Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

Parking with Ease 'instructing solicitors'


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2866 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

Hi

 

I was just reading through these messages.

 

I have found myself in the same position,

 

I parked on Brockholes on mon 26th may,

I did not know I had to pay for parking as where I was directed to park on a grass verge not in the main car park,

 

there was no signage

no meter

nothing where we parked

so did not pay for parking then

 

I got a letter through post 18 days later saying exactly the same as yours I

 

explained i saw no signage

 

they said i still had to pay and that there was a sign as we came through the entrance

 

i then appealed through IAS and it was dismissed

saying there was signs around the park and although i did not see them it is still my responsibility.

 

yesterday i got a letter through the post saying they where taking legal action

i messaged them and told them that they should have sent the ntk within 14 days which they didn't it was 18 days

 

they are saying this is not correct,

 

this is what they said

 

(Unfortunately you are incorrect in your information.

As you have admitted that you were the driver

we are not relying on keeper liability

so no requirement to comply with POFA

and therefore we will be instructing our solicitors to commence legal action on Monday against you)

 

I have never said i was the driver

 

infact my husband was driving.

 

i really don't know where to go from here

 

any advice would be welcome

 

thanks Sarah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I was just reading through these messages. I have found myself in the same position, I parked on Brockholes on mon 26th may, I did not know I had to pay for parking as where I was directed to park on a grass verge not in the main car park, there was no signage no metre nothing where we parked so did not pay for parking then I got a letter through post 18 days later saying exactly the same as yours I explained i saw no signage they said i still had to pay and that there was a sign as we came through the entrance i then appealed through IAS and it was dismissed saying there was signs around the park and although i did not see them it is still my responsibility. yesterday i got a letter through the post saying they where taking legal action i messaged them and told them that they should have sent the ntk within 14 days which they didn't it was 18 days they are saying this is not correct, this is what they said (Unfortunately you are incorrect in your information. As you have admitted that you were the driver we are not relying on keeper liability so no requirement to comply with POFA and therefore we will be instructing our solicitors to commence legal action on Monday against you)

I have never said i was the driver infact my husband was driving. i really don't know where to go from here any advice would be welcome thanks Sarah.

 

It is up to PWE to prove who the driver was if they wish to pursue them for this charge.

If you haven't admitted that you were the driver then write one letter to PWE.

 

State that you were not the driver at the time they are quoting, and you have no obligation to say who was.

Tell them to address all further correspondence to the driver.

Any more letters to you will be treated as harassment, and action will be taken against PWE.

 

Something like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your advice I will message them and see what there reply is. Regarding the 14 days notice is this correct. thanks sarah.

 

For the RK to be held liable under the POFA 2012, then an ANPR 'ticket ' has to be received within fourteen days of the parking incident. If it is not, then only the driver can be held liable.

 

Reading your first post again, if your appeal to PWE was like that, then you have identified yourself as the driver...

 

" I parked... " " I saw no signage... "

Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, if its private land, just use the GPEOL defence and let the PPC waste it's time and money,

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

they are talkimg rubbish, as usual. they have 14 dyas to get the notice to the keeper of the vehicle and then if the keeper wishes to they can identify the driver and PWE can contact then and the clock starts again for the time that the DRIVER has to pay or appeal. Identifying yourself as the driver doesnt alter the time they have to send out that first notice.

If it wasnt for the PoFA they would not be using ANPR in the first place as they wouildnt win a claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the RK to be held liable under the POFA 2012, then an ANPR 'ticket ' has to be received within fourteen days of the parking incident. If it is not, then only the driver can be held liable.

 

Just to clear something up, it's received within 14 days starting from the day after the parking incident. So, the day you actually parked plus 14 days thumbsup.gif

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clear something up, it's received within 14 days starting from the day after the parking incident. So, the day you actually parked plus 14 days thumbsup.gif

 

Correct.

 

So not 18 days.... :tongue:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.

 

So not 18 days.... :tongue:

 

No, definitely not 18 days. The cheeky swines.

 

 

And @sarahodea

 

Here's the relevant parts from the IPC Codes of Practice.

 

5.1 The Notice to the Keeper must; and

5.1(l) Be given by;

1) Handing it to the keeper, or

2) Leaving it at his current address, or

3) Sending it by post to his current address. and

5.1(m) Be given so that it will be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.

So Parking With(out) Ease really don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Out of interest, what was the date on the NTK?

  • Confused 1

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult in that the IAS have not found in your favour!

 

It might be worth writing to the car park owner (not sure if this is someone like the National Trust, Lowther Estates, etc.)

and explaining the situation, and

 

also finding out who the MP is for the area,

 

mailing them and copying in your local MP who has to be the one to address the issue.

 

Send a complaint via BBC Watchdog too,

 

and to the Westmoreland Gazette.

 

Although these actions may not result in the charge being dropped,

 

there are obviously real problems with the Park with Ease system that need to be addressed.

 

Inadequate signage is a great example.

 

Sorry I can't be of more help but good luck!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are going after the driver so 14, 15, 18 days makes no difference.

 

PWE are saying the RK has admitted being the driver.

 

Only the OP and PWE know what has been exchanged between themselves at the moment.

 

@sarahodea

 

Has all contact been email so far?

 

You need to put in writing, in a letter with proof of postage, that you were not the driver on the day in question.

 

That is if you weren't the driver of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no!!!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

please keep to this thread now sara

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks for all your advice I don't think I have a leg to stand on with this think I might have to pay up :( gutted.

 

No you don't have to pay up.

 

Why are PWE saying you admitted being the driver?

Do as post #4.

 

If PWE want to start legal proceedings, then they have to send a compliant Letter Before Action.

Can you post up the letter you received?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont have to pay up. Just use the GPEOL defence and theyre done.

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

Hi I am not sure how I post the letter on here I am not right good with computers I have sent a message to park with ease saying I was not the driver on the day and they replied saying.

Thank you for your email. It is clear that you are not and have not paid for parking even though you were present at the car park and have admitted this in previous emails. We will obviously use this evidence when the court claim is submitted.

As previously stated if the charge of £50 is not paid then a claim will be issued in the county court on Monday for the full amount plus costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As ive said before, i would let them submit the claim, then you just throw GPEOL at them and laugh. They think theyve got a mug they can fleece. You need to show them they havent.

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

Hi I am not sure how I post the letter on here I am not right good with computers I have sent a message to park with ease saying I was not the driver on the day and they replied saying.

Thank you for your email. It is clear that you are not and have not paid for parking even though you were present at the car park and have admitted this in previous emails. We will obviously use this evidence when the court claim is submitted.

As previously stated if the charge of £50 is not paid then a claim will be issued in the county court on Monday for the full amount plus costs.

 

That is from today?

So they are trying to scare you into paying NOW, before tomorrow.

You have told them you were not the driver.

They are backtracking by saying you were in the car park.

You were, as a passenger.

They are out of time with the NTK to allow keeper liability.

So they can only chase the driver...

And they have to prove who the driver was to name them in court claim.

 

Personally , on the information you have given, I think they are full of b% $£*^#@¥.

If you get a letter in the post, I suspect it will be from gladstones solicitors and not be signed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...