Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've had another look at their WS and as it definitely states that they are pursuing you as the keeper in point 19 they must lose their case because their PCN is not compliant with PoFA on two counts.  First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail. The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companys have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   The entrance sign does not include the T&Cs so it is only an offer to treat  not  an offer of a contract. Their only appears to be one type of sign inside the car park which is unusual and a lot of the signage is in too small a print to be acceptable in Law as capable of forming a contract. The signage also includes unlawful demands for extra charges which makes the whole contract invalid.  PoFA 2012 made it quite clear that the maximum  amount claimed was the amount on the sign. This has been reinforced by the Private Parking Code of Practice which states that no extra charges can be made over the signage figure. Indeed a Government Minister is quoted as saying that the extra charges demanded by parking companies are "a rip off" yet they still include them. They are an abuse of process and should be subject to adding exemplary costs payable to the motorist to act as a deterrent to rogue car parking companies.   They have no planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras which means that in addition to them being unlawful because of the extra charges they are also illegal because they have not been given permission to be there under  the Town and Country [Advertisements} Regulations  1969. They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   So it is not as if this is a secret-since it has been out since February 7th 2022 . You would have thought that as this Code was designed to root out the rogues in the industry that the parking industry would already have made adjustments to their activities in order to align themselves with the will of Parliament as proposed by Minister Neil O'Brien  who said   "The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible."   Ignorance of the Law is no excuse but even Gladstones are surely aware that the extra charges are unlawful  it beggars belief that they can aver that they have told the truth on their WS.
    • Evening all,   I am looking for a little bit of advice, any would be appreciated. I am a bit hesitant in giving all the in's and out's as I am not sure of the forums procedures and I do not want to compromise my situation.   Basically as a result of a few issues in my life inflicted/self inflicted I ended up in a bad situation financially. A company brought a debt off a lender I had used and took me to court, I really mis-managed this and although I attended court with a case the verdict went against me. I accepted this but never heard anything back from them and admittedly as I was struggling didn't pro actively seek them out to make payment. So, on my Credit report I had a CCJ due to expire Sept. 2022, which I associated to that particular incident. Anyhow, I have recently received a Notice of Application for Attachment of earnings order, however, this is regarding a completely different debt/Court procedure to the one I participated in. The creditor, to my knowledge has never contacted me and until this week I have never received any correspondence to this case from the creditor or county court.    Basically, I was just after a bit of advice, on how to go about this. I am worried that if my employer is advised of the CCJ, it makes my position uncomfortable, maybe untenable which will only be negative to my situation.    So can I still contest this and possibly get it removed via the courts, can I delay it for 3 months to get it statue barred, do I pay the whole amount (to a company whom brought it at a pittance) or do pay it off and if so, can the figure be negotiated and how long would it affect me credit score?   I apologise for the number of questions, and appreciate any advice. My concern is the application ruining a very good job for me.   Thanks in advance
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

ESA 3 Form


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3467 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

A friend migrated from Contribution Based Incapacity Benefit to Contribution Based ESA Support Group.


At the time of the migration, she was in receipt of High Rate Mobility DLA. When she was transfered to ESA Contribution Support Group, she was advised to ask for her DLA to be reviewed. She is now receiving High Rate Mobility and High Rate Care DLA.


She was advised to claim Severe and Enhanced Disability Premium and completed form IS10.


She has now received ESA3 Form to complete with a letter stating 'in order to consider your entitlement to these premiums you need to be in receipt of income related esa and please complete the enclosed form enclosing all financial documents.


Does this mean that the dwp want to change her from Contribution Based esa to I B esa or is it just for the severe and enhanced disability premiums that she will be on income related ESA and will receive the rest of her esa contribution based?


Any advice please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To qualify for the premiums u need to be getting the income based ESA, they will still give u the Cont based but will deduct it from the income based meaning you will get the cont based + the extra amounts for the premiums. BUT it depends on whether u qualify for Income bsed ESA

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi. Some further thoughts regarding the ESA 3 form.


I was sent one of these after successfully appealing the DWP decision to put me into a WRAG,


with the help of the RNIB legal team (I'm registered blind).


After contact from the RNIB the DWP now say that the form was sent in error.


The form is not available on the DWP website as a PDF,

which makes it very difficult for visually impaired persons to complete such forms, without relying on outside help.


I have scanned my copy of the form (50 pages, and so quite large!), and it is available from my website, if anyone needs a copy.


Hope this is helpful for other forum members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi Guitaralf,

Could you possibly email me your copy fo the ESA3, I've been requesting one since the 5th of November (even by 2 registered letters to DWP), not received any requested by numberous telephone calls and my local DWP have never heard of the form!! My housing benefit is suspended pending my confirmation of benefits!!!

Kind regards,


Link to post
Share on other sites

This file is password protected, which for material intended for public use, issued by a public body, is pretty nonsensical. Being able to complete these forms on computer, and to then print them out, is essential for visually disabled persons, and would probably fall under the legal Disability Discrimination Act definition of a 'reasonable adjustment'. There are ways to remove such protection, but they are probably illegal, and in any case, why should anyone have to do this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the reason behind it but I assume it's to do with the fact that it is one way to ensure that the company who print and provide the forms are paid for each copy. JCP cannot print theses forms either as it is protected there too.


When Universal Credit kicks in everything will be online and there will be no paper forms to complete

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...