Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • 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

The saga rambles on


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4400 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 There have been new revelations since my previous thread (see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?339821-held-in-a-private-carpark-against-my-will-by-citypermits). I'm not sure whether to post back in that thread or start a new one. If someone could let me know that would be great. Since the last episode I haven't gone near the car park but nothing was ever done about the clampers. I was chased the other night by them on a public road as they recognised me, and chased me through Leeds for approximately 2 miles. I called 999 but they were no help. Police visited me this morning, and after telling them the story they contacted the head of City Permits. He said that they hadn't chased me, but they were only going home. This is complete rubbish. There are no witnesses to me being chased. I contacted the head of the complex who manage the site and employ City Permits. He said that something obviously needs to be done. I've demanded they either stop the men from being on site or remove City Permits completely. He says 'he'll look into it'. The head of City Permits said that as a repeat offender I should have been clamped. I am now worried they are going to try and recover the debt. I owe them quite a lot of money (probably in the thousands with all the tickets they have given me). The police seemed to take their side regarding me owing money, but said that it needs to go to court. I always thought the tickets weren't worth the paper they were printed on, but the police said I owe them a debt. Would love to hear all of your thoughts. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would personally be going to court myself and getting a restraining order out,however I think others may have other advice

I know my rights Mr DCA I'm with the CAG......hello hello where you gone Mr DCA8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would of been better sticking to the one thread TBH. Now we have 2 to look at to get the full picture!

 

IMHO, something has gone seriously wrong here.The police are wrong and personally I would be making an appointment to see someone higher up the ladder to discuss the matter at length. A private company cannot issue fines or penalties as they have no legal status to do so. However, the landowner can sue you for trespass if you are parking there regularly without permission. So if you owe any money to anyone, it's the landowner. Invite the clamping firm to take you to court if they think you owe them anything. That is their only legal option available. But they will not be able to recover money from the tickets issued because you should be able to convince the judge that they are in fact fines or penalties.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thank you for the advice. As I'm in talks with the MD of the company that owns the land, and he's told me not to pay them - I'm guessing they won't be taking me to court? He even said he has tickets from private companies and he doesn't pay either! He was a really nice guy and was more interested in making sure we felt safe living where we did. He had no interest in money. It's City Permits that are furious with me. Have a clamping / ticketing company ever taken anyone to court over PCNs and won? If not, I will definitely invite them to take me to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thank you for the advice. As I'm in talks with the MD of the company that owns the land, and he's told me not to pay them - I'm guessing they won't be taking me to court? He even said he has tickets from private companies and he doesn't pay either! He was a really nice guy and was more interested in making sure we felt safe living where we did. He had no interest in money. It's City Permits that are furious with me. Have a clamping / ticketing company ever taken anyone to court over PCNs and won? If not, I will definitely invite them to take me to court.

 

Possibly but only if the respondent hasn't been clued up before hand. As far as i'm aware, most won't go near a court because they know their grounds are very weak. They know that they cannot recover debts via fines or penalties so no doubt there are no mentions of those words on the tickets. BUT they will have to explain what their losses/damages are and convince the judge that they are proportionate to what they are claiming. Very difficult when there is no parking charges involved in the first place.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...