Secondly on the two pictures attached to the PCN the registration mark is not fully visible I mean - one digit of the vehicle registration mark is not visible at all. On first picture you can see first half and on the other the second half of the registration plate - but without the middle digit.

Do you think I can appeal against the PCN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post the PCN up so we can take a look (obscure reg details ect). Also if you have pics of the location or let us know the location so we may be able to Google it.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you post the PCN up so we can take a look (obscure reg details ect). Also if you have pics of the location or let us know the location so we may be able to Google it.

 

 

Hi Thank you for reply.

 

The address is 26 Banner Street EC1, Islington.

Thats the entrance with Yelow sigh 'MAX. HEADROOM 2.4M'

 

I have also attached the PCN.

Thaks again.

SCAN0008.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking on the footpath within London is not permiteed except where signage says that it is. Bang to rights I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add that any traffic orders prohibiting parking normally extend to the rear of the adopted footway.

 

You probably need to check the limits of adoption.


If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry JS,This is not bang to rights and you should,nt say it is until all avenues of appeal have been explored.

It seem to me that a procedural impropriety has occured, they state the you should pay the penalty must be paid WITHIN the period of 28 days, when the correct wording should be "paid before the end of the period of 28 days"


:mad:LF53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does look as though you were all over the footway (Google street view here.)

 

Yep, I have to agree...even though I can't see much in the OP's thumbnail pic!


If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry JS,This is not bang to rights and you should,nt say it is until all avenues of appeal have been explored.

It seem to me that a procedural impropriety has occured, they state the you should pay the penalty must be paid WITHIN the period of 28 days, when the correct wording should be "paid before the end of the period of 28 days"

 

I can't comment on this, but it's an interesting observation...how did you manage to read the thumbnail?!! :confused:

 

Such technicalities appear to be the only grounds for appeal in this case.


If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By using the word "within" they are effectivly prolonging the time to pay or appeal to 29 days and as the Local authority have no right to do this, it renders the original PCN prejudical and unenforcable.

As in the ruling of "Al,s bar and resturant-v-wandsworth"

 

It really is suprising that some LA,s have not changed the wording by now


:mad:LF53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By using the word "within" they are effectivly prolonging the time to pay or appeal to 29 days and as the Local authority have no right to do this, it renders the original PCN prejudical and unenforcable.

As in the ruling of "Al,s bar and resturant-v-wandsworth"

 

It really is suprising that some LA,s have not changed the wording by now

 

Whilst I am sure you know what you are saying, that makes no sense to me. How does the word 'within' extend 28 days to 29 days? Within my house means the same as before you reach the edge of my house surely?

 

Happy to hear clarification. I still think there is no grounds for appeal but am completely open to correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does the word 'within' extend 28 days to 29 days?
"Within" has been held to mean "excluding the first day" (Al's Bar and Restaurant v Wandsworth) so the PCN actually means "29 days beginning with the date of service".
It's not what you, BaldyBaldwin or I infer, but what the courts interpret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as i am aware, "within" has been held (in Al's Bar and Restaurant v Wandsworth) excludes the first day mentioned. As such, it gives a time period of 29 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, not 28. This is non-compliant and prejudicial.

 

good point Real Name, but i believe the adjudicators have already interpreted on this one


:mad:LF53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JimmySpangle, google als bar and resrurant-v-wandsworth and have a read through,it will explain the point better than i can ever do


:mad:LF53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That case was upheld on the basis of a raft of non-compliance details. It was not simply the one phrase "Within the period of 28 days". I am not certain that an appeal would win, but it's worth a try. They might uphold an appeal simply to avert a possible PATAS case and subsequent costs should they lose and have to cancel a load of other PCNs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you,

sailor sam, JimmySpangle, BaldyBaldwin, WelshMam2009, My Real Name and Jamberson

 

 

It was very enlightening, I will appeal based on the Within the period of 28 days".

Will see... I will let you know how this case ended.

Regards Ciupas[/font]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Thank you for reply.

 

The address is 26 Banner Street EC1, Islington.

Thats the entrance with Yelow sigh 'MAX. HEADROOM 2.4M'

 

I have also attached the PCN.

Thaks again.

 

The above coments seem to be correct i'm afraid although I think the PCN may be flawed because you cannot see the whole VRM in either of the pics. Also I believe that there should not be a person in the foreground. But as for the offence itself, you seem to be parked ilegally.

 

Your only hope is to appeal aginst the actual PCN on the grounds it was not correctly issued.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) That is not a PCN its a notice to owner

b) There is no legal requirement for ANY photos let alone ones with the VRM.

c) 'within a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service' is not the same as 'within 28 days' as in Al's Bar and Restaurant v Wandsworth and those that quoted it should actually go back and read it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the PCN may be flawed because you cannot see the whole VRM in either of the pics. Also I believe that there should not be a person in the foreground.

 

The contents of photographs have no bearing on the validity of a PCN. There is no obligation to take photos, and they are not relied on. They are just a convenient way of clarifying matters if disputes arise. So, this would not affect the vaildity of this PCN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he was parked 'illegally' it would be a police (criminal). Contravention (possibly, of the PCN is valid, the signs and lines compliant, the TRO valid and made validly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The contents of photographs have no bearing on the validity of a PCN. There is no obligation to take photos, and they are not relied on. They are just a convenient way of clarifying matters if disputes arise. So, this would not affect the vaildity of this PCN.

 

This is why i said 'I THINK the PCN MAY be flawed'. Obviously we are trying to 'clutch straws' on this one! But thanks for the clarification and also to G & M.

Edited by sailor sam
Signature still not posted

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he was parked 'illegally' it would be a police (criminal). Contravention (possibly, of the PCN is valid, the signs and lines compliant, the TRO valid and made validly)

 

What TRO or lines would footway parking require?

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...