Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be 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 it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
  • 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

"01 Parked in a restricted street" Enfield (Driving Instructor)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4735 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'd like to Thank everyone in advance who have taken time to read my thread.

 

During a driving lesson in Enfield, we had just entered Church Street EN2 and due to a big lorry unloading we were forced to change lanes, while trying to change lanes to avoid being stuck my pupil started panicing as he was running out of room, he forgot to signal, while changing lanes the door mirror hit the corner of lorry, so he got real scared and paniced even more, I slowed the car down and took over the steering for few seconds while we got around the lorry. It all happend so quick and the the road was very busy I barely had any time to react. He said he wanted to stop for few minutes to calm down, he seemed very scared by this event, so I agreed because as you may know when a learner makes a mistake its followed by many more, and on a busy road like that I could not risk our safety and any other road users, so we stopped on the left further in the road. I left the car to get him a bottle of water, we were there for no more than 5 minutes, and thats when the CCTV had caught my car parked on that spot.

 

There was double yellow lines and boxes, but I didn't check for any signs because we had to stop quickly, are there any grounds that I can appeal on, it was a matter of safety.

 

The PCN was sent through post as it had been caught on CCTV, the PCN does not say the color of the make, however when I logged in online to check the evidence the color was there, will that help my case ?

 

I have scanned the PCN and also got print screens of the CCTV evidence.

 

Any Ideas ?

 

Google Maps - StreetView. Exact spot I parked in on the left.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/mm?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=51.652151,-0.082739&spn=0,0.022724&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.652147,-0.082567&panoid=JkG5hLV80ojMjwKBH0i22Q&cbp=12,88.15,,0,0

 

1.png

2.png

3.png

PCN1.png

PCN2.png

PCN3.png

PCN4.png

 

PCN details on Enfield Website

PCNDetails.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Google Sreetview, there are no boxes, but on the CCTV evidence they are there.

 

I found the following information on another forum, can some-one tell me if what that guy did will work ?

 

"I overstayed in a Morrison's car park in Peckhan S London and received a fine of £40 if I paid within 14 days. I waited until I received a reminder then I wrote to the parking enforcement company (called parking eye). Stating that under constitutional law they are breaking the law by demanding money from me before any court conviction (bill of rights 1689) and any claim they had would be null and void as they had demanded monies from me.

 

As they had written to me twice I had to advise them of the terms and conditions of writing to me, which are thus:

 

I will accept two free letters but any third letter received; would trigger the acceptance of the fact that they would have to pay me an admin fee of £50 per letter, but the third letter would also be a free letter unless I received a fourth letter related to this matter. In which case I would have to charge for ALL four letters. I would invoice them and request payment within 7 days otherwise court action would follow on the 8th day. The terms are fair under the Unfair terms Act 1999 as this is for my time and expenses. Any fifth letter would trigger a harassment action under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act, which I would be entitled to claim £5,000 in damages for mental anguish.

 

Funnily enough every time I get a ticket and a reminder, I NEVER receive a third letter, as they (parking agents/councils) are really concerned that I would go for it."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking eye is a private company and as such can not fine anyone for parking. What they sent the poster of that thread was an invoice for "alleged" breach of contract and can safely be ignored.

Your ticket hovever was issued by the council and as such should not be ignored.

Someone with knowledge of council issued tickets will advise you shortly.

hello all:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

personally i would appeal giving all the details you have given here you may get lucky and they actually grow a concience, but i would also be prepared to pay the fee if the appeal is rejected. of course there will be others along to help aswell

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are required to stop after an accident under Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988.

 

This thread is about a parking ticket, if you can't help, then keep quite.

 

The lorry/truck driver was double parked, if he was in a designated un/loading bay then we wouldn't have to go around him would we ?

 

"26 Vehicle parked more than 50 cm from the kerb and not within a designated parking space" ILLEGAL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are required to stop after an accident under Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988.

 

This thread is about a parking ticket, if you can't help, then keep quite.

 

 

dragon42tt, I think you have failed to follow the significance of Al27's comment, and been quite offensive and indignant with your reply also.

 

I believe the point Al27 is making is that as you felt you had been involved in an accident, you are required by law to stop. ergo "stopping" as required by law trumps their "parked where prohibited" claim.

 

Please feel free to apoligise to Al27

Link to post
Share on other sites

dragon42tt, I think you have failed to follow the significance of Al27's comment, and been quite offensive and indignant with your reply also.

 

I believe the point Al27 is making is that as you felt you had been involved in an accident, you are required by law to stop. ergo "stopping" as required by law trumps their "parked where prohibited" claim.

 

Please feel free to apoligise to Al27

 

Yes, your right, I didn't read it carefully, I thought Al27 was telling me off for not reporting the accident.

 

Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is about a parking ticket, if you can't help, then keep quite.

 

You had just had an accident, so Al27's post is relevant. However, even if it wasn't, your 'keep quiet' comment is uncalled for and is unlikely to encourage others to help

 

The lorry/truck driver was double parked, if he was in a designated un/loading bay then we wouldn't have to go around him would we ?

 

"26 Vehicle parked more than 50 cm from the kerb and not within a designated parking space" ILLEGAL.

 

This, on the other hand, is totally irrelevant to the alleged contravention

Link to post
Share on other sites

You had just had an accident, so Al27's post is relevant. However, even if it wasn't, your 'keep quiet' comment is uncalled for and is unlikely to encourage others to help

 

I accept that I misread the post and the reply was harsh (I did apologise) however the reply from Al27 was not very clear to me, I thought he was trying to tell me off, not help. I wouldn't be here if I knew why an accident is relevant to my ticket dilemma.

 

This, on the other hand, is totally irrelevant to the alleged contravention

 

I don't agree, the lorry driver had stopped illegally and caused a hazard for other road users. If what Al27 said is correct then what I said was very relevant. If the police were at the scene of the "accident" who would be at fault ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't agree, the lorry driver had stopped illegally and caused a hazard for other road users. If what Al27 said is correct then what I said was very relevant.

 

While the lorry driver may have been comitting an offence (so will also presumably be getting a PCN), the fact remains that it is irrelevant to your ticket. However, it does provides grounds for appeal as suggested by Wackyone.

 

If the police were at the scene of the "accident" who would be at fault ?

 

You. Although no doubt they would of issued the lorry driver with a FPN for being illegally parked. Just because a vehicle is illegally parked, it dosn't mean it is ok for you (or your pupil) to hit it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't agree, the lorry driver had stopped illegally and caused a hazard for other road users. If what Al27 said is correct then what I said was very relevant. If the police were at the scene of the "accident" who would be at fault ?

You would be. I know it would be nice to have clear roads, but unfortunately that's rarely the case and is why cars are equipped with steering wheels so you can drive round obstructions.
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While the lorry driver may have been comitting an offence (so will also presumably be getting a PCN), the fact remains that it is irrelevant to your ticket. However, it does provides grounds for appeal as suggested by Wackyone.

 

 

You. Although no doubt they would of issued the lorry driver with a FPN for being illegally parked. Just because a vehicle is illegally parked, it dosn't mean it is ok for you (or your pupil) to hit it.

 

If you agree with "You are required to stop after an accident under Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988." which means I stopped to speak to the other party, then the lorry driver had a lot to do with it. His/her actions played a part in the situation.

 

I didn't say it's ok to hit a vehicle, but he would have to take responsibility to some degree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be. I know it would be nice to have clear roads, but unfortunately that's rarely the case and is why cars are equipped with steering wheels so you can drive round obstructions.

 

Thank you smarty, I don't know how you can make stupid comments like "cars are equipped with steering wheels" when you don't know what exactly happened, how do you know what stage my pupils were at, at the time. No matter how many times you teach learners to deal with a situation they can make the same mistakes, even with my aid we barely made it around the lorry, we were put in a situation where we did not have enough time and space to perform a safe change of lane (at least for a learner), on a very busy road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are veering off at a tangent instead of concentrating on the PCN. You had an accident and stopped a) as required by the RTA b) since your pupil was panicking and to continue would have been a danger to other road users.

 

Did you actually speak to the lorry driver at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are veering off at a tangent instead of concentrating on the PCN. You had an accident and stopped a) as required by the RTA b) since your pupil was panicking and to continue would have been a danger to other road users.

 

Did you actually speak to the lorry driver at all?

 

I stopped because my pupils was panicking, not because my the door mirror hit the metal corner of the lorry, there's no way there was any damage to the lorry, it was the edge/corner. Al27 suggested that I could have stopped due to the accident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did you actually speak to the lorry driver at all?

I'll take that as a no then?

 

How far was it between where you hit the lorry and where you parked?

 

Is it likely that the incident could have been caught on camera?

 

The point is that the council is unlikely to accept there was a medical/safety issue without some sort of proof. As far as they are concerned, they watched you park the car and go off and come back a few minutes later with a bottle of water

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take that as a no then?

 

How far was it between where you hit the lorry and where you parked?

 

Is it likely that the incident could have been caught on camera?

 

The point is that the council is unlikely to accept there was a medical/safety issue without some sort of proof. As far as they are concerned, they watched you park the car and go off and come back a few minutes later with a bottle of water

 

No, didn't talk to him, we parked at the first available place about 70 metres away. I will take it all the way with them, they can check the camera's, maybe they did catch something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is about a parking ticket, if you can't help, then keep quite.

 

The lorry/truck driver was double parked, if he was in a designated un/loading bay then we wouldn't have to go around him would we ?

 

"26 Vehicle parked more than 50 cm from the kerb and not within a designated parking space" ILLEGAL.

 

You said the lorry was unloading so it was legally parked, its a bit worrying a driver instructor doesn't even know what is permitted and whats not. As for telling the pupil its ok to hit a vehicle and drive off as its his fault for being parked, I must remember to steer well clear of any of your ex pupils!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said the lorry was unloading so it was legally parked, its a bit worrying a driver instructor doesn't even know what is permitted and whats not. As for telling the pupil its ok to hit a vehicle and drive off as its his fault for being parked, I must remember to steer well clear of any of your ex pupils!!

 

Which thread were you reading ? your not on this planet are you ?

 

1 - I did say the lorry/truck was double parked (illegal) while unloading.

 

2 - Please find the piece of text where I said to my pupils "its ok to hit a vehicle"

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you agree with "You are required to stop after an accident under Section 170(2) of the Road Traffic act 1988." which means I stopped to speak to the other party, then the lorry driver had a lot to do with it. His/her actions played a part in the situation.

 

I didn't say it's ok to hit a vehicle, but he would have to take responsibility to some degree.

 

Yes, you are required to do so following a collision. But you have since stated that you didn't speak to the lorry driver so you can hardly sight that as a reason for stopping where you did. I do agree that some lorry drivers seem to think they can unload anywhere. I have come across them myself while driving a bus in a city centre at a point where a bus cannot pass them without mounting a kerb. When that has happened I have merely stopped, sounded my horn a few times while reading my paper and waited untill either the police arrive or the driver moves. I certainly havn't attempted to drive around the vehicle and risk either hitting it or damaging my bus on the raised kerb on my offside.

 

My advice stands; appeal using the gounds that your pupil panicked and as such you were forced to stop because of saftery reasons. The council may have CCTV footage of the offending lorry to substantiate your claim. I see little point in continuing with the argument on whether the lorry driver was responsible for the incident or not.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are required to do so following a collision. But you have since stated that you didn't speak to the lorry driver so you can hardly sight that as a reason for stopping where you did. I do agree that some lorry drivers seem to think they can unload anywhere. I have come across them myself while driving a bus in a city centre at a point where a bus cannot pass them without mounting a kerb. When that has happened I have merely stopped, sounded my horn a few times while reading my paper and waited untill either the police arrive or the driver moves. I certainly havn't attempted to drive around the vehicle and risk either hitting it or damaging my bus on the raised kerb on my offside.

 

My advice stands; appeal using the gounds that your pupil panicked and as such you were forced to stop because of saftery reasons. The council may have CCTV footage of the offending lorry to substantiate your claim. I see little point in continuing with the argument on whether the lorry driver was responsible for the incident or not.

 

It was Al27 who suggested I could use the "stopped due to accident" excuse, not me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My advice stands; appeal using the gounds that your pupil panicked and as such you were forced to stop because of saftery reasons. The council may have CCTV footage of the offending lorry to substantiate your claim. I see little point in continuing with the argument on whether the lorry driver was responsible for the incident or not.

 

Also at no point did I say I will appeal on the basis that it was caused by the lorry driver, I misunderstood Al27's reply and said the lorry played a role, but never thought of using that as an excuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is getting somewhat clouded now with being taken off on tangents in one direction or another. The original question is whether there is any defence against the issue of a PCN for an 01 restriction.

My feeling would be that Al27s suggestion of the need to stop following an accident and/or because the pupil was panickng may still be the strongest defence on mitigating grounds only. But I think this may also be somehow reduced by the "need" to go to buy a bottle of water which makes it look much more like parking.

 

I had a similar incident last week when a car passed my pupil while exiting a roundabout which, in my opinion was purfectly safe, but it scared my pupil to death causing her to clip the kerb and lose control of the car somewhat. I intervened and brought the car to a safe stop as soon as possible which happened to be a bus stop with yellow lines. Now nothing "legal" came from that but my defence would have been one of road safety with us only remaining there for the shortest period of time and neither of us leaving the car.

 

I don't see anything to lose at the stage with an informal appeal on these mitagating circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...