Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Russia’s economy has been cut off from the global financial system - but it is still growing. Why?View the full article
    • Well done. Are you able to tell us more about how it went on the day please? HB
    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: Defence - 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
  • 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

Damage caused by collapsible bollards - any liability?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4088 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,

 

First of all, I apologise if this is being posted in the wrong forum but I am hoping that someone can give me a little advice or point me in the right direction....

 

Last week, the underside of my car was damaged by a collapsible bollard (the tubular steel folding variety) in a car park owned by a housing developer. The car park is adjacent to the sales office, fits around 4 vehicles and is primarily used for staff and customers, although there is no signage restricting access to members of the general public (I happen to own a house less than 50 ft from the car park and use it regularly). The bollards were fitted last week and are placed at the top of an inclined approach to the car park, and they fold away from the entrance. There is signage placed inside the car park stating that the developer is not liable for any damage caused to vehicles whilst parked in the car park.

 

I entered the car park at normal parking speed , i.e. crawling. As my car moved over the folded bollards I heard a scraping sound. Upon parking up I noticed that the plastic engine tray was hanging down at the front off-side. On closer inspection I noticed that a long strip of the engine tray had disappeared inside the bollard! I have obviously removed this to use as evidence.... :wink:

 

My car is an Audi A5, is not modified in any way, is not particularly low to the ground and not a particularly long wheel base, although not the shortest car either. I have not involved the insurance company as the damage has cost less than £100 to fix but I do feel that the land owner should be liable for the damage caused - my theory being that the reason for the damage is the placing of the bollards at the top of an inclined approach.

 

Has anyone been in a similar situation or can offer any advice as to whether this is worth pursuing?

 

Grateful for any response.

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

 

It sure is worth chasing this. The owner of the land would have a duty of care to road users, they should ensure that bollards are fit for their purpose and correctly installed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the first instance write to them to see what comes back - as the bollard needs fixed quickly.

 

Their disclaimer could not be used to exclude liability for damage they specifically caused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys - I wrote to them the day it happened and hand-delivered the letter to the sales office. I followed it up today by a visit and dropped off a copy of the invoice from the garage showing the cost of the repairs. I had a brief discussion with the sales guy today where he indicated that I would have a hard job claiming as "the car park is for sales use only and there is a disclaimer sign posted stating that parking is at vehicle owner's risk". He said I should expect to hear back from them by the end of next week. His "defence" was that he has parked his car there without damaging it.

 

I did say that the bollards need to be repaired/replaced ASAP before further damage is caused - can't imagine them having much luck with sales if they are damaging customers' cars!

 

Frankly, we are talking about £90 here so it's not the end of the world, but at the same time it's not pocket change. It's also a matter of principle.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer but a couple of points:

 

1. It may be wise to take a photo or two of the bollard in case you want to show evidence at some point. Maybe with a ruler behind it to establish its height.

 

2. In your first post you said their sign says "the developer is not liable for any damage caused to vehicles whilst parked in the car park". If this is literal, it is of no relevance to what happened to you as you were not yet parked and were driving in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer but a couple of points:

 

1. It may be wise to take a photo or two of the bollard in case you want to show evidence at some point. Maybe with a ruler behind it to establish its height.

 

Yes, I took photos, but not with a ruler.

 

2. In your first post you said their sign says "the developer is not liable for any damage caused to vehicles whilst parked in the car park". If this is literal, it is of no relevance to what happened to you as you were not yet parked and were driving in.

 

Sorry, I was paraphrasing. The actual verbiage is "Vehicles are parked here entirely at owner's risk. {Developer} can not be held responsible for any damage".

 

Looks like they are taking the complaint seriously though - I have just gone round to take more photos, ruler in hand only to find that they have now removed the bollards and filled the holes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they are taking the complaint seriously though - I have just gone round to take more photos, ruler in hand only to find that they have now removed the bollards and filled the holes.

 

Take pictures of that too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you see their signage as you approach the car park?

 

Not clearly - there are two signs in a car park that measures not more than 25m2 but due to the placement of the signs you can't really seem them as you enter - not until you are actually in the car park. However, I have been parking there for months, long before the bollards were installed so I don't think I could plead ignorance. In fact, the bollards were installed whilst my car was in the car park - not a problem going out though, it was coming back in that caused the damage and I can only assume this is due to the placement at the top of an incline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual verbiage is "Vehicles are parked here entirely at owner's risk. {Developer} can not be held responsible for any damage".

 

The first sentence seems not relevant and the second, if taken as a seperate statement, is simply not true. They can certainly be held responsible for damage caused by their own negligence, sign or no sign.

 

In any case, if you can't see it before you enter, then it can't be argued that you agreed to those terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sign is irrelevant.

 

The damage - your complaint - and the subsequent disappearance of the bollards are relevant.

 

I wonder how many other undersides took a hit. Does the salesman drive a 4x4?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder how many other undersides took a hit. Does the salesman drive a 4x4?

 

Surprisingly no - a Ford Focus I believe. The mechanic who repaired my car suggested that longer wheelbase cars would be more susceptible. Makes sense if you think about it I suppose - the longer the wheelbase, the more of the car remains on the incline, thereby reducing the clearance as you approach the bollard. In any case, I shall sit tight and see how they respond next week. Will post an update as soon as I have one.

 

Thanks for all your posts so far!

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

At £90 I think they will pay it first or second time, as its too much bother otherwise. But form your perspective its a principle thing - and no one hangs in with principles when in the wrong having paid more to fix the bollards already.

 

Anther picture that might be of use is a (non bending) plank on the ground to show the undulation/incline in the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Quick update folks - had a call from the developers today confirming they will foot the bill for the damage and I should receive a cheque within 14 working days. I'll wait to see if it materialises but I am confident that it will. Thanks for all your help!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful which Bank you use to cash - after todays news, honest banks are getting thinner on the ground!

 

Sam

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Bollard

 

Hi all, I was reading the above thread and a similar thing happened to me the other day, except it has caused a lot of damage to my door as well as the cill. I was told by a passer-by that I was not the first to do it. Basically, there were five removable posts, 4 of the 5 have been removed and this bleeding one remained.

 

As I was crossing over a lowered kerb to enter the car park I was mindful of not hitting any pedestrians who were crossing the pavement and simply did not see this low down bollard, I’m fairly sure one of these pedestrians was obscuring it, just as I started my turn into the car park.

 

When I went into the shop to complain they said they couldn’t find the key and that everyone else had managed to avoid it (I know this is not entirely true regarding everyone else managing to avoid it). Granted if you have prior knowledge of the danger being there you would miss it, but I had never been to that car park before. How do you find out who is responsible for the car park or should I give up now?

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42779[/ATTACH]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...