Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I’m sure Nature is grateful for you flagging it as needing more examination !   Until then, what is your point about older people and anti-inflammatory medicines? or are you just quoting learned articles at random in the hope that occasionally you’ll either “get lucky” with a comment, or that you’ll gull someone into thinking you actually understand the cytokine / interleukin / inflammasome pathways….. The utility of steroids (dexamethasone) for in-patients needing oxygen has been demonstrated by the RECOVERY trial. I can’t see where this has been analysed on a sub-group basis for older people on anti-inflammatory meds : are you suggesting the trial has “missed a trick”?   What is your feeling on which interleukin needs to be targeted? And should it be upregulated or downregulated?   More to the point (since I don’t expect an answer that shows any degree of understanding, if you answer at all) :   What is your point, rather than just posting journal articles at random!
    • I know what you are saying but the court route so far has almost doubled the claim 
    • Here's my first draft! Let me know what you think so far...cheers!   On behalf of the defendant Statement no.1 20/05/2022   In The County Court At Manchester   Claim Number   HIGHVIEW PARKING LIMITED VS    Witness Statement   I am the defendant in this case. The facts and matters set out in this statement come from my personal knowledge and I believe them to be true.   I was not able to reply to the court documents as I was no longer at the service address at the time the court papers were served. I moved out of the address on the 30th of September 2021   September 31st 2021 - I moved out of my address November 15th 2021 - I left the UK November 25th 2021 - I was served court papers at an address I was no longer living at December 17th 2021 - Judgement by default was issued against me April 1st 2022 - I realised I had a CCJ against me on my credit file and contacted the court for more information April 1st 2022 - I immediately sent the court a N244 request to have the judgement set aside   I received no pre court action dated prior to this date    The Claimant's Witness Statement point 20g about prompt action is incorrect. As soon as I realised I had a CCJ on the 1st of April I applied to have the judgement set aside.   ######### Draft order ######   Between   Claimant xxxxxxxx -and-Defendant xxxxxxx       Draft Order   It is respectfully requested that the Judgement dated xxxxxx claim number xxxxxxxx issued under Part 12 CPR be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.3. a/b.   It is Ordered   The Claim be set aside and the defendant be allowed to defend the claim   Signed    Dated.     DRAFT DEFENCE      (1) the Claimant is suing the wrong person, the Claimant should be suing the driver of the vehicle and has not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012;  a Notice to Driver should have been delivered within 14 days if the claimant wishes to rely on Keeper liability. Claimant's Witness Statement exhibit 3 clearly shows that their Charge Notice was issued on the 01/09/2017, 27 days after the alleged contravention. DCBL still have no idea whether they are pursuing the keeper or the driver and are disregarding Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to try their luck in the hopes of dishonest financial gain.    The claimant is put to strict proof that it was indeed the defendant who was driving the car at the time.      (2) Locus Standi - the Claimant is not the landowner and I do not believe they have the authority to bring this claim.  A letter - not even from the landowner - saying there is an agreement is not the same as producing an agreement (Claimant's Witness Statement exhibit 1);   The claimant is put to strict proof that they have the consent of the land owner and is asked to produce the actual agreement between themselves and the landowner.      (3) the convoluted "free parking voucher" scheme is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2019;      (4) I do not believe the Claimant has obtained planning permission for their signs which is a criminal offence and makes it impossible to have formed a contract with the driver;   The claimant is put to strict proof that they have the correct permissions from Manchester Council in order to operate the site as a parking business.      (5) The Claimant is claiming the debt, legal costs and an extra invented sum as an attempt at double recovery which invalidates the whole claim. Their action is expressly forbidden under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 and ensuing government Code of Practice, as well as previous legislation.    (6) Both the BPA and the IPC do not not have compliant Codes of Conduct. They are in breach of the Law in two ways at least which has been confirmed by the new Private Parking Code of Practice introduced by the Government earlier this year which clarifies the position that has always existed on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 but ignored by most parking companies as well as the BPA and IPC.    (7) Escalation of costs Private Parking Code of Practice s9 states in the most recent publication ‘Private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and appeals charter: further technical consultation’. 36. To reduce harm to motorists, we propose to cap the level of debt recovery fees at the existing industry level £70. In setting this cap, we have taken into consideration the deterrent effect, the amount of court fees and the costs to operators of enforcing parking charges. We will keep the cap under review and will take these factors into consideration when setting it in future.   The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued. The claimants WS Exhibit 3 demonstrates the unlawful progression of a £55 charge becoming £135, and escalating to £165 in Exhibit 5, way in excess of what code of practice dictates.   Even back in 2017 the charges were unlawful and on that basis the PCN should have been cancelled as an abuse of process.   Charging of extra debt collection/ administrative costs etc over and above £100. This has always been the case . Schedule 4 s4[5] states "(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).   (8) Most parking companies are breaking the Law by using ANPR cameras that records the entrance and leaving of the car as the "period of Parking" on their Notice to Keeper which is necessary to comply with PoFA 2012. It is obvious that a car is not parked as it is driving within the car looking for a space, then parking in it and then leaving the car park should be not included in the ANPR times. In addition if there are disabled people in the car or children in car seats this can all add to the time. So given that there is a minimum of 10 minutes "consideration time" it is more than probable that the parking period was complied with and that the case should never have been taken to Court. It also means that the keeper's GDPR was breached.
    • cant ever see the point in entering into pointless letter tennis.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Capquest Stautory Demand


SL8R
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3865 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 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

Long time with no updates, but Court Papers recieved today.

Hearing set for Sept for a duration of 1 hour..

Am i correct in thinking that Capquest have to supply me with everything they will be relying on in court, or would a LBA be better to get them to disclose everything they have ?

I need to get my defense written and expenses worked out.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to make the relevant CPR request. Not sure which would be the correct one to use. 31.14, part 18 or other ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post a new thread in the legal issues forum and link back to this one to get the best advice available on here :)

"To love unconditionally is the greatest gift, laughter is a close second" .To give your time to help others after being helped here is the best way to show your appreciation to your fellow CAG members.

 

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts. All my knowledge has been gained here, for which I'm very grateful. I'm a Journalist, not a law professional.

 

If you do PM, make sure to include a link to your thread as I don't give out advice in private ;)

BB 13 - DCAs/banks and solicitors 0.

 

I get a fresh start to get on with learning to live with severe disabilities when they could have had something if they'd been understanding...

 

<--- If you feel I've helped, please twinkle my star :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well, just a quick update... all papers served and Schedule of Costs sent to Court and CQ today - hearing is on Friday. So far the Court has heard nothing from them.... i was hopeing to meet Barry in person :/

Anyway, the Schedule of Costs is in and i will be there for the case to be heard on Friday....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck. Hope you get to meet Barry as you can confirm if he actually exists and isn't just another figment of [email protected]'s imagination. Oh, I forgot, you have to have intelligence to have an imagaination :roll:

"To love unconditionally is the greatest gift, laughter is a close second" .To give your time to help others after being helped here is the best way to show your appreciation to your fellow CAG members.

 

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts. All my knowledge has been gained here, for which I'm very grateful. I'm a Journalist, not a law professional.

 

If you do PM, make sure to include a link to your thread as I don't give out advice in private ;)

BB 13 - DCAs/banks and solicitors 0.

 

I get a fresh start to get on with learning to live with severe disabilities when they could have had something if they'd been understanding...

 

<--- If you feel I've helped, please twinkle my star :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far the Court has heard nothing from them.... i was hopeing to meet Barry in person :/

.

 

I bet neither Barry or anyone else from CQ turns up on Friday. So you will get the set aside and costs I suspect.

 

The reason is that they will not want to explain the process that they are using for debt collection.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck for Friday, will have everything crossed for you, not that you will need it.

 

It would be very very interesting if Barry Davies turns up, but I wouldnt hold my breath. It could potentially be very dangerous for him to explain why the company he represents was abusing the insolvancy service. It could be a groundbreaking case setting a precedent that could see themselves and any other DCA's sending their SD confetti out in serious trouble!

Advice given is my opinion only, I am not a legal or financial expert (far from it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the court is high enough to set any precedent, but word would certainly get around the judiciary very quickly. Then life would get much more difficult for Barry and CQ. The judge might also be tempted to pass on details to the OFT.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to learn what happened. Did Barry reveal himself?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the judge is eager to speak to Barry/CQ, hence the adjournment and now discussions are taking place as to how much it would cost not to go back to court.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay, I have been away.

Anyways, arrived in good time for hearing. There was no one else around, then 2 mins before hearing their Solicitors turns up. In the Court waiting room they approach me and say they have received no documents from the Court and as such will be asking for an adjournment.

They then asked me why I was disputing the debt etc.... I told them everything was in my affidavit. There solicitor said it was not unlawful to sell, act upon or take action against a dept if it was in dispute... “well that’s what we are here find out isn’t it" I said.

I was then asked for my address and phone number as they didn’t seem to have it, so I said that this just confirms my affidavit and that they have issued this SD without any information or proof (they don’t even have my address or phone number).

In the Court the Solicitor asked the judge for 35 days to complete a response and argument. The judge wasn’t too happy and asked me if I received mine. He then said that he thought it strange and asked why people cant communicate with CQ, he looked at me and said "I believe you also have had problems trying to contact this company" - yes I said "I have phoned several times with no effect and also written numerous times also with no effect"... judge raised their eyebrows and looked at Solicitor.

The solicitor then asked the court to pay their fees as the court didn’t send documents; the judge just said I will see you in 21 days.

The judge has allowed 21 days for them to sort their lives out.

So to me this means that they have indeed issued this SD with absolutely no proof of debt, no paperwork, no information about my address ect (which would obviously be on the original paperwork), and against all regulations, also saying they received the Courts summons, but not my affidavit... (course not).

To Be Continued ………………

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I have come to the point where i am sick of these bullies, i will fight them all the way now.... there just bullies and self oppinionated egotistical morons - trying to prey on people, threatening allsorts, but in actual fact they can deliver very little...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...