Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

A rather spectacular UKCPS mess-up.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4954 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

Hi everyone, I've read a few threads about UKCPS but I think I might be able to top them in terms of absurdity. No need to repeat the advice already posted but if you have any additional to add I'd like to hear it.

 

I live in city centre accommodation / flats (in yorkshire). Our flats have a secure underground car-park facility with remote control access to the doors. All the bays are numbered and allocated to residents.

 

Here are a few facts:

 

I pay extra rent each month for a parking space in this facility.

I was parked in my parking space like I have been most days since I moved in last 8 months.

On saturday I got a UKCPS sticky ticket demanding £75 for parking without a valid permit with the £3 per day increase after 10 days.

I do not and have never had a parking permit. When I moved in my letting agent told me they are not needed.

Noone in the carpark that I have ever seen uses any relevant parking permit.

There is the yellow signs from UKCPS in the car park stating 'authorised users only' and 'a valid permit must be displayed' however residents generally assumed this was more of a scare for REAL unauthorised people..

 

Here is where it gets almost funny:

It appears that they might have stickered every single car in the car park, there are at least 10 of us with this same problem.

Upon contacting the company responsible for managing the communal areas and car parks they said they do not know of any permits and we should contact our letting agents.

The letting agents are generally saying they don't have any permits, contact the management company.

There are notes up in our lobby now to try and figure out how many people are affected and get together and sort it out so I don't know final numbers yet.

On saturday there was a problem with the entrance doors, they were broken and jammed open. I don't think the CPS people would have actually been able to access the carpark if this wasn't the case!!!

 

 

So yes, it appears that they want us to pay £75 for parking in my own bought and paid for parking space (this is worth about £50 a month on top of my rent!). I know the letting agents (and byproxy the landlords of the flats) will not be on CPS's side in this and also the company that manages the building (and I assume byproxy the actual owners of the land) will surely not be supporting them.

 

 

My main purpose of this post was a 'can you believe this' thread.

 

But I was wondering, does anyone think we might be able to get together as a group and fight this and get them to drop it completely. It would be preferable to fighting individual battles as some of the residents are foreign and some might buy into their crap if we don't get together and support each other.

It is clearly a misunderstanding, you would have thought the person making the tickets might have been suspicious that no cars had permits at all. We would actually welcome permits and decent enforcement of our parking spaces!

 

:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Private parking tickets are a tort for trespass or loss caused by the landowner for you being on the land. You were parking in your allocated bay so you were not trespassing nor was your parking there causing anyone else any loss (since it's your allocated bay and no-one else can park there).

 

Or, depending on how you look at it, it's a civil invoice not a fine anyway, a company is just asking you for money, it has the same legal weight as me walking up to you and asking for £75 (i.e. none) and they will probably send you some DCA letters or letters threatening court action but they're all equally enforceable (i.e. not at all) and just a [problem] designed to scare you into paying up. As has been stated in similar threads you can simply ignore their correspondence.

 

The only people who can fine you and whose tickets are legally enforceable are the public bodies, e.g. the police, council, courts, and only them or tickets issued on behalf of them can use the words "Penalty Charge Notice". If you want, scan and cleanse the PCN of any personal details to be sure but from the sounds of it you can just ignore them.

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

It is UKCPS.

 

I am quite happy to go down the route of not paying this and fighting it in court if it comes to it. I'm just a little worried that other residents might roll over and cough up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

usualy they recomend taking court action to get money back were

clamping fees are paid to get your car realeased cant you send them

a notice before action to stop them giving you tickets( invoices)

for parking were you are entiteld to park to get it stopped

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone who managed to talk to a real person on the phone managed to get the info that every ticket issued on saturday for that carpark has been cancelled. So good news! Hopefully we wont be getting letters out then.

 

Even though they were clearly wrong I can't help being surprised that they appear to have actually done the sensible thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...