Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good evening DX100   Here is a draft of my response to the court order.  I would be obliged if you could review it and avise me if I am on the right track.   Defendant Statement of Position in Response to the Order of the Sheriff   The defendant suffered Severe Depression illness almost 12 months prior to the closer of the Bank account. HBOS was made aware of the defendant illness.  A Medical Certificate dated 15 Sept 2017 was handed over to the bank as a proof. (A copy of the report will be submitted exclusively to the court review) The defendant, with the support of her ex-partner, sought a resolution from the OC regarding the escalation of her OD account, which it was mostly formed of extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. HBOS agreed to reduce the outstand OD sum to £XXX and closed the account. The defendant is confident that her ex-partner has settled the agreed sum with OC, but not absolutely certain, considering her health state at that time. She has been actively trying to reach for her ex-partner for documented evidence, but the fact that, we believe, he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad and communication has been, to put it politely, very difficult due to the nature of his deployment. As the court is aware, the defendant has been trying to retrieve the data of her dealing with/from OC which it should reflect history of the above.  The defendant has already written twice to HBOS, as well as visiting her bank branch, on 01 March 2021, in person demanding the requested data.  HBOS promised to send the data to her as soon as they can. In addition to the above reasoning and contend, the defendant refute the claimants claim is owed or payable.  Due to punitive and extortionate fees the facility became untenable. Any alleged balance  claimed will consist totally of default penalties, punitive charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety and any alleged balance was due to punitive and extortionate charges . It is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-               a.    Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and Conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.               b.    Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.               c.    Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and justify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.               d.    Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.               e.    Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.     10.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Same thing. The fact that you declared £4.99 means that is the extent of any reasonable foreseeably consequence. Just go for that small amount. If they cause any problems then you can have a laugh when they spend many times more than what you're claiming in order to resist you. In future, when you contract with somebody – you need to understand that effectively it is an exchange of the reasonable expectations which you create in each other by your agreement.  
    • Current situation: contacted myhermes website's robot talk about the parcel and waiting for their email response. Thanks @BankFodder   I understand that if I were going to pursue under contract law, £4.99 would be the amount that I am entitled for compensate. How about if I were going to pursue this matter under tort - negligence? Would this allow me to pursue them according the true value of the items?
    • Hi UncleB, thanks for responding. I did call them back and it appears to be hit & miss with Devitt and dependent upon which Customer service agent you get.   Spoke with a very pleasant lady and told her that I, like them recorded all calls and gave date time of call and specific time at which a green card was stipulated in order for me to take out the policy.   *Two days later a hard copy of the green card landed on my doorstep. *Free of charge too.
    • Have you received a Parking Ticket? - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group   please complete the above then we'll be best placed to advise further but the bottom line is no and don't ever appeal.    
  • 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
      • 25 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

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2225 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

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I recently received a PCN from Parking Eye for exceeding the allowed parking time at Aldi. After reading several threads regarding the unfairness of the level of charges, and the questions over the legality I decided to appeal using one of the template letters available at various websites.

 

Without including the full letter, the key points of the appeal were:

 

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.

b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.

c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.

d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.

e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

f). This is not a 'parking ticket' - it is an unsolicited invoice with as much merit as the publicly-derided £100 taken unlawfully from customers by a dingy Blackpool Hotel.

 

In addition to this I researched the POPLA appeals process & there are several published suggestions on the internet on how to win at this stage.

 

However, much to my delight I received a reply from Parking Eye within a fortnight advising that they had cancelled the charge & that no outstanding payment is due.

 

So..... before you panic & consider paying this, please do your research and use the templates that are available to you. Do not ignore the letters (this used to be the advice) but make it clear that you will contest this & fight them all the way to court if necessary. I believe that they will then look for easier targets as many articles on this subject confirm.

 

If it is this easy to win then it proves that the Parking Firms do not have a case and if they will so easily drop it then it should be very easy to win at the next stage, i.e. POPLA.

 

Parking Eye claim on their website that they have won many cases at court, however many people believe that these are situations where people have ignored their letters. I would urge you to use the material that is readily available in the form of templates, some people have gone to a great deal of trouble to help consumers in producing these and the do work!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we believe that Parking Eye are being deceptive about their courtroom victories. We believe that most - and maybe all of them are default judgments.

We invite Parking Eye to demonstrate that this is untrue and we will then be very pleased to put the record straight for them

Link to post
Share on other sites

moved

 

 

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
Yes we believe that Parking Eye are being deceptive about their courtroom victories. We believe that most - and maybe all of them are default judgments.

We invite Parking Eye to demonstrate that this is untrue and we will then be very pleased to put the record straight for them

 

BankFodder. ......... parking eye would have to "grow a pair" first :lol::-D

 

DX. Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

On their website Parking Eye boast about their so-called famous "test case" victory in Cambridge. What they forget to say is that the case is going to appeal later this month . Not only do they fail to mention this on their website, several of their legal reps have also failed to mention it in court , as highlighted by a recent Parking Prankster blog:-

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/parkingeye-called-to-task-in-stockport.html

 

At no point during the meeting or the hearing did the barrister mention that the Beavis case was being appealed. This is a serious breach of the solicitor's code of conduct, which requires that all relevant information, even if not helpful to the solicitor's side of the case is brought to the attention of the court. This is especially relevant if the other side is not professionally represented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe that an epidemic of common sense has broken out at PE but they are doing this for economic reasons. They have to pay money for appeals to go to POPLA where they generally lose a well constructed appeal and it also takes time administering this. If they are successful in PE v Beavis they will be back with a vengeance and I doubt if POPLA will have any relevance for them. There are moves afoot to get the appeal costs added to the parking charge bill and I'm certain they will do that in any case on the back of the Proserve judgement unless they are explicitly told they cant.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...