Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well done. Are you able to tell us more about how it went on the day please? HB
    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: Defence - 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

The morals of private parking thread


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3678 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 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Doesnt matter what the reason was. In the end they have to justify the charge as a genuine estimate of loss. They cant. If they asked for a fiver or tenner, then they could win. But they dont. They try and claim MUCH more. All PPC's do. They're just the rogue clampers that got banned and decided to set up PPC's in carparks instead.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Course it matters, if the op was using private land to avoid paying elsewhere. Supermarket car parks are for people to park and shop. The one near us is abused by football fans on matchdays, people who wanna shop can't get parked because it is full of football traffic. **** take.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are talking about morals now. The supermarket/PPC still needs to prove the PCN is a genuine estimate of their loss. Morals wont factor into it.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

This place is devoid of morals sometimes. I wonder how often people are advised how to get out of stuff, when they are in the wrong. Not saying that is the case of the op until he says how he came to be in breach of morrisons parking rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. Oh well. It's easy for the OP to get out of this. As i said before, someone with more knowledge them me or porky will be around soon.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

. I wonder how often people are advised how to get out of stuff, when they are in the wrong.

 

??????

 

ALL of the time.... We all "Breached" the parking terms.... We are here to "help" not "judge"

Link to post
Share on other sites

??????

 

ALL of the time.... We all "Breached" the parking terms.... We are here to "help" not "judge"

 

It's best to ignore strange posts like that f16, especially given his post history.

 

Lets focus on giving the OP the info that they need to solve the issue they came to CAG for.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with you breached the terms you agreed to by parking there, you live with it.

 

Question, would you advise somehow how to get out of a fine for parking in a disabled spot, when they weren't entitled to use it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with you breached the terms you agreed to by parking there, you live with it.

 

Question, would you advise somehow how to get out of a fine for parking in a disabled spot, when they weren't entitled to use it?

 

Easy. In a supermarket A PPC cannot issue a fine. In a supermarket the bay markings are purely graffiti and have no relevance in law.

 

You seem to be very misinformed on whats going on and prefer to stand on morals instead.

 

 

Now, i will 100% agree with you if the person in question did this all the time and stayed there for hours, say for example, they went to visit a relative and used a disabled bay as a parking space. However, we are not talking about anything like that. Therefore we deal with the facts we have, how it pertains to law/regulation etc etc .

 

Again, morals does not factor into this at all, and our continued discussion (argument? ) about it is simply serving to derail the thread away from helping the Op solve their issue.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread contains a discussion from another thread discussing the morals of private parking

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wish to continue the discussion, please do so with respect.

 

EDIT:

 

Oops. Sorry, forgot to re approve the posts.

:behindsofa::bolt:

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the point I was trying to make are that those who choose to park wrongly and know the consequences of doing so somehow try and exploit loopholes with the aid of some on here advising on legal get outs to avoid paying up. Surely if someone has abused the system (even the harsh world of private parking) and isn't a genuine victim of the system, then they should face the consequences of their actions. Albeit harsh consequences, as in the case of topics like these.

 

For example, someone might post they got caught on ANPR. They don't state the alleged offence (as most don't) and it could be something such as parking in a disabled bay and they weren't entitled to use the space. Surely they should be paying the fine for being lazy etc, rather than being told on here how to get out of paying. I don't think that the CAG should be used in cases like this and the facts of the offence should be established before advice is handed out willy nilly. I know you guys don't like to judge, but surely you don't want to be helping people in these circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very difficult on any forum to get the full story.

 

I shop at Morrisons and occasionally have a meal at the cafe (they do good meals BTW) and I do go over the limit so I could get a ticket however, the Morrisons I go to (Pakefield in Lowestoft) do not have ANPR, just a 'parking warden' and he is quite lax.

 

I agree that people who park all day should be targeted but for the occasional slip up and the punitive charge should be challenged on every occasion.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the situation. If someone is taking the mickey by staying there for hours and hours then fair enough. If someone has overstayed a short time while using the shops then I think a fine is not really justifiable.

 

 

Personally I don't like the concept of these £100 charges because they are completely disproportionate. It is an attempt to get a small number of people to subsidise the parking of everyone else - kind of like punitive bank charges.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my point though steam powered, people asking for help without explaining what the alleged offence is and people advising blindly means you could be helping anyone try and get out of any offence. Personally although the cag is here to help, people who do this don't deserve it, so I wouldn't advise until I knew the facts of the situation. I understand genuine cases need help and that probably makes up the majority, just don't understand the negative reaction when all I asked was what the offence was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no offence though. Thats the overriding point and why the thread is about MORALS. As i said to you in a PM, i agree with what you said, but we have to advise based on legislation/regulation etc. Not purely out of sheer morality.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

So on another thread, somebody who has already admitted to guilt, is being advised to appeal parking in a disabled bay despite not being entitled to do so. That is wrong and exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Surely the person should be taking it on the chin and be using a normal spot next time. I can't see how this forum should be used to evade fair penalties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is entitled to contest an offence. That is their legal right. Go and read the thread again instead of skimming it.

 

It clearly shows advice on how to contest it. Not us saying youre guilty so we're not helping.

 

If you want to do that then there are plenty of other forums around.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you want to help someone who has parked like that? I can't get my head round it. Makes my blood boil when I see people abusing spaces not intended for them and to help others. They deserve what punishment they get and it doesn't happen often enough to eradicate the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So on another thread, somebody who has already admitted to guilt, is being advised to appeal parking in a disabled bay despite not being entitled to do so. That is wrong and exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Surely the person should be taking it on the chin and be using a normal spot next time. I can't see how this forum should be used to evade fair penalties.

 

First off this thread is about the morals of private parking. Wasn't the thread you mention for a council issued pcn so the above post is off topic?

 

It seems from reading the posts properly that she wants to do that as a result of all the hassle and errors made by the council.

 

The OP has said all the way through that she was happy to pay the initial ticket and of course it is up to each individual whether they wish to appeal a ticket or not.

 

I mention this in the interests of balance.

 

Here is the thread referred to...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?404544-Urgent-advice-required-Bailiff-letter-delivered-today-(Parking-ticket)&p=4501075#post4501075

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, it was created initially with the basis of private parking in mind. Maybe not legally, but morally, private and council pcn are the same when it comes to issues such as parking where you aren't meant to.

 

Sure everyone has the right to appeal, but where there is guilt then they should be left to it and hopefully the appeal isn't successful. The bottom line is if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime. The op in that thread could have took the last disabled spot and it could have been your grandparent or disabled user who was denied a space as a result. It could have been mine, it could have been anybody's and it would definitely have been someone's.

 

Don't get me wrong, where people have been penalised wrongly and there is no infringement then surely that is what the appeal basis is for. Not for people to appeal who have parked wrongly and should be penalised. Exploiting loopholes serves no purpose as to the point of the penalty which is ultimately to stop people doing it again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect your opinion but simply do not agree with you. I do not agree that morally private and council PCN are the same. Private parking fines are a way of minimising the cost of operating car parks. Companies like Parking Eye do the job for peanuts, and they do it through penalising a small number of people. I think this is wrong - if a landlord wants to offer free parking he should pay for it. If he doesn't then everyone should pay the cost. The law says that contractual penalty charges must be proportionate to the actual loss which is suffered: there is a very good moral reason for this. It isn't fair to let the majority get free parking paid for by a minority being forced to pay disproportionate penalties.

 

It is the same principle as banks using disproportionate charges to subsidise the operation of current accounts. This is fundamentally unfair - either the bank should accept that it is a free service or else split the cost fairly (as in many other countries which often have a e.g. £2 monthly charge to have a current account).

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...