Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
By looking4advice4friend · Posted
Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. Apparently there is a max 3 hours limit which we were not aware of. This means taking kids to softplay and then having a meal on one of the restaurants will more than likely take you over the limit. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR seems to be in public street that leads to the different parking areas including the hotel. 1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK 31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from. https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance. UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
Thank you for posting their WS. If we start with the actual WS made by the director one would have doubts that they had even read PoFA let alone understood it. Point 10 we only have the word of the director that the contract has been extended. I should have had the corroboration of the Client. Point 12 The Judge HHJ Simkiss was not the usual Judge on motoring cases and his decisions on the necessity of contracts did not align with PoFA. In Schedule 4 [1[ it is quite clearly spelt out- “relevant contract” 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; And the laughable piece of paper from the land owners cannot be described as a contract. I respectfully ask that the case be dismissed as there is no contract. WE do not even know what the parking regulations are which is really basic. It is respectfully asked that without a valid contract the case cannot continue. One would imagine that were there a valid contract it would have been produced. So the contract that Bank has with the motorist must come from the landowner. Bank on their own cannot impose their own contract. How could a director of a parking company sign a Statement of Truth which included Point 11. Point 14. There is no offer of a contract at the entrance to the car park. Doubtful if it is even an offer to treat. The entrance sign sign does not comply with the IPC Code of Conduct nor is there any indication that ANPR cameras are in force. A major fault and breach of GDPR. Despite the lack of being offered a contract at the entrance [and how anyone could see what was offered by way of a contract in the car park is impossible owing to none of the signs in the WS being at all legible] payment was made for the car to park. A young person in the car made the payment. But before they did that, they helped an elderly lady to make her payment as she was having difficulty. After arranging payment for the lady the young lad made his payment right behind. Unfortunately he entered the old lady's number again rather than paying .for the car he was in. This can be confirmed by looking at the Allow List print out on page 25. The defendant's car arrived at 12.49 and at 12.51 and 12.52 there are two payments for the same vrm. This was also remarked on by the IPC adjudicator when the PCN was appealed. So it is quite disgraceful that Bank have continued to pursue the Defendant knowing that it was a question of entering the wrong vrm. Point 21 The Defendant is not obliged to name the driver, they are only invited to do so under S9[2][e]. Also it is unreasonable to assume that the keeper is the driver. The Courts do not do that for good reason. The keeper in this case does not have a driving licence. Point 22. The Defendant DID make a further appeal which though it was also turned down their reply was very telling and should have led to the charge being dropped were the company not greedy and willing to pursue the Defendant regardless of the evidence they had in their own hands. Point 23 [111] it's a bit rich asking the Defendant to act justly and at proportionate cost while acting completely unjustly themselves and then adding an unlawful 70% on to the invoice. This is despite PoFA S4[5] (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 9[2][d]. Point 23 [1v] the Director can deny all he wants but the PCN does not comply with PoFA. S9 [2][a] states (2)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; The PCN only quotes the ANPR arrival and departure times which obviously includes a fair amount of driving between the two cameras. Plus the driver and passengers are a mixture of disabled and aged persons who require more time than just a young fit single driver to exit the car and later re enter. So the ANPR times cannot be the same as the required parking period as stipulated in the ACT. Moreover in S9[2][f] (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; You will note that in the PCN the words in parentheses are not included but at the start of Section 9 the word "must" is included. As there are two faults in the PCN it follows that Bank cannot pursue the keeper . And as the driver does not have a driving licence their case must fail on that alone. And that is not even taking into consideration that the payment was made. Point 23 [v] your company is wrong a payment was made. very difficult to prove a cash payment two weeks later when the PCN arrives. However the evidence was in your print out for anyone to see had they actually done due diligence prior to writing to the DVLA. Indeed as the Defendant had paid there was no reasonable cause to have applied for the keeper details. Point 24 the Defendant did not breach the contract. The PCN claimed the Defendant failed to make a payment when they had made a payment. I haven't finished yet but that is something to start with -
You don't appeal to anyone. You haven't' received a demand from a statutory body like the council, the police or the courts. It's just a dodgy cowboy company trying it on. You simply don't pay. In the vast majority of these cases the company deforest the Amazon with threats about how they are going to divert a drone from Ukraine and make it land on your home - but in the end they do nothing. -
honestly you sound like you work the claimant yes affixed dont appeal to anyone no cant be “argued either way” -
Because of the tsunami of cases we are having for this scam site, over the weekend I had a look at MET cases we have here stretching back to June 2014. Yes, ten years. MET have not once had the guts to put a case in front of a judge. In about 5% of cases they have issued court papers in the hope that the motorist will be terrified of going to court and will give in. However, when the motorist defended, it was MET who bottled it. Every time.
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 4912 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts