Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. 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 simply contracted by the landowner 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. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

Multiple PCN's


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4588 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

Hello everyone.

Due to quite specific situation I had to leave my car for a week on a 'Pay and Display' parking. I have paid maximum I could in a parking meter and left. Once I got back I got, as expected, a fine for "parking after expiration of paid time". I have paid it within 2 weeks to minimise it by 50%.

I was suprised when I have received NtO for 2 more PCN's.

 

In total I have been given 3 PCN's throughout the week. I had only one sticked to my windshield when I was picking up my car.

I am not 100% sure if this is allright to give multiple fines in my situation therefore I would appreciate your help.

In case this is valid I would appreciate if you let me know if I can pay only 50% of the remaining PCN's, as I had no chance to do that in time due to the fact I was not aware I was given any other PCN's.

Should I explain that when making a representation ticking 'other grounds'?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any PCN with a "Notice to owner" must be challenged.

 

How do they know your the owner? Are you?

 

Or does your V5 simply state that you are the "registered keeper" and that "this document does not prove you are the owner of this vehicle". Take a look at your V5.

 

And have a watch of

 

It isn't a fine neither, and is a civil matter.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to make representations on all the remaining PCNs. It is possible that there are others too - they can issue one per calendar day. You ought to call the council and get a list of all the PCNs.

 

In your letter, give all the PCN numbers and explain what happened (don't admit that you left your car there deliberately - it will go against you). Then state that the imposition of so many charges, totalling £ (whatever it is) is disproportionate to the situation.

 

This line of argument has succeeded before, including at adjudication hearings. What should hopefully happen is that they cancel all the PCNs except the one which is already paid - so problem solved.

 

If you try this, and they say no, you can request an adjudication hearing at that point. I think you're likely to win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do they know your the owner? Are you?

 

Or does your V5 simply state that you are the "registered keeper" and that "this document does not prove you are the owner of this vehicle". Take a look at your V5.

 

The council are at liberty to issue a charge to the person APPEARING to be the owner, and being the registered keeper is sufficient for them to do that. If that person is NOT the owner, they need to contest liability. The V5 will say what they all say - but that's not the issue. If the OP is not the owner and wants responsibility passed to the actual owner, then that's fine - but if he is the owner, he's stuck with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree they will assume that the V5 means they are the owner, but the technicality of their wording of "Notice to owner" and the actual written wording on the V5 document is a defence, how can one document say one thing, and this is a crown copyright document yet the LA interpret it differently?

 

IMO these are no more than speculative invoices, it is a civil and not a criminal offence, so if you were to ignore it, they can do nothing.

 

Just as the council are at liberty to put bits of paper on your windscreen means I am at liberty to ignore them, there is no legal obligation to respond to their invoice/pieces of paper, or even letters.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

these are ofcourse council tickets?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO these are no more than speculative invoices, it is a civil and not a criminal offence, so if you were to ignore it, they can do nothing.

 

Just as the council are at liberty to put bits of paper on your windscreen means I am at liberty to ignore them, there is no legal obligation to respond to their invoice/pieces of paper, or even letters.

 

That's simply ludicrous. The council can and will apply for a bailiff warrant, and bailiffs will clamp/tow/dispose of the vehicle. It is completely unhelpful to say things like this when someone has PCNs to deal with. If he takes your advice he will lose his car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as the council are at liberty to put bits of paper on your windscreen means I am at liberty to ignore them, there is no legal obligation to respond to their invoice/pieces of paper, or even letters.

 

Correct you don't have to pay them but the prospect of having your car sold or your house stripped of its contents is enough to make most sane people pay these legally enforceable debts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

these are ofcourse council tickets?

 

There I go again skipping over the important information! So yes my advice shouldn't be followed in the case of council issued tickets, a private parking firm is completely different.

 

My apologies, should have gone to specsavers!

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There I go again skipping over the important information! So yes my advice shouldn't be followed in the case of council issued tickets, a private parking firm is completely different.

 

My apologies, should have gone to specsavers!

 

Strange considering your comments in post #5

 

'Just as the council are at liberty to put bits of paper on your windscreen means I am at liberty to ignore them, there is no legal obligation to respond to their invoice/pieces of paper, or even letters.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...