Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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
      • 160 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

Clamping for alleged old parking fines


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4984 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

I got a call from my son in law last night his car had been clamped at Petersfield train station. He had a ligitimate ticket to be parked there yesterday. When he called the clamping company CP Plus, the guy came out and said that there were outstanding fines against his number plate (please note I say number plate and not his car!) to the tune of nearly £1,600 and that if he did not pay the fines he would not get his car back.

He asked where these fines had been raised and was given dates and entries in a lot of different places he couldn't have been.

The guy from CP Plus said that perhaps his number had been cloned so my son in law contacted the police who gave him an incident number.

However the guy from CP Plus said he still would not let him have his car back without the fine being paid. All he would have to do in the morning was contact the office (closed last night when he wanted to dispute the charge) and they would sort it out and he would get his money back.

My son in law didn't have his cards so I went and paid it for him on my credit card. Today he contacted the local office who told him he needed to contact the Head Office who referred him back to the local office............you got it he is getting the run around. He contacted the police again and they have said it is a civil case and they don't want to get involved!

The way I see it from trolling through some of the other posts, my son in law is going to have to take a civil case out against this firm. Currently they have come up with no proof of the make and model of car which has committed the parking fines just dates and times. He was in a no win situation last night give me the money or you don't get your car and he needs his car to get to and from the railway satation for work.

Surely thay have to come up with more, has my son in law now got to prove his innocence againt these charges before he gets his money back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a matter where you do need to go down to the police station and report this as a crime. If they refuse to take details insist on speaking to a senior officer. This sort of behaviour is not allowed and is extortion.

 

You should also contact your credit card company and tell them that the money was unlawfully obtained under false pretences and should be refunded as a disputed transaction.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bernie, just had a call from my son in law he has seen copies of the photos of the car which has carried out the illegal parking and although it is the same make and colour it can be seen that it is not my son in laws car. The DVLA have become involved and apparently he has been told by someone senior from CP Plus that is there error and he will receive a full refund.............based on what I have read about this company I will believe that when I see it.

I will let you know the outcome, thanks for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bernie, just had a call from my son in law he has seen copies of the photos of the car which has carried out the illegal parking and although it is the same make and colour it can be seen that it is not my son in laws car. The DVLA have become involved and apparently he has been told by someone senior from CP Plus that is there error and he will receive a full refund.............based on what I have read about this company I will believe that when I see it.

I will let you know the outcome, thanks for your help.

 

I should say there has!

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, hopefully will have a happy ending.

 

Remember that clamping for an alleged debt is unlawful. It's no different from me going into Marks and Spencers and taking goods because I think they owe me money. That's the whole point of civil court - you can't just help yourself without a judgement.

 

The police are usually clueless over this and automatically think clamping = civil matter. The issue is not the clamping - the issue is the seizure of goods for an unproven debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am shocked to hear this. Make sure your son covers all the bases and that these clampers are licensed. Also worth trying to find out if the agreeement with the Car Park owners allows them to clamp.

 

If they are clamping without permission then they are very dodgy ground.

 

I would also be bring a damages claim against them in the County Court. If your son has suffered any sort of loss as a result of their actions then he has a claim. This can include any loss of pay, having to hire a car/take a taxi.

 

The courts will take a very dim view of clamping over an alleged debt. Clamping is a remedy for trespass not for an alleged debt.

 

Have a read of the clamping guide as it always helps your case if you can point out any other unlawful/illegal actions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, they should just do what happens in scotland and make it illegal. It's disgraceful how some of these private clamping companies operate. At least you can ignore the PPCs, you can't ignore a ****ing huge clamp immobilising your car (especially one which would cause criminal damage if you remove it).

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...