Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

wescot are very sneaky


furyan
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4215 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

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

sorry ford

i was seeking advice from this forum at start but when i didnt get any replies for a week or so i did seek legal advice

 

no probs. don't apologise. legal advice is always a good thing if poss. will they be representing you on monday?

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything within referring to the case? If not did you refer to the statement in your w/s and did you file/serve a copy?

nope there is only 1 account on there which is her current 1

no didnt file and serve as only just found it.

misses is terrible at filing papers lol

 

 

no ford i couldnt afford them so its just me and the misses

absolutely bricking myself

Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately no.

only thing that was basically put in the statement is that we didnt recieve any letters from wescot and that we didnt know anything about the debt.

so am i screwed

or as it refers to a provident account can i not say that the only account we have with provident is upto date and then use that as proof

Link to post
Share on other sites

....

no ford i couldnt afford them so its just me and the misses

absolutely bricking myself

 

ok, as per my post #44. if address/name issue fails, then focus on poss defence eg stat bar etc. but mention defence also. you are litigant in person so J should take that into account.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're certain this would disprove their claim then you'll have to try something, even if it fails on the day you'd be kicking yourself afterwards for not giving it a shot.

 

Try the following, hand to the usher:

 

 

 

 

Statement: Relief from Sanctions

Defendant: xxxxx

Exhibits: xxxxx

Date: xxxxx

Claim Number: xxxxx

 

 

IN THE xxxxxxxxx

county courtlink3.gif

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxx (CLAIMANT)

v

xxxxxxxxxxx (DEFENDANT)

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS CPR 3.9

 

I, xxxxx, of xxxx WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

 

1. I am a litigant in person of the above address.

 

2. I represent myself as the Defendant against xxxxxxxx.

 

3. I make this statement in response to the Claimants witness evidence.

 

4. The Claimants case rests upon particulars which do not reconcile with the averred original creditors data, to grant relief to set aside the case would allow the Defendant to fully plead its position in the interests of the administration of justice.

 

5. In claiming relief; the Defendant respectfully requests that the court should allow the attached statement of account produced by the original creditor as evidence in chief.

 

6. I confirm that [in error] I failed to serve the attached prior to the claimants submission in response to the current set aside application. I appreciate that this would have affected the Claimants position as it is clear that no debt was due or outstanding, I confirm that prejudice was neither intended or sought.

 

7. In making this statement, I attach exhibit marked xx

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

 

Signed: xxxxxxxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

good luck for tomorrow. it seems that they have the right address? so it may rest on the defence issue. but, you've had sol legal advice so you're aware of things. let us know how it goes.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

he accepted all evidence i produced i.e nothing on credit files provident do not have any trace of such an account number.

the fact that it was also in wrong name

ie.jackie blogs

when her name is jaqueline blogs which is more then a typo

he even asked how they could pursue a case to court without having a copy of the original agreement.

wescot did state that they dont have any paper work on file they also suggested that the debt could be from 2005 with which i said that would make it statue barred and shouldnt have been taken to court.

the judge also asked if they had sent a copy of the agreement they replied that none was asked for

i then told the judge that i had sent a subject access request for all details including statement of the account and original agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

This does sound as though the judge wasn't up for taking any prisoners today :-) I would be inclined to start getting your costs together in the event that they agree the set aside and discontinue the case. If it is def statute barred it would seem sensible and less costly for them to come clean at the earliest opportunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lets hope that is the case.

wescot tried to get costs added this time but the judge did ask why.

and costs were defered.

the dj has asked that the case be infront of him again on the 22oct

the SAR was signed for on the 30th of last month

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont worry im watching

and i will carry on with i aint letting these people off the hook

the judge didnt grant the set aside

but on the 22nd oct he is goin to deal with set aside and hear the case completely

so once i get the copy of the agreement and had a look at it i need to get the def filed and served

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a witness statement you'll need to draft for the hearing on the 22nd. Give me a nudge nearer the time and I'll give you a hand tweaking it to suit any disclosed data. If Wescot confirm in the meantime that an 'error' has been made there's a couple of options you could consider. We can take a look at those [options] as and when anything new appears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah will wait and see what happens.

im hoping they dont find a copy of the agreement which from what ive read on here they tend to struggle with.

any paper work ive sent to them so far has a typed sig on it so they wont be able to copy it

Link to post
Share on other sites

he accepted all evidence i produced i.e nothing on credit files provident do not have any trace of such an account number.

the fact that it was also in wrong name

ie.jackie blogs

when her name is jaqueline blogs which is more then a typo

he even asked how they could pursue a case to court without having a copy of the original agreement.

wescot did state that they dont have any paper work on file they also suggested that the debt could be from 2005 with which i said that would make it statue barred and shouldnt have been taken to court.

the judge also asked if they had sent a copy of the agreement they replied that none was asked for

i then told the judge that i had sent a subject access request for all details including statement of the account and original agreement

 

sounds good so far furyan.

interesting that j questioned why court without original agreement. and ordered production of it. and that 'jackie' is not acceptable (unless i supposed they come up with an original in which jackie has been given as name)

would the 28 days allow for the 40 day time limit re sar?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...