Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • NewsBot
      Former FTX executive Salame sentenced to over 7 years in prison

      By NewsBot · Posted

      He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • NewsBot
      US billionaire plans submersible trip to Titanic wreck

      By NewsBot · Posted

      The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • rocky_sharma
      MET/DCB(L) windscreen PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - electric bay abuse - ASDA Arla Old Dairy South Ruislip

      By rocky_sharma · Posted

      further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  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.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  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   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        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.   4.3 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.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   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, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    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;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  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. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 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 practice 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 Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment 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 recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional 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 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        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.   7.9        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).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  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.   
    • FTMDave
      Alliance ANPR PCN -Appealed - now Letter of Claim - paid for wrong carpark via app - Sea View Car park, Polzeath, Cornwall PL27 6SR

      By FTMDave · Posted

      Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • FTMDave
      MET/DCB(L) windscreen PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - electric bay abuse - ASDA Arla Old Dairy South Ruislip

      By FTMDave · Posted

      No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

I have a friend who has an ESA tribunal soon, help

Carvel

By Carvel
in Benefits and HMRC

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4256 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

estellyn

estellyn

Posted
Posted
Yes Osdset

 

I already have downloaded that I haven't picked though it all yet but there are particular instances which are similar to his situations. Please read below what I have saw in this.

 

 

Not sure if this recent decision may

 

be useful.

 

In CE/1757/2011 the claimant

 

suffered from mental health

 

problems and alcohol abuse.

 

Judge Levenson agrees in principle

 

with the Secretary of State that

 

needing the use of alcohol to visit

 

new places or engage in social

 

contact can be compared with the

 

use of self-hypnosis or relaxation

 

techniques or anti-anxiety

 

medication.

 

However, he does state that it is

 

matter of degree -

 

“A small glass of beer or lager

 

before going out might be one

 

thing, half a bottle of vodka would

 

be something else.”

 

In the latter kind of case, Judge

 

Levenson holds that Regulation

 

29(2)(b) would be brought into play

 

-

 

“…the claimant suffers from some

 

specific disease or bodily or mental

 

disablement and, by reasons of

 

such disease or disablement there

 

would be a substantial risk to the

 

mental or physical health of any

 

person if the claimant were found

 

not to have limited capability for

 

work.”

 

Judge Levenson outlines that the

 

First Tier Tribunal considered this in

 

the context of the claimant’s

 

attempts at self-harm. In respect of

 

alcohol it stated that “the alcohol

 

problem would not be a risk

 

because on the evidence of the

 

appellant he can function with the

 

amount he consumes for example

 

before he goes out”.

 

However, in upholding the

 

claimant’s appeal and remitting it

 

fore rehearing Judge Levenson says

 

that -

 

“It seems to me that if a claimant

 

has to drink significant amounts of

 

alcohol before going out, even to

 

the pub, and 3 ½ cans of alcohol

 

before facing the First Tier Tribunal

 

then it is incumbent on the First

 

Tier Tribunal to consider whether

 

and how much alcohol he might

 

need to drink before going to work,

 

on the way to work, and while at

 

work, in order to actually work.

 

Significant amounts on a daily basis

 

might well pose a substantial risk to

 

his own health and also (depending

 

on the nature of the work) to the

 

health of others. The First Tier

 

Tribunal was in error in not giving

 

proper consideration to this issue.

 

The new panel must do this.”

 

 

Would I be allowed to use past case hearings within his Submission Document?

 

How is this best applied? This case seems to me to be a powerful arguement for my friend. This is his first tribunal. Is he at risk or would he upset the Judge?

 

thank u

 

Yes you can quote upper tier decisions in the submission document - in fact it is advisable if you can find one that supports your case, as this one appears to. It doesn't upset the judge, as long as it is written respectfully. It is also wise if quoting precedent setting cases to send the submission in advance, so that the judge can obtain a copy of the decision to refer to.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites
Carvel

Carvel

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thank you Osdset, Nystagmite and Estellyn

 

You comments have given me confidence for me that I am going in the right direction. I think the use of the case by Judge Levenson is and could effective so thank you.

 

If any of you could help further with the descriptors 14c, 15 a, 15 c, 16 b and 16 c (Nystagmite helped with 6 b and 6 c) it would help me qualify his situation better.

 

thank u

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nystagmite

Nystagmite

Posted
Posted

15 is about getting around. What happens if your friend goes out? Think about their safety and safety of others. For example, do they wander off, etc.

 

14 is about coping with change. What happens if changes occur in daily routine? Can they manage with a minor change (such as last minute doctor appointment) ?

 

16 is about social engagement. Can your friend cope with others? Does your friends behaviour cause problems for others? Other people being friends and people they have never met before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Carvel

Carvel

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Nystagmite

 

Regards descriptor 15a, he just can't do that at all whilst sober due to social anxiety. Whilst he doesn't pose a danger to others, he would experience a high of anxiety. For example the last time he attempted to leave his front a few months ago, sober, just to go to the outside bin at the back of his block of flats, he experienced this anxiety, and turned back half way down the stairs and ran back into his flat as he felt a panic attack coming on.

 

Descriptor 14 this is a difficult one to qualify he don't really have any changes as such, all his days are all the same.

 

Descriptor 16a he is socially isloated really I only speak to him online (social website) and has no family. He does not engage anyone sober, he avoids it completely and only speaks to neighbours if he bumps into them, just saying hello etc, I brief conversation.

 

He has just had a set back today. The Work Program (voluntarily) alcohol worker cannot take him to tribunal or give any evidence as they are sub contracted by a4e and paid by the DWP. He doesn't want the tribunal to go through on paper evidence as he understands he will not win. The CAB told him they can't go with him. Any suggestions on advocacy?

 

thank u

Link to post
Share on other sites
Carvel

Carvel

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Estellyn thank you.

 

I have rang that number before today its rings then goes to a Skype answer machine unfortunately without reply. Maybe they don't exist anymore, I don't know.

 

Going back to the descriptors and as mentioned with his condition. He is essentially 'two people' with regards the WITH ALCOHOL and WITHOUT ALCOHOL. It is difficult to base an arguement with these factors for him. I understand you can only use one but which ones are best to apply?

 

thank u

Link to post
Share on other sites
osdset

osdset

Posted
Posted (edited)

deleted wrong thread

Edited by osdset

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
estellyn

estellyn

Posted
Posted
Hi Estellyn thank you.

 

I have rang that number before today its rings then goes to a Skype answer machine unfortunately without reply. Maybe they don't exist anymore, I don't know.

 

Going back t the descriptors and as mentioned with his condition. He is essentially 'two people' with regards the WITH ALCOHOL and WITHOUT ALCOHOL. It is difficult to base an arguement with these factors for him. I understand you can only use one but which ones are best to apply?

 

thank u

 

Can he do the descriptors without drinking - for instance going out and about? What about socialising, can he do that sober or does he need to drink, what effect does being drunk have on social encounters, can he be aggessive, confrontational difficult? What happens if there is a sudden change he needs to deal with, does this cause him to drink? What type of changes does he have the most difficulty dealing with. What are the long term effects of drinking on his health?

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites
Carvel

Carvel

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Estellyn

 

1. He doesn't leave his front door, at all, for any purpose or for any reason if he is sober. His anxiety stops him from doing this, he needs to have drank at least 6 cans of super strength cider before he can leave his front door, and even then he has anxiety.

 

2. He is socially isolated. He cannot engage anyone in any form sober.

 

3. He avoids social contact (physical) i am unaware of any confrontations as such but I am aware he has had some instances. For example when he was in a hostel staff give his personal door key to another resident in error and he was mad.

 

4. As for a change in situation. An example was yesterday. He was advised that his rep couldn't attend the tribunal. I know that affected him deeply as he was drinking more than he would and was not particularly pleasant towards me yesterday in emails.

 

5. He knows that what he is doing is going to kill him long term yet he continues to drink.

 

thank u

Link to post
Share on other sites
estellyn

estellyn

Posted
Posted
Hi Estellyn

 

1. He doesn't leave his front door, at all, for any purpose or for any reason if he is sober. His anxiety stops him from doing this, he needs to have drank at least 6 cans of super strength cider before he can leave his front door, and even then he has anxiety.

 

2. He is socially isolated. He cannot engage anyone in any form sober.

 

3. He avoids social contact (physical) i am unaware of any confrontations as such but I am aware he has had some instances. For example when he was in a hostel staff give his personal door key to another resident in error and he was mad.

 

4. As for a change in situation. An example was yesterday. He was advised that his rep couldn't attend the tribunal. I know that affected him deeply as he was drinking more than he would and was not particularly pleasant towards me yesterday in emails.

 

5. He knows that what he is doing is going to kill him long term yet he continues to drink.

 

thank u

 

These are the thypes of things you need to include, and tie to best descriptor in each section to describe his issues.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites
osdset

osdset

Posted
Posted
And if so can you please confirm what descriptors over and above i have mentioned. Perhaps an example of how to word it

 

thank u

 

Sorry if I have missed it in one of your previous post's, but when exactly is your friends appeal date?

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...