Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
-
Posts
-
By unclebulgaria67 · Posted
This is taken from the Sure Start Maternity Grant application form. I have made bold/underlined, what they have applied. They have not applied any exception which you think should be applied in your case. You may be able to get a Sure Start Maternity Grant if you live in England or Wales and : • your new baby is the only child under 16 years of age in your family, or • you already have a child or children under 16 years of age in your family and you are having a multiple birth, for example twins or triplets, or • you already have a child under 16 years of age living with you who is not your own, such as a younger brother or sister, that you are looking after because he or she is not able to be looked after by his or her own parents and they were over 12 months old when this arrangement started. Stepchildren or partner’s children under 16 years of age are counted as children living with you so if you have stepchildren or partner’s children under 16 years of age living with you, you may not be able to get a Sure Start Maternity Grant, and you or your partner are getting one of the following benefits: • Universal Credit • Child Tax Credit • Working Tax Credit which includes a disability or severe disability element • Income Support • Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance • Income-based Employment and Support Allowance • Pension Credit -
and here's the text from my first challenge letter to PCM - red bits I'm not sure whether apply - PCM are an IAS member not POPLA ============================ Name Address here Date: 16.01.2021 Without prejudice, except as to costs Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper PC16620810 This letter is a formal challenge to the issue of your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper as set out in the current BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice B.22 On 12.01.20 I was the registered keeper of a Hyundai Tucson, registration number XXX XXX. Before I decide how to deal with your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper, I should be grateful if you would first answer all the questions and deal with all the issues I have set out below. Once you have done so, I will be able to make an informed decision on how I deal with the matter. I should be grateful for specific answers to all questions raised. In this respect I remind you of the obligations set out in the current Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. I dispute your claim for the reasons set out below. Please note that although I dispute the whole basis of the parking charge, my main concern is its disproportionate and punitive level. 1. Your parking charge amount claim. Please explain on which of the following grounds your claim is based: (i) Damages for trespass (ii) Damages for breach of contract (iii) A contractual sum 2. Your loss. If it is your case that that a trespass was committed or that a contract was breached such that your claim is one for damages; please give me a full breakdown of the actual losses which evidences that this parking charge is a true reflection of the damages caused solely by the alleged parking contravention. 3. Your status – the creditor. Your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper simply mentions Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. seeking monies. Please tell me the actual creditor who is making this £100 parking charge demand. I need to know exactly who is making the claim and in what capacity. I also must first draw your attention to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Keeper liability for parking charges incurred on private land. “The Creditor or its agent must have made application to the DVLA for your name and address either · NOT EARLIER than 28 days after the vehicle was parked (where a Notice to Driver was issued); or · NOT LATER than 14 days after the vehicle was parked (where a Notice to Driver was not issued)”. Your letter dated 13/01/202021 alleges that an NTD (in your terms a PCN) was affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle at 12:14 in Southbrook Rise SO15. This is wholly incorrect, no NTD (PCN) invoice was affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle. Fortunately for yourselves this was the case as any attempt to touch the vehicle in question could have resulted in damage and a claim made against yourselves for touching the property of the registered keeper. You may well have issued a PCN but as no such NTD was put on the vehicle as the driver has confirmed the employee of your company walked off from the driver of the vehicle on that day. So your request for details was made beyond the 14 day time limit as the registered keeper had no PCN affixed to their vehicle to examine. I also draw your attention to the prior case of Jopson v Homeguard (2016) as the homeowner was being assisted in loading her chattels into a van and the alleged vehicle as being moved house and that has been established as clear legitimate reasons for using a residents car park in law your claim of a parking charge is illegitimate and void. On the incident in question an employee of PCM approached the driver & leaseholder loading the van and car heavy furniture and after explaining it was being loaded for moving home she advised the vehicles could stay and load up and walked off. Seeing as under Jopson v Homeguard (2016) residents and their agents are entitled to be able to load vehicles for said cases and as the employee agreed to this the driver and homeowner continued to load up as quickly as possible. Your own photographic evidence actually clearly shows the box van and the alleged vehicle with its tail gate open as it was being loaded. The employee returned later on while the driver was continuing to load in the back of the van and alleged vehicle, she took a picture of the car and when asked what she was doing went back on her original statement saying now it had no permit and was not between the lines either. Again which was it that was at issue? Both vehicles were stopped loading up in the same way. Your letter itself states PCN was “For parked outside of a marked bay/ Outside of marked lines/On restricted roadway/landscaped/paved areas or causing an obstruction to others” Which is it? Can you make your mind up? That it didn’t have a permit or that it was across the lines or one of the other alleged issues? In any case, as vehicles and residents are entitled to load furniture under current law any of your alleged breaches are once again null and void. The attached photo also shows the van for loading at the same time and across the lines, however, it has been issued no such NTD or NTK. Either your rules apply equally or they don’t. The hire van also had no permit seeing as the tenant does have one of your permits but this is only for the car registered to themselves and not a van loading furniture and chattels. This was further explained to your employee at the time. The driver confirms that the alleged vehicle was moved immediately as the employee returned and tried to sneak up to the vehicle just as the driver was loading the vehicles. The employee then changed their earlier statement “allowing” loading so they moved it into the roadway upon hearing this but the employee then came onto the street in the roadway which is not within the land being discussed and tried to push an NTD into their hand demanding they take it. Under current distancing regulations and guidance she was far too close to the driver, had no PPE equipment on and did not maintain a 1 or 2 metre distance, actually touching the driver could have been construed as an assault in any case and could have contaminated them even from her equipment and breath. 4. Ownership of premises. Please tell me who owns the car park as I wish to send them a copy of this letter. The driver of the vehicle is a leaseholder of this apartment block with a dedicated parking space. The lease governs the behaviours, relationships, rights and obligations of the parties to it. The claim is for a parking charge but the amounts due by the driver on an ongoing basis under the lease do not include parking charges. The lease gives access to the leaseholder to common parts of the development such as access roads and laydown areas which have conferred a right for the driver to park in that location, in order to facilitate the unloading of an awkward and heavy load from the vehicle into the apartment (large bed delivery or house removal) – just like Jopson in Jopson v Homeguard. 5. Contractual Authority (as required by BPA Ltd AOS CoP B.7) Please provide me with a copy of the contract between your company and the landowner/landholder that provides the necessary contractual written authority for the issue and enforcement of your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper. 6. Signage. If it is your case that a contract has been breached or that a contractual sum is now due, please send me photographs of the signs that you display and upon which you seek to evidence that a lawful and legally enforceable contract was been entered into. Please ensure that the photographs show the terms and conditions in a clear and legible manner. Please provide me with a diagram showing the locations and layout of those signs at the car park. Also provide evidence that the wording is in plain and intelligible language and in sufficiently large print as to be legible to a driver at the car park’s actual entry point. The small print on the signage does not allow the driver of any vehicle to read the terms and conditions of the car park until they are already in the car park and have been photographed by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera. There is no opportunity to make a decision not to enter the car park after reading the signs. As the wording of the signage forbids parking without a permit, then there is no offer to park and therefore no contract. The Claimant’s signage is forbidding in that it states in capital letters “ENFORCEMENT IN OPERATION 24 HOURS” Any breach of terms and conditions will result in the driver being liable for a charge of £100. It therefore seeks to offer parking there via a parking charge breach of terms and conditions, contrary to the finding in PCM-UK v Bull. As the judge said in PCM-UK v Bull “However, in my judgment, there was never any contractual relationship, whether one categorises it as a licence or simply some form of contractual permission, because that is precisely what PCM were not giving to people who parked on the roadway” As you know in that instance as I believe you are aware, a trespass may possibly have occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company. 7. Summary I look forward to receiving your acknowledgement within 14 days and as there are no ‘exceptional circumstances’ your comprehensive reply within 35 days (in accordance with the BPA AOS Code of Practice B.22.8). I will then be able to make an informed decision as to how I deal with your Parking Charge Notice – Notice to Keeper. If you reject this challenge or fail to address the issues that have been raised then, in accordance with the BPA AOS Code of Practice 22.12, please ensure that you enclose all the required information (including any necessary ‘IAS code’) so that I may immediately refer the matter for their decision. If you fail to follow any of the procedures outlined in the BPA AOS Code of Practice or your legal requirements under the Protection of Freedoms Act, or the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct then I will make a formal complaint to the DVLA Data Sharing Policy Group, D16. I may make further representation to the Information Commissioner under GDPR regulations for any potential breach of use of my information. Please Note: Unless you have specifically requested it and received my express permission, you do not have my authority to disclose or refer this letter or any other communication from me to any other person or organisation. Yours Name here -
By unclebulgaria67 · Posted
Without reading into the issues you discuss in your post, not sure of the legal position here. But what you can do, is ask the DWP for a written statement of reason confirming the legislation they have applied to decline your benefit claim and also how they have applied this legislation in your case. When you contact them asking for the written statement of reason, ask them to note that you will be submitting a mandatory reconsideration and will be providing further information, once you have the written statement of reason from them. -
Oh dear. The Berkley Centre, and Simple Simon (the owner of VCS & Excel) are both very well known to the forum. I mentioned contempt for the law. We have a case at the moment where Simon is trying to chisel money out of a motorist for stopping in a "no stopping area" ... at a zebra crossing ... with a pedestrian walking on it. I kid you not. The motorist would have been charged with murder if they had stuck to Simon's silly signs. The good news is that VCS have an excellent track record of getting an absolute legal thumping at the Berkley Centre. We have had two threads this week where Simon has lost court cases (not at the Berkley Centre). Do a search for "VCS Excel snotty letter" and post up a draft of what you intend to send. -
Hi everyone, hope you can help and check my letter adapted from Parking Cowboys template and offer any guidance I may have missed or messed up - been careful not to say who was the driver here as well as on letter so hope it still makes sense SUMMARY - Moving my sister out of her flat in Southampton a PCM employee (warden type) turned up as the parties involved were moving furniture into the hire van and the registered keeper's vehicle. Tailgates were open and on the incident in question an employee (warden type) of PCM approached the "driver" & my sister (leaseholder) loading the van and car heavy furniture and after explaining it was being loaded for moving home she advised the vehicles could stay and load up and walked off. Her English was not great however, it must be said. The employee returned later on while the driver was continuing to load in the back of the van and alleged vehicle, she took a picture of the car and when asked what she was doing went back on her original statement saying now it was not between the lines either and was issuing a "ticket" Both vehicles were stopped loading up in the same way. Their own photographic evidence actually clearly shows the box van and the alleged vehicle with its tail gate open as it was being loaded. The attached photo also shows the van for loading at the same time and across the lines, however, it has been issued no such NTD or NTK. Either so called "rules" apply equally or they don’t. The vehicle was moved immediately as the employee returned as she had tried to sneak up to the vehicle and he saw her in the reflection of the building windows just as the driver was loading the vehicles up. The employee then changed their earlier statement “allowing” loading so they moved it into the roadway upon hearing this, but the employee then came onto the street in the roadway which is not within the land being discussed and tried to push an NTD into their hand demanding they take it. They refused to accept it from her hand . So this week -NTK letter dated 13/01/202021 alleges that a PCN was affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle at 12:14 in Southbrook Rise SO15. No NTD (PCN) invoice was affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle as the driver moved it into the road when realised she was trying to issue a penalty charge. PCM may have issued a PCN but as no such NTD was put on the vehicle as the PCM employee of the company walked off from the driver of the vehicle on that day. So I've also objected to their request for details as was made beyond the 14 day time limit as the registered keeper had no PCN affixed to their vehicle to examine. Most of all I have used the other standard objections in Parking Cowboys template but after bit of googling also the case of Jopson v Homeguard (2016) as the homeowner was being assisted in loading her chattels into van and the alleged vehicle as being moved house and that has been established as clear legitimate reasons for using a residents car park in law. Have attached the pictures they sent me - have attached my initial reply letter here but will put on next post in full so it's not too much to read on this post too thanks in advance PCMUK Challenge 130121 website version.docx
-
-
Our picks
-
Post in Court Claim Against Hermes - item sent via Packlink was lost/tampered with **WON**
jj58 posted a post in a topic,
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!
Picked By
BankFodder, -
-
***Hermes and mediation hints ***
BankFodder posted a topic in Postal and Delivery Services,
Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003- 1 reply
Picked By
BankFodder, -
Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help
waz70 posted a topic in NatWest Bank,
Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786- 31 replies
Picked By
waz70, -
Hermes lost parcel. **WON**
murraynt posted a topic in Postal and Delivery Services,
Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/-
- 49 replies
-
-
SD from lowells etc - old halifax card, terminated before DN expiry - help
Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2635 days.
If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.
If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.
Thank you
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Recommended Posts