Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • 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

Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4122 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

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I have a friend who put in a claim for bank charges with NatWest. She asked for them back due to them putting her into financial hardship (I have now copied all the subsistence/appropriation stuff for her). But as usual the bank ignored that and kept sending her letters about the court case. She sent another letter just before the final court verdict last year and got a letter saying that they did not believe she was in hardship. How can she lay out that their charges, ie £28 for going overdrawn on her overdraft by 15p whilst on benefits, extending her overdraft to cover their charges, etc have been causing her to get deeper and deeper in debt? She has been off sick with mental health issues since 2004, they can see her only income has been her benefits in all that time, but they are now challenging what they know to be true? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, or would it be appropriate to leave it until after June this year? All advice gratefully received. Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

At post 213

You will have to get evidence which relates to a time in which you held your account

This has been mentioned a couple of times (I think once by Banky) and if the 'a' is accurate it would indicate any t&c's that have applied to my account - a darned sight easier than trying to obtain the very first (account 20 years old) or all of the t&c's that have been applied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he was referring to and T&C's from the time periods you are claiming from.

 

However, you can correctly assume that say you had a claim over the periods 1995 - 1999 that you had T&C's for the period 2000 then in all likelyhood you can say they are representative of the terms and conditions covering the periods in question. (Retrospective in other words.)

 

On a point of note it is upto the Defendant (the other party I assume) to produce an accurate copy if they dispute yours. Simples.

  • Haha 1

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There was a thread started by Bankfodder soon after the SC ruling on Bank Charges.

 

She mooted this idea of collating historic letters and T&C documents from the various lenders which would then be pooled into an evidence library that anyone could use to buttress their claim against Banks on bank charges. Why? Because we all know that the banks' argument about the charges being part and parcel of their core business and the whole cross-subsidy issue does not really stack up. All we need is evidence, in their own words stating contrary to their submitted defence which the Law Lord's accepted and we'd have them "by the short and curlies" - to borrow a phrase!

 

Does anyone know how that library is developing and which lenders have been implicated therein as yet?

 

In conjunction with the arguments proposed here by GLC, these tools could be powerful enough to cause lenders to pay up outside of court which is what we all really want.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Consumer Forums - FAQ - How do I reclaim my bank charges if they have been misrepresented

 

You should find all the information you require in the link above. If you have documents that could show you have been misled / misrepresented with regard to bank charges, then please contact a member of the site team who will give you email addresses to send the unedited documents to.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

CitB, I have already submitted evidence from a Bank regarding their 'fair' charges. However, I remembered a call I had with the same bank's credit card company who told me on the phone, recorded, that our repayment plan of £20 p.m. was no longer acceptable because it cost them that much to collect it:shock:

 

Can a note be made on file aswell that I have this call or shall I dig the call out:-?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Consumer Forums - FAQ - How do I reclaim my bank charges if they have been misrepresented

 

You should find all the information you require in the link above. If you have documents that could show you have been misled / misrepresented with regard to bank charges, then please contact a member of the site team who will give you email addresses to send the unedited documents to.

Thanks CitB

 

I've already seen much of the writings theres, it's the evidence library I can't seem to find?

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Can anyone provide us with an update yet as to how many bank charges claims are being successfully struck out by the banks or are the majority being allowed to amend their PoC's to incorporate the Supreme Court judgement and progress to trial?

 

TheyrCriminals

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hearing on Tuesday to defend a strike out application. I saw somewhere on cag that Govan had a transcript of their successful defence to a strike out application which has now enabled their claim to be heared 11 June.

 

Does anyone know where this transcript appears? I would like to have a bit more weaponry.

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hearing on Tuesday to defend a strike out application. I saw somewhere on cag that Govan had a transcript of their successful defence to a strike out application which has now enabled their claim to be heared 11 June.

 

Does anyone know where this transcript appears? I would like to have a bit more weaponry.

 

 

I think its on their website somewhere.

 

Heres a link to their site but you will have to search for it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Clegg pledges to curb bank charges

 

 

 

Nick Clegg hits out at "unfair" water rates and "outrageous" bank charges

 

 

Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg has said his party would stop banks being able to charge large penalties when people go overdrawn. Outlining the Lib Dems "manifesto for consumers", he said such charges were "seriously out of order".

Speaking during a visit to Cardiff, he said if elected, his party would stop "vested interests" in the business world from "ripping people off".

Labour and the Conservatives are also pledging to boost consumer rights.

'Trusted'

Mr Clegg said banks should not be able to "profiteer" from people making small mistakes with their overdrafts, or by bouncing a cheque. He is also calling for a cap on credit card interest rates.

His pledges follow after banks won a legal victory last year which stopped an Office of Fair Trading investigation into overdraft charges.

Mr Clegg said the Lib Dems would also move to ensure low-cost airlines are more open about the total cost of their flights.

In an earlier interview with GMTV, he said Lib Dem warnings about greedy bankers before the financial crisis showed they could be "trusted" by voters over their polices for the banking sector.

Mr Clegg also paid tribute to his Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, as a "close friend and colleague" and - likening the Lib Dem front bench to cricket team - "the best batsman around".

Nick Clegg pledges to curb bank charges

 

 

 

Nick Clegg hits out at "unfair" water rates and "outrageous" bank charges

 

Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg has said his party would stop banks being able to charge large penalties when people go overdrawn. Outlining the Lib Dems "manifesto for consumers", he said such charges were "seriously out of order".

Speaking during a visit to Cardiff, he said if elected, his party would stop "vested interests" in the business world from "ripping people off".

Labour and the Conservatives are also pledging to boost consumer rights.

'Trusted'

Mr Clegg said banks should not be able to "profiteer" from people making small mistakes with their overdrafts, or by bouncing a cheque. He is also calling for a cap on credit card interest rates.

His pledges follow after banks won a legal victory last year which stopped an Office of Fair Trading investigation into overdraft charges.

Mr Clegg said the Lib Dems would also move to ensure low-cost airlines are more open about the total cost of their flights.

In an earlier interview with GMTV, he said Lib Dem warnings about greedy bankers before the financial crisis showed they could be "trusted" by voters over their polices for the banking sector.

Mr Clegg also paid tribute to his Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, as a "close friend and colleague" and - likening the Lib Dem front bench to cricket team - "the best batsman around".

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the test case was lost i didnt bother to persue my claim of bank charges, What is the best way to go about it with this new case about to start, Do i wait for the outcome or start proceedings now ? is it worth sending sar for all my statements ? thanks in advance..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that he apparently calls them penalties, when the courts have said they aren't.:rolleyes:

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that these charges have suddenly become so "seriously out of order" to politicians just before an election isn't it. :rolleyes:

 

Lets face it!!! The Libs can say they will do this that and the other. They can make all the statements and promises they like. They will never be in government, so will never be put to the test on anything they say!!!:rolleyes:

 

Good that this is actually being brought up though! Even if it is weeks from the Election!!!;)

 

Cheers,MARK

Link to post
Share on other sites

hes GETTIN MY vote

Why m8? Do you believe everything you read or hear...especially from someone who wants, er, needs - your vote?

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...