Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I did not receive any paper work back from Lowells, but I did receive a confirmation letter from their solicitors on their behalf asking me to communicate with them only, and not Lowells. They also offered payment plans and options to avoid any further court action.  I did not respond to this letter in any form.   Tomorrow is Day 33, and I was wondering if I should put in my defence this evening, or should I wait until tomorrow, in case anything arrives in the post in the morning? I am worried in case I am counting the 33 days wrong, and it is today and not tomorrow. (claim was submitted 19th March).
    • lookforinfo, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that just related to official civil enforcement officers, i.e.  Council Traffic Wardens,  who are employed by an enforcement authority. That is local councils for instance or a private company employed by a council.   PCM are a private company trying to obtain payment from a speculative invoice and have no authority to issue PCN's.        
    • can i use this......   No legitimate interest in enforcing a charge – One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying; if they did not issue penalties then the car park would be unfairly used. The flip side of this is that if there were no legitimate interest, then the charge would be an unenforceable penalty… The following are examples of charges that are arguably therefore penalties: Parking in a space you own but forgetting to display your permit Entering an incorrect VRN into a terminal Underpaying in a car park where by paying the vehicle is fully entitled to be there Parking outside a bay when no other cars are stopped from parking
    • You said to stop paying od/current acc debts. Are they not likely to take any action. And should I send sar requests to both the original creditor and the dca 
    • I, **** **** am the Defendant in this claim.    I was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number ******.   A parking ticket was purchased. (Exhibit A1)   I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay. (Exhibit A2)   I returned to my car to find a PCN attached to the window. (Exhibit A3)   I returned to the site several weeks later as I had been advised to take pictures of the signage, I found the space where I had been parked to now have been clearly marked with yellow paint. (Exhibit A4)   The sign closest to where my vehicle was parked note the small black font for the penalty charge details. (Exhibit A5)     PREAMBLE   Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit A1, Exhibit A2 and so on.   The ISSUES   9.    It is denied that the Defendant breached any of the claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.   10. I parked in what I believed to be a parking bay (Exhibit A2) I had no reason to believe it was anything other than a parking bay.   11. The yellow lines were painted over the bay later (Exhibit A4) clearly if those yellow lines were present the day, I received the PCN, I would have parked elsewhere.   It is also disputed that the Claimants signage erected with the car park is of a large enough font and displayed adequately for patrons to read thoroughly. The £100 penalty charge is not highlighted in large enough font to be immediately noticeable, and it is unclear as to when this applies. (Exhibit A5)   13. Further, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked within the allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term ‘allocated parking bay’', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.   14. There is no loss incurred by PPS Ltd, I purchased a ticket (Exhibit A1) I was not obstructing anyone, I left well before my ticket expiry.   15. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The extra, additional costs are an attempt at double recovery.   16. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.   17. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2888 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

She gets Pension Savings Credit and Attendance Allowance (the lower one). No one claims carers allowance which I understand is relevant as she does not yet require the 35 hours a week I understand I would need to be with her. I do have POA for her but I like to do things with her unless she would be too stressed - or I would :-) - so being prepared helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does she live alone? If the people she lives are either 18, registered blind, receive attendance allowance or mid or high rate care DLA, they're disregarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong but I don't think this is something you claim for separately. It's a premium that's added on automatically to certain benefits if your mother is entitled to it. That's how it always worked with myself anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about SPC, but the form to claim the SDP on ESA is very simple. All it really asks is for the claimant to confirm that they live alone or if anyone does live with them, it asks them to explain the relationship between the people in the house.

 

The form is no more than about two pages long - one of the simplest benefit forms there is.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I did say I might be wrong. I've not filled in any claim forms since 2007 and anytime I claimed JSA in between jobs up until I could no longer work my premiums were added automatically. I'm on high rate of DLA care and mob so might be different for people in receipt of those. Or maybe I just don't remember...more likely the case :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I did say I might be wrong. I've not filled in any claim forms since 2007 and anytime I claimed JSA in between jobs up until I could no longer work my premiums were added automatically. I'm on high rate of DLA care and mob so might be different for people in receipt of those. Or maybe I just don't remember...more likely the case :)

 

Well, you're basically remembering correctly - premiums that depend only on the claimant being in receipt of another benefit such as DLA, AA or CA are generally added automatically as you say. The SDP is an exception as it requires details about a claimant's living arrangements that are not stored by default on the computer system.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
She lives alone Nystagmite' date=' actually on her own as opposed to with disregarded (sounds harsh - sorry) people.[/quote']

I dont think Nystagmite was saying your Mother will be Disregarded, what was meant was, the payments will be diregarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont think Nystagmite was saying your Mother will be Disregarded, what was meant was, the payments will be diregarded.

 

What was meant was that when the DWP decides if you "live alone", which needs to be the case to be entitled to the SDP, certain people are disregarded - that is, classed as not living with you. For example, a person might share a flat with another tenant, each having their own separate contracts with the landlord. Such people don't count as "living with you" for SDP purposes.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont think Nystagmite was saying your Mother will be Disregarded, what was meant was, the payments will be diregarded.

 

I did understand Swinginapig. I think it is actually any income received by the people listed that would be disregarded but really, who invented this system. I think I am quite on the ball - certainly more than my 92 year old mother with Alzheimer's could possibly be so how do they think we can sort out all these different ifs, buts and maybes :-)

 

Whoops - just seen antone's post which puts it very clearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I did understand Swinginapig. I think it is actually any income received by the people listed that would be disregarded but really, who invented this system. I think I am quite on the ball - certainly more than my 92 year old mother with Alzheimer's could possibly be so how do they think we can sort out all these different ifs, buts and maybes :-)

 

Whoops - just seen antone's post which puts it very clearly.

Sorry Yes thats true, this is what I meant, I must have read your post wrong???? I thought you was sying your Mother would be disregarded...sorry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's all sorted. Apparently she was getting it! The other thing I have realised is that if I end up claiming Carer's Allowance (I don't spend 35 hours with her at the moment) Mum would loose this premium and, unless I was getting Pension Credit I would not actually get anything - but I could have got that wrong too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...