Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Not sure what to make of that or what it means for me, I was just about to head to my kip and it's a bit too late for legalise. When is the "expenditure occured"?  When they start spending money to write to me?  Or is this a bad thing (as "harsh" would imply)? When all is said and done, I do not have two beans to rub together, we rent our home and EVERYTHING of value has been purchased by and is in my wife's name and we are not financially linked in any way.  So at least if I can't escape my fate I can at least know that they will get sweet FA from me anyway   edit:  ah.. Sophia Harrison: Time bar decision tough on claimants WWW.SCOTTISHLEGAL.COM Time bar is a very complex area of law in Scotland relating to the period in which a claim for breach of duty can be pursued. The Scottish government...   This explains it like I am 5.  So, a good thing then because creditors clearly know they have suffered a loss the minute I stop paying them, this is why it is "harsh" (for them, not me)? Am I understanding this correctly?  
  • 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

ESA Appeal Declined


rapt0r
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3309 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

Bit of background story first,

I have had back problems going back to 2005 when I slipped 2 discs in a industrial injury at work. I have since been on ESA(before it was called ESA) then JSA and then back to ESA in Jan 2014.

 

On Wednesday this week I attended my appeal tribunal hearing for my ESA claim I made back in January 2014. I didn't see the DWP appointed 'doctor' until November 2014 and after getting the decision, zero points awarded, I appealed the decision as I believed it was wrong. Since seeing the DWP 'doctor' in November my condition has worsened to the point that I can now barely walk and am in severe pain constantly in lower back and left leg sciatica. None of that matters though as it is how my condition was in November that counts so I could have been carried into the tribunal in a coffin and it would still have seen the same outcome.

 

I would like to know if the information given to me by my appeal representative is correct and if there's any other options. I have been advised that I should:-

1. Commit fraud and apply for JSA stating that I'm fit for work and hopefully ride it out until May when I can put a new ESA claim in due to the 6 months rule.

2. Go to my doctor and make some other unrelated illness/ailment up that would stop me from working, my adviser said I should say to my Doctor I'm depressed due to this whole process!, and then start a new ESA claim using depression as the reason.

3. Do nothing and starve.

4. Something else I don't know about or been made aware of.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Nystagmite,

Where would I go to then to re-apply? Same place as I would as if starting a new ESA claim online?

As for your second sentence, I don't want to think about that yet, just want to get the ball rolling to minimise the gap in benefit payments and the stress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The nightmare continues...

 

After speaking today with the ESA department it seems that because I told them that my condition had worsened after my tribunal hearing in February I can not continue to claim ESA as that claim has been closed.

 

My condition got worse in January which was inbetween the period of making the appeal (November) and my appeal hearing in February, so am I screwed for not telling them in January? I have requested a call-back from the ESA dept. in the morning and really need to know if I have a case or not, I was not told by my appointed advisor in January that I needed to notify the DWP that my condition had worsened and (obviously) the DWP wernt kind enough to let me know to tell them if my condition had worsened whilst awaiting my appeal.

 

3 month migraine this has turned out to be be and lost 11 weeks worth of ESA payements lost.

 

Thanks for any advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:rapt0r:

 

:-x Although it suits them not to, I wish Jobcentreplus would improve their training. The changes from 30 March are horribly complicated and some of the call handlers seem to be economical with the truth.

 

Declared or not, your worsened condition wouldn't have affected the outcome of your appeal. But after it was dismissed, you were and are entitled to make a new claim if your condition's deteriorated or you've a new condition. But it won't be paid, even at assessment rate, until a decision maker's satisfied there's enough evidence to consider limited capability for work.

 

The correct procedure is to reclaim now with as much evidence as you can muster from wherever you can get it. Whilst it's obvious that medical evidence will be most persuasive, Jobcentreplus have agreed to accept evidence from carers, support workers, etcetera. Oh, and claim on an ESA1 form, it'll save another argument with the call centre. You may receive an ESA83 form asking for further evidence.

 

A fit for work decision is treated as prima facia evidence of eligibility for jobseekers so long as you can demonstrate a reasonable prospect of finding some work you can do. But since 30 March claimants can forget about the six months bit before payment for a repeat claim for an unchanged condition.

 

Here's the guidance that's circulated to decision makers;

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/decision-makers-guide-memos-staff-guide

(You need DMG memo 10/15)

 

Should you be forced to claim jobseekers to secure an income, DMG memo 9/15 may be of interest as well.

 

Best wishes, Margaret. :panda:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nov 2014 decision made it's now May!

 

Dec Jan Feb Mar April May so what date exactly in Nov?

 

New rules do not apply as original decision was before 30th March 2015. The old 6 month rule still does but......

 

Declared or not, your worsened condition wouldn't have affected the outcome of your appeal. But after it was dismissed, you were and are entitled to make a new claim if your condition's deteriorated or you've a new condition. But it won't be paid, even at assessment rate, until a decision maker's satisfied there's enough evidence to consider limited capability for work.

 

This is not correct (sorry a bit harsh it is correct but needs an addendum to what you should have done) ... You should have lodged a new claim as soon as you had evidence of deterioration. Although burred deep in some legislation somewhere you can have multiple ESA claims open at the same time. You can even throw in a new claim immediately after you've submitted the 1st and well before the determination or assessment of the 1st.

 

Antone knows the procedural stuff which is basically it's all treated as one big single claim split into separate parts but to us each application appears as a separate entity.

 

Don't kick your self as it's confusing, not very well publicised and the ESA helpline staff unless you're lucky will not know!

 

Now the question is what is the date on the original decision letter?

 

The next question is how badly do you need money?

 

If you wait for the full 6 months to pass you can submit a new claim and it will be paid immediately.

 

If you submit a claim before that date you will not receive payment until a decision is made! If that decision is still negative then you will not be paid until after Mandatory Reconsideration and your appeal has been accepted by the Tribunal Service.

 

Margaret Antone would there be any mileage in waiting the full 6 months (so they get payment) then asking for the full 3 month backdate due to bad advice by the DWP?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Margeret, well after a(nother) sleepless night, guess what, they never phoned me back before 9:30 this morning, or at any time today, as they promised:evil:

I waited until 12ish today before I rang up the new ESA claims line and started a new claim dated from this Monday the 4th as the decision about my last claim, before I made the appeal, was made on the 4th November last year. I hope that is correct as from what I've read it's 6 months from the date that the original decision was made before you can claim again???

 

 

Ongoing story if you wish to read.

After my tribunal on the 18th Feb I was advised by my Appeal Rep to try to claim JSA which I did on the 19th by ringing them up and was obviously told that as I wasn't fit for work I couldn't claim JSA, I then phoned up the ESA on the 25th after visiting this forum and being advised that I could re-claim ESA due to my condition worsening. When making the claim I made it very clear several times to the guy I spoke to that my condition had worsened and he said after a bit of uncertainty that I should make a new claim which we did.

 

I also attended the appointment with my neurosurgeon a few day later on the 28th Feb. Got the diagnosis through the post on the 10th March stating I have Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease and the back pain and sciatica that goes with it.

 

Then on the 16th March I recieved a letter back from the ESA saying 'Following the work capability Assessment medical it has been decided you are fit for work bla bla bla." Migraine ensues...

 

I then on the 21st March wrote a letter and sent it recorded delivey back to the person who had sent me the 1 above, with a copy of the report from the neurosurgeon and another sicknote from my doctor. My letter basically explained my situation that I had been to tribunal and it hadn't gone in my favour and that I had been advised that because my condition had worsened I believed I could carry on claiming ESA.

 

Anyway fast-forward to yesterday, and after 6 weeks Im wondering what the delay is, perhaps they were waiting to hear back from my Doctor? I thought, or if they had even received my letter, which according to Royal Mail tracking and a signature they had on the 27th March. So yesterday when speaking to the chap I told him I had sent a letter to them and I had proof of delivery and a signature of the person who had recieved it but according to them they hadn't got a letter from me and then arranged for someone to call me back today...

 

 

 

So thats where I'm upto and yes I agree the Jobcentre/ESA call-staff you ring up to make a claim with or discuss a current claim with are absolutely clueless, and that's being polite!

 

*just seen your reply Speedfreak as I was typing the above

yes very confusing

yep as soon as I got the evidence back from the neurosurgen was when I wrote the letter they are claiming not to have recieved.

I am OK for now moneywise but it is the annoyance of losing out 11 weeks worth of payments that I really would like if I am entitled to it and not being called back today is even more annoying

Edited by rapt0r
Speedfreaks posting
Link to post
Share on other sites

:speedfreek:

 

Yes I know it's possible to have more than one claim on the go but, as rapt0r didn't submit one at the time, I didn't want to further complicate an already poorly understood bit of legislation. Understand where you're coming from cos as I remember it, you've benefited from the previous legislation that allowed endless looping round the system.

 

Coincidentally I discussed this mess with a friend yesterday. If we've interpreted the amended legislation correctly it affects repeat claims made on or after 30 March 15 for the same condition , whatever the date of a previous negative determination by Jobcentreplus or a tribunal.

 

As rapt0r's now submitted a repeat claim six months after the original determination by a decision maker, guess we may find out whether there was any mileage in waiting.

 

Margaret.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

:rapt0r:

 

Well you won't have done yourself any harm by getting them to accept a new claim. :-) That's half the battle at the moment. Unfortunately, from my interpretation of the legislation that applies from 30 March 15 (did you read the link in #12?) you won't be treated as having limited capability for work, or paid assessment rate, unless or until a decision maker considers there's a realistic prospect of a different outcome decision this time. In due course you should receive a statement of your claim. Return a copy of it to Jobcentreplus, with copies of the neurosurgeon's letter, and your 'signed for' delivery paperwork. Not quite what speedfreek had in mind but proof that Jobcentreplus received and lost some paperwork should be good cause for backdating the claim if it's paid.

 

Please come back if you've further specific questions cos I'm happy to try and answer them. But I don't want to further clutter this thread with detail that may not be relevant to your situation.

 

Best wishes, Margaret.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...