Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • so wont this thus be a totally useless restriction k andy?  
    • so you have 34 pdfs what is the size of a typical file in MB's or KB's.  
    • If he was paying a Solictor by the hour I'm sure he would be more engaging....we offer this service free of charge in our own free time.   He needs to engage and fast.   Defence due Friday 11th Dec by 4.00pm   .
    • Applying for a charging order involves two stages: the interim charging order and the final charging order. Interim charging orders If your creditor decides to apply for a charging order: Your creditor sends a form to the court along with proof from the Land Registry that you own, or jointly own, your house If the court agrees that you own a share of the property and a charging order is allowed under the rules above, you'll be sent an interim charging order on form N86 and a copy of the creditor's form N379. These show the reasons they've applied. This is also sent to your spouse or civil partner, any other joint owners of the property and your mortgage company or other secured lenders A restriction will be placed on the Land Registry, stopping you from selling your house until the final charging order hearing. You will get a form B136 from the Land Registry telling you this has happened. You don't need to reply to this form The interim charging order is issued without a hearing. If you do nothing, a final charging order will be issued 28 days later. If you want to object to the final charging order, you must write to the court and creditor within 21 days of receiving the interim charging order. The court may then arrange a hearing to make a decision. Reasons to object might include: The property doesn’t belong to you, and you are not entitled to a share of any equity in it The CCJ happened before October 2012 and you’ve not missed any instalments set by the court The creditor has not followed the application process correctly, for example they’ve not informed your spouse or civil partner You can also write to ask the court to set conditions on the charging order. One condition that we recommend asking for is an affordable instalment order, if one is not already in place. This is where the court sets a regular payment. If the court agrees to this and you keep up with the payments, the creditor will find it much harder to take further enforcement action through the court. If no instalment order is set there’s a risk the creditor could take further action, for example by instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to visit. If your CCJ was date 1 October 2012 or later, an instalment order which is up to date also prevents the creditor applying to force the sale of your home. Final charging orders For the second stage of the charging order process, if you’ve not made any written objections, a court officer or sometimes a District Judge will decide whether to make a final charging order. If you wrote to the court and creditor with objections, or you requested other conditions are applied, the court may arrange a hearing to decide whether to make a final charging order. The hearing will be at your local County Court hearing centre. The hearing will usually be in private chambers with a District Judge and normally a representative from the creditor. The judge will listen to both sides and decide whether to make the final order or not, and what conditions if any are to be applied. Once a final charging order is made, you’ll get a letter from the court confirming this on form N87.   Regards   Andy
    • 100% agree Andy, will try again. TBH, I did expect a little more info from him.
  • Our picks

parking eye spanked in court in manchester.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3289 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

manchester county court,,1xj81016.

 

parking spy v smith,

 

,defendant parked on two occasions without paying,

,therefore owed damages for the contractual breach,,,

,pannone sent 4 solicitors attempted to claim costs of £4457-20,

,,parking spy/lie are now awaiting bill from pannones,,

,,dont you just luv it,,

,why employ all these solicitors for a small claims court????

and why this so called respectable solicitors thought they would get 4k is an ever bigger mystery????,,

,thanks to my mates on mse for this info,,

,its made my day/week/year/millenium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oops, sorry in all my excitement i rushed my post, it appears smith had to pay £15-00,plus £95-00 costs, which may have been avoided if originally paid £15-00 for the contactual breach,,,anyway what i am trying to say is how much will parking spy have to pay pannone???? a lovely humungous amount i hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

@crem - Actually the £15 paid represented the quantified loss of PE for 48 hours parking - strangely it even appeared on a list of tariffs shown on signs on the car park concerned. PE's claim for £120 "contractual charge" was dismissed out of hand by the judge as an unwarranted penalty. Pannone's attempt to recover £4457 in costs was deat with in similar fashion.(what planet are they on - it was the small claims court? ffs)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A judgement of this nature was always a racing certainty, the remarkable thing is that Parking Eye went for it HOOK LINE AND SINKER in trying to make a point by claiming huge legal expenses. All we need now is a second attempt by the numpties to take a similar route in Scotland where it is unusual other than in extreme cases to be awarded costs in Small Debt Actions. It is always nice to see petted lips in robes

On the subject of numpties, I note with particular interest that the British Parking Association has failed to mention this LANDMARK JUDGEMENT on their website. There again perhaps Patrick Troy is otherwise occupied writing his script for the Future of Traffic Management event in London on the 8th of December, after all it is pantomime season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so, there is a chance they may take you to court if you dont pay up the £15?

but you can forget the so called penalty charge.

Not really a precdent for caes law though, as court not high enough, another judge may view things differently, but doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...