Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • 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.   
    • 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.  
    • 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).
    • Thanks for all the suggestions so far I will amend original WS and send again for review.  While looking at my post at very beginning when I submitted photos of signs around the car park I noticed that it says 5 hours maximum stay while the signage sent by solicitor shows 4 hours maximum stay but mine is related to electric bay abuse not sure if this can be of any use in WS.
  • 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

Gone Over The £16,000 Threshold, Any Advise?


PomBlue
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3451 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

I've come into some money and I've gone over the £16,000 threshold and I wonder whether there were any non-obvious do's and don'ts here?

 

 

Also, I believe that the step down from £16,000 to £6,000 is done in £250 steps. Does anyone know how this is managed and handled? One could easily make that step in paying a bill. Would I have to continually be posting off proofs that I'd reached the next step level or is it assessed on a set interval time frame?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i would imagine you would have to justify any significant expenditure to avoid "doubt of disposing your capital in a manner purely to claim benefits"

 

not sure how it works though

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to keep all receipts.

 

Is the debt the minimum repayment, has it gone to court or is it a case of "I have the money, so think I'll pay it off?" The latter isn't allowed. Or rather, is but you'll be treated as having the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I paid off various bills, provided the proof AND provided how it would make my minimal amount of benefit far more manageable as I would not have £30 per week going straight out of the £71.40 they gave me, it was accepted.

 

You really need to present your case very clearly as to WHY you have chosen to pay off the bills rather than try to live on the alleged 8% per annum interest that the money would have allegedly 'created'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I paid off various bills, provided the proof AND provided how it would make my minimal amount of benefit far more manageable as I would not have £30 per week going straight out of the £71.40 they gave me, it was accepted.

 

You really need to present your case very clearly as to WHY you have chosen to pay off the bills rather than try to live on the alleged 8% per annum interest that the money would have allegedly 'created'.

 

Agreed except for one nitpick - the "notional capital" taken into account for savings over the threshold is not reflective of any interest rate. Rather, the £1 per week per £250 is the rate at which you are expected, notionally, to deplete your capital on basic living expenses. If you spend the money at that rate (hah!) no deprivation issue will be considered.

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've come into some money and I've gone over the £16,000 threshold and I wonder whether there were any non-obvious do's and don'ts here?

 

 

Also, I believe that the step down from £16,000 to £6,000 is done in £250 steps. Does anyone know how this is managed and handled? One could easily make that step in paying a bill. Would I have to continually be posting off proofs that I'd reached the next step level or is it assessed on a set interval time frame?

 

As a general rule, £1 per week is deducted from your income related benefit for each £250 (or part thereof) of savings. By default your capital will be reassessed annually, but if there are any significant changes, up or down, in the amount you have you should advise the DWP or other agency paying your benefit as soon as possible. If you don't you could be overpaid or, indeed, not receive all you're entitled to.

 

If you spend some of the money, the DWP may consider the issue of "deprivation of capital". While it's not any sort of fraud or crime to spend your own money while on benefits, it may affect your entitlement. You would deprive yourself of capital if you spent money unnecessarily with the intent to secure or maintain entitlement to a means tested benefit. If you are deemed to have deprived yourself of capital, you will be treated as still having the money when your entitlement is calculated.

 

OK, so, the problem here is that "deprivation" is not formally defined in law - there are too many situations that may arise for legislation to cover them all. Each case is looked at individually by a DWP Decision Maker. That means it's very difficult to say what will and won't be accepted as reasonable spending in any particular set of circumstances. There are, of course, some things that are nearly always considered deprivation: a luxury cruise, an expensive sports car, that sort of thing.

 

There are also things that are nearly always OK - paying bills that are due, essential repairs to your home or car, necessary furniture, clothing and the like. A replacement for a clapped out old banger of a car might well be accepted. The real area where people hit problems is debt repayment. If debts are overdue, paying them would be fine. Clearing credit cards, loans and so on early is something of a grey area and it's possible this would be seen as deprivation.

 

Sorry I can't be more precise, but I hope this helps a bit.

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

To Everyone.

 

 

Thank you for that. I'll watch how I spend it so as to not be caught by the 'vague' rules they seem to have on this. The only thing I've paid off was my mortgage which was the only debt I had. I mentioned this when I rang them up to tell them about this and nothing was said of deprivation so I guess doing this was ok, but we'll see. This still leaves me with a sum over the £16,000 and knowing what 'nutters' they are I thought I'd just ask about how to approach them when I send them my statement as proof of all this.

 

 

I gather then that my situation will be assessed on an annual basis and so proof of status will also be on this? I know asking them for details rarely provides any adequate forthcoming info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why would they be nutters for following the rules laid down by parliament? Why should someone with enough capital to see them manage OK think they are entitled to continue to receive my tax money when they have more than I do by a long chalk. have you thought about just withdrawing your claim and living at your own expense until you meet the criteria rather than looking for ways of keeping your money and spending mine instead?

Link to post
Share on other sites

why would they be nutters for following the rules laid down by parliament? Why should someone with enough capital to see them manage OK think they are entitled to continue to receive my tax money when they have more than I do by a long chalk. have you thought about just withdrawing your claim and living at your own expense until you meet the criteria rather than looking for ways of keeping your money and spending mine instead?

 

Fully support that idea although the same rules would still apply. You would not get away with withdrawing claim splash out and then reapply

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why would they be nutters for following the rules laid down by parliament? Why should someone with enough capital to see them manage OK think they are entitled to continue to receive my tax money when they have more than I do by a long chalk. have you thought about just withdrawing your claim and living at your own expense until you meet the criteria rather than looking for ways of keeping your money and spending mine instead?

That is not what I'm saying. All I want to know is what are the rules about dealing with this at this stage or end of things, as I don't know , and how to deal with it when I reach or go below the £16,000 threshold, as I believe it steps down in £250 lots. They often either don't give you any information or tell you the wrong info because the person telling you don't understand it themselves but wont say this. And getting this out of them is like trying to get blood out of a stone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, capital (ie savings) is reviewed annually, but you should inform them ASAP if your capital changes at any time.

 

If you were refused a claim because of capital over the limit you can reapply once the amount has reduced, but expect to be asked what happened to the money.

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

Antone "but you should inform them ASAP if your capital changes at any time." From what I gather from your earlier post (which I'm thankful), what you mean here is if it substantially alters due to some significant outlay other than bills etc, yes? It will be altering all the time as I'll be living off it as I'm too sick to do any work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's just depleting because you're spending it on general living expenses then you don't need to keep updating them, no. The DWP has many problems, but even they don't want to be informed every time you buy a box of cornflakes or pay the electricity bill. So yes, just inform them of significant outlays. It's actually in your best interests to do so, since it may favourably affect your entitlement to benefit if your reasons for the expenditure are accepted.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...