Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm at work now but promise to look in later. Can you confirm how you paid the first invoice?  It wasn't your fault if the signal was so poor and there was no alternative way to pay.  There must be a chance of reversing the charge with your bank.  There are no guarantees but Kev  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09766749/officers  has never had the backbone to do court so far.  Not even in one case,  
    • OK  so you may not have outed yourself if you said "we". No matter either way you paid. Snotty letter I am surprised that they were so quick off the mark threatening Court. They usually take months to go that far. No doubt that as you paid the first one they decided to strike quickly and scare you into paying. Dear Chuckleheads  aka Alliance,  I am replying to your LOCs You may have caught me the first time but that is  the end. What a nasty organisation you are. You do realise that you now have now no reason to continue to pursue me after reading my appeal since you know that my car was not cloned. Any further pursuit will end up with a complaint to the ICO that you are breaching my GDPR.  Please confirm that you have removed my details from your records. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I haven't gone for a snotty letter this time as they know that you paid for your car in another car park. So using a shot across their bows .  If it doesn't deter them and they send in the debt collectors or the Court you will then be able to get more money back from them for  breachi.ng your data protection than they will get should they win in Court-and they have no chance of that as you have paid. So go in with guns blazing and they might see sense.  Although never underestimate how stupid they are. Or greedy.
    • Thank you. Such a good point. They did issue all 3 before I paid though. I only paid one because I didn’t have proof of parking that time, only for two others.    Unfortunately no proof of my appeal as it was just submitted through a form on their website and no copy was sent to me. I only have the reply. I believe I just put something like “we made the honest mistake of using the incorrect parking area on the app” and that’s it. Thanks again for your help. 
    • They are absolute chuckleheads. You paid but because you entered a different car park site also belonging to them they are pursuing you despite them knowing what you had done. It would be very obvious to everyone, including Alliance that your car could not have been in two places at the same time. Thank you for posting the PCN so quickly making it a pity that you appealed since there are so many things wrong with it that you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. They rarely accept appeals since that would mean they lose money but they have virtually no chance of beating you in Court. Very unlikely that they will take you to Court given the circumstances. Just in case you didn't out yourself as the driver could you please post up your appeal.
    • Jasowter I hope that common sense prevails with Iceland and the whole matter can be successfully ended. I would perhaps not have used a spell checker just to prove the dyslexia 🙂 though it may have made it more difficult to read. I noticed that you haven't uploaded the original PCN .Might not be necessary if the nes from Iceland is good. Otherwise perhaps you could get your son to do it by following the upload instructions so that we can appeal again with the extra ammunition provided by the PCN. Most of them rarely manage to get the wording right which means that you as the keeper are not liable to pay the charge-only the driver is and they do not know the name and address of the driver. So that would put you both in the clear if the PCN is non compliant.
  • 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

Devere Parking Services


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4642 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 it would be very nice to see the full case details but that clearly is not going to happen and from the way it is written would guess that devereparkinghater was on the wacky backy when writing his rant

 

To reasure those who may be taken in by his rant I have safely ignored several PPC's. On the few occasions they have used follow up telephone calls have invited them to take me to court with no success so far. This only happens rarely after all their invoices and letters have failed to get a response and if they are getting desperate.

 

Ignore is the best treatment for these modern highwaymen (carparkmen) as they normally just give up and go away because they know they cannot win in court if you defend the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Case number is ...... I would be grateful if any of you have a shred of decency not to publish my home address.

 

And yes I lost and paid as I didn't want a CCJ or the grief of being harassed.

 

And my Name is ....., not ...

.

You lot make it up as you go along.

 

Why is everybody doubted?

 

Is it because you think by ignoring things they will go away?

 

Not everybody works for a clamping company.

 

I can't understand it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know, Homer?

 

My best, HB

 

Mainly because he just admitted it in post #28 on this thread with an even more outrageous claim/rant/lie.

 

The OP just needs to ignore this berk and he will go away like the rest of the bottom feeding PPC losers.

 

Devere was indeed the posh couple in To The Manor Born, methinks Lee has delusions of grandeur

Edited by Homer67
originally posted before finished typing (note to self: don't type in the dark or you will hit the enter key in error)
Link to post
Share on other sites

And to complete the set I went to small claims court on the first ever PPC ticket I received. I won. Not because the PPC failed to show but because I had a well-prepared, valid defence.

 

Whilst your frustration is understandable, its unfair blame other posters here for your misfortune when you did not give them the opportunity to provide specific advice to you in the first place. Besides even a cursory search through threads will have shown that "ignore" is not the entirety of the advice which suggests that, unfortunately, you went under-prepared.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore is still the best advice and works in 99.9% of cases (except Mr Trolls put up job !!)

 

In my opinion Devere appear to be rank amateurs in the world of PPC make believe, ignore them with extra scorn !!

PPCs - Don`t pay their begging letters, don`t fall for the $ cam................. IGNORE PPC invoices

 

 

:amen:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Owner of Devere is a guy called Lee and he lives in the Poole Area.

 

After further research I have also found out he is an ex or an existing magistrate at Poole Borough Council.

 

Also I must state having received a Parking ticket from these clowns I have ignored it to this day and haven't heard a peep out of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Court papers received- I would love some help with a defence

 

I received a letter from devere parking services back in August and I ignored it following advice from this page.

 

The letter stated the vehicle I owned was parked in a disabled bay without displaying correctly a disabled badge.

The badge was displayed but overlapping the lil clock and therefore part of the text was unreadable.

 

I did nothing and heard nothing,

 

unfortunately I have now received another similar fine for the same offence.

 

My mum is quite elderly and I am certainly not passing this on to her as the disabled badge holder to deal with.

 

The letters come to me as I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am keen not to involve her if possible,

she is aware of this but not the court papers.

 

The court papers state that the disabled badge used is a badge which used to belong to my late father

and Im quite surprised devere parking could access this information

surely this would be a breach of some data protection rule?

 

It would appear that out of sentiment my mum had retained his badge and has on occasions taken the wrong badge out of her handbag..

 

..I have now confiscated this.

 

She does have a badge and has owned one for over 20 years.

 

It is quite interesting that on the court papers the figures do not match the letter I received threatening court action about 2 weeks ago

but notify the court that in his opinion a deceased persons badge is being used

( I cannot deny this is possible on the basis he has my fathers old badge number and my mum was still carrying it )

 

She was not the driver of the vehicle on either occasion.

 

On the court papers it states I have ignored numerous letters when in fact I have only ever received one last year and one very recently.

(albeit i have had a issue with post going to a neighbour

and arriving in my letterbox when Im out

selotaped back up by the neighbour who likes to read my confidential mail

but hasnt the decency to bring it to me in person, another story, i digress )

 

I wish to dispute this case and attend court if necessary...

..I would greatly appreciate any help you can give me in getting a court response together along with what to do next.

 

I have to confess to only managing about three hours sleep last night worrying about this

so I feel Mr 'visions of grandeur' parking services has taken from me already far more than I feel he deserves.

 

I dont really need any more stress in my life right now (when do we)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]:rolleyes:FISHWIFE 72

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how, or why, a PPC would ever take the effort to verify the BB that was on display? Are you suggesting they record every single BB number and check it against some type of database on the off chance that the holder is deceased or can be proven (though god knows how) to be elsewhere at the time of the parking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

THat is what they appear to have done the exact woerding on the court claim in capitals is

 

THE DEFENDANT WAS DISPLAYING A BLUE BADGE THAT WAS ISSUED TO A MALE OF THE SAME SURNAME WHO HAD DIED IN 2009

 

I am quite surprised a company such as devere would be given access to information about blue badge holders.......the only was they would have been able to know this information is if this was made available to them through the disabled badge issuers or similar and I intend to find out if this would be classed as a breach of data protection.

 

Ultimately though I want to know the best way to defend this....I was not the driver but I do not wish to pass this to the person I think was driving, if I am honest I think there were two different drivers one for each occasion.

 

I also want to protect my mum from the associated stress she is dealing with enough at the moment.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]:rolleyes:FISHWIFE 72

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange. I think you are right to pursue the issue of how they obtained such information. On a side note, although I am not familiar with the BB system, shouldn't the badge have been surrendered upon the death of your father?

 

On the issue of the parking "infringement". As you know, the only have access to the name of the RK through DVLA which appears to be you. Therefore they can only raise court papers against you and, as you say you were not the driver on that occasion, then "you" did not breach the terms of their car park.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to take the opportunity to point out that in general on most supermarket car parks

the sign generally states that the parking is reserved for BB holders.

 

The signs do not ask you to display a BB as a BB has not legal standing on private property therefore cannot be invalid etc.

 

You could display your distant relative's who lives in the outer Hebrides BB and it still has no legal standing.

 

This will get thrown out of court the moment you defend it.

 

However I would start pursuing to find out how they managed to find out the BB was not pertaining to your mother

as that is definitley a breach of data information.

 

You need to ask them this and they are obliged to give you an answer.

 

Stress that you will ask this question in court anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blue badge carries no force at all in private car parks, you should quote the DfT/blue badge regs on this..

Mum is a blue badge holder so she parked okay.

 

Data protection breach by the sounds of it. They will have had to have gone to the council for this information would they not ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First step is to get this struck out because the Claimant is not a legal entity.

 

No legal status on stated on signage.

No legal status stated on correspondence.

No legal status stated in contract with retail park.

 

Breach of Companies Act 2006 1202:

 

Disclosure required: business documents etc

 

(1)A person to whom this Chapter applies must state the information required by this Chapter, in legible characters, on all—

 

(a)business letters,

 

(b)written orders for goods or services to be supplied to the business,

 

©invoices and receipts issued in the course of the business, and

 

(d)written demands for payment of debts arising in the course of the business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not capitulate under any circumstance as you are on a winner and have nothing to worry about!

 

They are hoping that you will cough up and not defend.

 

Purseu the Data Protection issue as that is very wrong and someone coudl end up with a fine far greater than expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have contacted the local council department who issue blue badges..

 

..they were able to confirm that the data protection act would apply and they would be unable to provide this information to a third party.

 

They also referred to their parking services who confirmed the same,

 

I am just waiting on a response from the head of the blue badge department.

 

They were very helpful on the phone and called me back within 10 minutes.

 

I have also just received a letter from Devere stating

" this blue badge is being used fraudulently and that may constitute a criminal offence.

 

We have every intention of writing to the Chief Constable of Dorset

and give him full details of the evidence that we have regarding this matter"

 

The letter is signed by Steven Williams

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]:rolleyes:FISHWIFE 72

Link to post
Share on other sites

A RATHER PATHETIC ATTEMPT AT INTIMIDATING YOU INTO PAYING THEIR BEGGING LETTER !!

 

The Blue Badge has no authority or meaning in a private car park

and therefore cannot have been used fraudulently in your case,

 

this amateur attempt to frighten you clearly illustrates the lack of knowledge or understanding of the law,

 

let him report you as you have not committed any crime no fraud was attempted and none has taken place.

 

If Mr Williams wants to waste police time that is his perogative,

 

I would think the CC would laugh at him and his churlish behaviour, What a joke !!

PPCs - Don`t pay their begging letters, don`t fall for the $ cam................. IGNORE PPC invoices

 

 

:amen:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was me Id accept the fine and just pay especially if I was unclear of what may happen in the sense that you could incurr more charges. Everyone has clearly had different esperiences with this company, so for the sake of a hundred quid...you may aswell pay it! If you go the other way, the amount of grief and stress, letter writing, solicitors and incurred cost...is it cost effective or worth the risk?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was me Id accept the fine and just pay especially if I was unclear of what may happen in the sense that you could incurr more charges. Everyone has clearly had different esperiences with this company, so for the sake of a hundred quid...you may aswell pay it! If you go the other way, the amount of grief and stress, letter writing, solicitors and incurred cost...is it cost effective or worth the risk?

 

Complete and utter rubbish. This is not a fine and the person doesn't owe a penny. As pointed above, the blue badge scheme does not apply on private land,and a private parking company cannot penalize a motorist for a breach of their silly rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chief Constable of Dorset may also be interested in a company that is operating without stating its legal status on any paperwork.

 

The county court judge is going to love the threats coming from the claimant in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if it is indeed against the data protection act, can't you report them for breaching it? Send them a letter informing them of what they did, how it us illegal and how you will now be reporting them.

 

Just to see how funny their excuses are!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was me Id accept the fine and just pay especially if I was unclear of what may happen in the sense that you could incurr more charges. Everyone has clearly had different esperiences with this company, so for the sake of a hundred quid...you may aswell pay it! If you go the other way, the amount of grief and stress, letter writing, solicitors and incurred cost...is it cost effective or worth the risk?

 

Deleted

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...