Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my witness statement below.  Please let me know what modifications I need to apply.  I haven't included anything related to "administrative charge while paying by credit or debit card" as I wasn't sure if I should include since sign says "it may apply"   Background  1.1 Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of November 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.    Contract  2.1 No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” From PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act) 2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-  (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or  (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44  For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.    Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed  3.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.  3.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.  3.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.  3.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.    Unfair PCN  4.1         As stipulated in Exhibit 1 (Pages 7-13) sent by DCB Legal following the defendant’s CPR request the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows £60.00 parking charge notice and will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue. The defendant puts it to the claimant a request for strict proof when the signage changed to show £100.00 parking charge as the evidence provided by DCB Legal stipulated £60.00 parking charge was indeed the parking charge at the time defendant parked and included in Exhibit 1   4.3        The Claimant did not respect PAPLOC   4.4        It is also unfair to delay litigation for so long and claim nearly four years' interest.    No Keeper Liability  5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.  5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.    5.3        The claimant did not mention parking period instead only mentioned time 20:25 which is not sufficient to qualify as a parking period.   Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  The notice must -  (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;      No Breach of Contract  6.1      No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY.  6.2        The wording “Electric Bay Abuse” is not listed on their signs nor there is any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them.    Double Recovery  7.1        As well as the original £100 parking charge and £50 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  7.2        PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”. Which in this case is £100.  7.3        The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100.  Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off".  7.4        Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.  7.5        Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court V Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (...) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6        In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating “It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a addi8onal sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.  7.7        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  7.8        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  7.9        The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA AND THE CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.    In Conclusion  8.1        I believe the Claimant has got use to intimidation tactics and has got greedy. I believe the truth of the manor is the Claimant has used bullying tactics successfully for too long and is therefore assured that innocent drivers will fall into the trap of paying rather than going through the hours it takes to defend themselves. In the process, wasting the time of the Court, the time of the Defendant and everyone else who has advised the Defendant, out of sheer decency to help have a fair hearing and see justice delivered.  8.2        I am still in disbelief that I am being heard in this court, defending myself nearly 4 years after receiving a charge through my door. I have had to spend weeks’ worth of my life studying the letter of the law in order to defend myself from this ridiculous attempt at a swindle.  8.3        I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are 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 its truth. 
    • 'I thought why don’t we give it a try?' said student Swapnil Shrivastav, after inspiration struck during water rations.View the full article
    • honestly he/she just makes these ppc look so stupid everytime   fairplay lfi
    • Women share their stories of how they feel renting has held them back in life.View the full article
    • First, the Entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract. so it only  is an offer to treat.  Second, the sign does say % hours free without mentioning that it is also the maximum time one can stay. it would be logical to presume that there would be a fee for staying longer-but not £100. Looking at the PCN-as usual it does not comply with the protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First it does not specify the parking period since their figure includes driving from the entrance to the parking space, then later driving from the driving space to the exit. Second it does not inform the keeper that the driver is expected to pay the charge Section 9 [2]] (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; What that means is that you as keeper are no longer liable to pay the charge-only the driver is. As anyone with a valid insurance can drive your car they will have difficulty proving who was driving especially as you haven't appealed. In addition the Courts should your case get that far, do not accept that the driver and the keeper ae the same person. So just relax and ignore all their threats even from their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors.  Just do not ignore a Letter of Claim if you get one of those-come back to us so that you can send a snotty letter.
  • 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

DLA help please......


IdaInFife
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4086 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 folks,

 

My mother has been signed off work since Feb.

 

Something is wrong with her ankle and the docs cannot determine the cause. Has had tests and physiotherapy who are now stopped treating her as they feel they may be causing more damage than good. And now waiting on a MRI scan. Has to keep foot elevated at all times, can no longer drive, uses a stick to walk about indoors and to get to car and back, cannot walk for more then 10 meters or it becomes unbearable. Cannot stand in on place etc.

 

Also she has been hospitalized twice in the last 3 months due to her COPD as could not keep her oxygen levels up - found her passed out twice but very lucky did not do any physical harm so now we make sure someone is around as much as possible.

 

Applied for DLA - refused and applied for them to look at her claim again as COPD became worse.

 

They are up holding their original decision.

 

I just don't understand how she cannot qualify for it, I can get the letter and the reasons for it if needed.

 

Should we appeal?

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying Nys,

 

Sorry, what exactly do you mean medical evidence?

 

Her doctor and the nurse she sees every week, provided supporting letters.

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

DLA has absolutely nothing to do with medical or physical conditions, but to do with the care she needs with regard to her nutrition and hygiene, and what help she needs wrt her mobility. Who helps her currently and what do they do for her? That's what is important, they only look at the cause of the need for help to verify and confirm the need, the conditions alone will not suffice. I think you could do with advice as to how to fill the forms in, what needs to be said and how it should be said. Hopefully the CAB will help you with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah right i may have focused more on her condition rather than what she actually needs help with.

 

My father does everything like cooking and cleaning and getting her up and about, they have been getting info together for a stair lift and quotes incase this is permanent.

 

I will try CAB.

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, for the forms you'd need to say why/how she struggles or is inable to cook/prepare a meal/wash & dress herself. Say how other people help her with this, how many times a day they help her and for how long. That's the kind of thing that is needed for the DLA forms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks - she can't stand in one place so can't stand at cooker etc and i think i have failed to pro tray this as i have put yes she can cook :madgrin: thinksing she can but not at the moment.

 

Cab - none can help for at least 3 weeks :???:

 

Right am goona have to read about,

 

any advice of previous threads that anyone can think of that can help me construct an appeal?

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ida, haven't seen you for a little while. To my mind, the problem with COPD is that it is a catch-all phrase that covers a multitude of sins. There are also differing degrees. Many people with mild COPD have no real problems and can work ok. But this can colour peoples judgement and it isn't always taken seriously. I found life far easier when I narrowed down what was wrong with my lungs. So now, rather than say 'COPD' I say that I have Severe Chronic Bronchitis Stage 3. Most people can associate with that and understand how bad the condition is. Especially when you explain that there are only three stages and the third one is the one you'd want to avoid. Ooops.

It does have a huge knock-on effect to my life and when I filled in the DLA form I did so from that point of view. I was awarded indefinate Higher Rate Mobility and Middle Rate Care at the first time of asking. They did ask my GP for a report which, not surprisingly, supported what I had said.

Perhaps your Mum needs to nail down exactly what is wrong and also use her spirometry test results to support her claim. I took the time to learn about what the reuslts mean and explained them when I submitted them as medical evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ida, unfortunately I have seen people fail at Tribunal because their evidence contradicts what they put on their application form, it is a bumma that you've written she can cook tbh. You will just have to try and explain what you meant by that and why you didn't put she can't cook etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I suggest you contact your local DIAL office and ask them for help in completing the form. I ws referred to them by my local Jobcentre a few years ago.

 

That's if they aren't already snowed under with similar cases for ESA or DLA.

 

My local DIAL told me that I could not be seen for at least 3 months.

 

In common with most areas now in Britain of Welfare Rights workers being given the push by the council, and the long wait for help from the CAB or DIAL as well as AgeUK, I have come across a stunt that is seemingly springing up all over.

 

There are still Welfare Rights Officers that are employed by the councils in the Social Services Dept.

Unfortunately to get access to them you have to be in the Social Services system.

 

The way this [problem] is now operated is that if you apply for a Social Services assessment or if you are a 'carer', a Carers assessment, (anybody can apply for these, you don't need a GP referral). Once you get that assessment, you make one of the points as being that you don't know how to apply for a benefit, or are having problems getting a benefit. You will then be referred to the Welfare Rights dept (as you are now 'in the system') and get the best of help, quickly and at no cost to you.

 

Councils are just only waking up to this [problem] so they may in the future put a block on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Medical evidence is supporting letters basically.

 

Cleaning isn't counted for DLA; but cooking is. For the cooking test, it's nothing to do with skill and is about cooking a meal from scratch. (so no microwave meals)

 

Yes supporting letters that have been issued by a doctor, psychiatrist or such like.

 

I had to laugh at the DWP a while ago when after failing an application. I telephoned them to discuss what went wrong, and what further information they could put to the DM when carrying out a reconsideration.

They suggested, quite seriously, that maybe there is someone who knows the claimant well enough and sees what her problems are on a day to day basis. Maybe they could write in with a supporting letter.

 

Do you mean me, her husband as I do all of the looking after? Yes she said, a letter like that from you could be of real help.

 

Errr so I'm the husband, I'm the one that looks after her, fine so far, but you are saying that you would believe me when I say that what my wife has claimed for on the claim form is correct? Seriously you wouldn't expect me to say any differeni - I would back her statements up to the hilt, especially if it meant a few more bob a week!

 

If you want to I'll get our daughters and son's in law to write the same as well!!

 

Don't you think that we are all a teenie bit biased and would swear black is white to back up my wife?

 

I never did get any reply - she just suggested that that suggestion may then not be appropriate - too damn right it wasn't

 

It's like giving an alcoholic the front door key to a brewery!

 

As from next April the cooking test has changed under PIP. Gone has that ridiculous situation with a move towards what happens in every day life!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Just to update - I sent another claim in dec 2012 as now on oxygen 15 hours+ per day.

 

Just received letter now has higher component backdated to December,

 

thank you for all the advice.

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...