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 
        • 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

Help appleaing Council Parking Ticket based on signage


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4609 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've just received a council parking ticket for parking in a bay without a ticket. I was there all of seven minutes (went to answer call of nature).

 

I've just read that there is no "grace period" so I can't argue that I wasn't given long enough so I intend to appeal this based that the signage is in correct. After walking around the area the ticket was issue in I can see Pay and Display signs at the start of the white bays but nowhere can I see the times this is in force except for in tiny letters on the Pay and Display machines themselves. I will be happy to provide photos.

 

Do any experts think I've got a chance of appeal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have walked to the end of the street in question and two other streets also within this zone but there were no times displayed, this might be because I was I was still inside the parking zone.

 

I will go to where the zone starts and see if I can see any times. If none are shown can I appeal on that ground?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the underlying CPZ restriction will apply by default to pay & display bays. They need a sign.

 

Yes, they need a sign to signify whether it is a P&D, Resident, Business or Multi-use bay, but will only require a timeplate as well if the times are different to the zone entry times.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there thanks for the interest.

 

It is a Pay and Display Zone

 

The ticket was issued in Bank Square here is a street view link to the end of it.

 

Bank Square is within a parking zone therefore no times are shown on any signs and as I understand it times only need be shown at the beginning of any zone.

 

A few roads down the zone ends. Here is a link to signs as you enter the zone.

 

I've driven around a few roads (and as I live in the area) so I'm certain that no times are displayed either on signs, or lampposts, only on the P&D machines themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that this is either a case of faulty signing, or if for some reason technically correct, is so vague as to be a winner at adjudication. If you drove past those signs, then arrived at the pay & display bay you used, I don't see how a reasonable, average motorist would know what the hours of enforcement are. That being the case, I think the signage is not clear and so the PCN (and presumably many others issued for the same reason) is not sound.

 

I say appeal - include the image of the zone entry sign, and state that there is no timeplate at the bay itself, and I think your appeal should win.

 

G&M's point about lack of times implying 24/7 is a fair one to make, but at odds with normal practice for p&d, and sufficiently unclear to still warrant an appeal even if that is the case - here we all are puzzling over it, and we known more than most about these things! More likely the council has failed to erect the appropriate signs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that this is either a case of faulty signing, or if for some reason technically correct, is so vague as to be a winner at adjudication. If you drove past those signs, then arrived at the pay & display bay you used, I don't see how a reasonable, average motorist would know what the hours of enforcement are..

 

Surely that would apply in every CPZ, at least with a pay and display you can check the machine unlike yellow lines where you need to go back to the zone entry? I think if anything the lack of times on the entry signs is wrong I have never come across a pay and display zone but I'm sure its the same as any CPZ and the entry signs should be timed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen a pay & display zone either, but I'll go along with the idea that they exist. In any case, there have to be times stated on signs somewhere - either entry signs or local timeplates. If there's neither, the restriction isn't signed at all. I know that you can read it off the p&d machines, but that isn't a defence for the LA if the OP challenges the signage, so I think he has a winning hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your responses. I'm very encouraged by them.

 

This appeal seems so simple that I'm looking for a reason to make it more difficult, but it appears the council have failed to erect proper signage.

 

Just to clarify one point: the hours of operation on the machines is 8:00 - 18:00 Monday to Saturday holidays. Nowhere round here is it 24hr Pay and Display so that cannot be the reason for the lack of times on the entry signs.

 

I plan to lodge my appeal today, however I have just two more questions:

 

-Is there an Act or rule relating to the Council's duty to provide time plates on entry signs which I can quote in my appeal?

-I'm am going to inspect all the entry signs at every entrance to this Pay and Display area. My question is this: if only one entrance to the area has time plates will that be enough for the council to reject my appeal. I think this question might be answered by the information I have asked for above.

 

Thanks for your time and interest I shall post my appeal and the result here.

 

P.S: I have just Googled my council's website on parking. It says this about it's parking enforcement:

"...The whole of Southport Town Centre is a controlled parking zone, where parking is only permitted in marked bays and a pay and display system operates. There are three zones and the parking charges vary according to the zone (please see details below). The zones are indicted by the tariff stated on the pay and display machines. Please refer to the on street pay and display machines for the times the zone is operational and the charges that apply."

 

So I guess more than ever I need an act or rule that to dispute the lack of entry time plates.

 

Thanks again.

Edited by TheWatcherxx99
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your responses. I'm very encouraged by them.

 

This appeal seems so simple that I'm looking for a reason to make it more difficult, but it appears the council have failed to erect proper signage.

 

Just to clarify one point: the hours of operation on the machines is 8:00 - 18:00 Monday to Saturday holidays. Nowhere round here is it 24hr Pay and Display so that cannot be the reason for the lack of times on the entry signs.

 

I plan to lodge my appeal today, however I have just two more questions:

 

-Is there an Act or rule relating to the Council's duty to provide time plates on entry signs which I can quote in my appeal?

-I'm am going to inspect all the entry signs at every entrance to this Pay and Display area. My question is this: if only one entrance to the area has time plates will that be enough for the council to reject my appeal. I think this question might be answered by the information I have asked for above.

 

Thanks for your time and interest I shall post my appeal and the result here.

 

P.S: I have just Googled my council's website on parking. It says this about it's parking enforcement:

"...The whole of Southport Town Centre is a controlled parking zone, where parking is only permitted in marked bays and a pay and display system operates. There are three zones and the parking charges vary according to the zone (please see details below). The zones are indicted by the tariff stated on the pay and display machines. Please refer to the on street pay and display machines for the times the zone is operational and the charges that apply."

 

So I guess more than ever I need an act or rule that to dispute the lack of entry time plates.

 

Thanks again.

 

Hi guys, I'm back. I'm really getting into this matter and have dug up the following on my own.

 

This link is to a diagram of accepted CPZ signs and it's variants. The sign in question is sign 663 and it must have a time plate at the bottom which: may be omitted where restrictions apply at all times - They only apply 8:00 - 18:00 in this whole area so I've got them haven't I??

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting technical now. If the council website directs motorists to the p&d machines for the times, then the situation is probably not accidental. Can they post times on the machines and not on signs? I don't know - pay & display zones are rare - I've never seen one - so it's hard to know what the regulations might be.

 

I think it's worth fighting along the lines you suggest. Even if legally they can do this, it's sufficiently obscure to justify taking the case - you could end up with a winning ruling at adjudication. I wouldn't be surprised. And of course there's always the possibility that the signage is inadequate, as I initially thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting technical now. If the council website directs motorists to the p&d machines for the times, then the situation is probably not accidental. Can they post times on the machines and not on signs? I don't know - pay & display zones are rare - I've never seen one - so it's hard to know what the regulations might be.

 

I think it's worth fighting along the lines you suggest. Even if legally they can do this, it's sufficiently obscure to justify taking the case - you could end up with a winning ruling at adjudication. I wouldn't be surprised. And of course there's always the possibility that the signage is inadequate, as I initially thought.

 

It is indeed getting technical, especially for my day off too. I've taken a stroll around the area and the times DO change, however there are no reminder times or notifications that new times are in place so it is on that basis that I shall appeal it

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...