Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. 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 only contracted 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. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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
      • 160 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 Eye - £100 Parking Charge Notice for +24mins with a nurse


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3175 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

Hello,

 

 

I've received a £100.00 parking charge notice for parking at a Retail Park.

 

 

The maximum time allowed to park is 2 hours but I was parked for 2hours and 24min.

 

 

I went to the walk-in centre which is located next to the Retail Park as I wasn't feeling well.

I wasn't aware of the waiting time I had been whilst at the walk-in centre and

once I was called in to see the nurse, I must have been in with her for about 45min.

 

 

Unfortunately I couldn't say to the nurse my parking time was running out and I had to go move the car.

 

 

After the appointment, the nurse told me to go get something to eat as soon as possible as my sugars levels were extremely low.

I went to KFC afterwards which is still in the retail park, but only went through the drive through.

 

 

Can anyone please help me with any advice to help me get this cleared from my name as I cant afford to pay this

and I think it is very excessive for just 24min.

 

 

Many thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably this was a Private Parking Company against whom it is easy to win with a properly drafted reply so don't worry.

 

 

I'm just an occasional visitor but have won quite a number of these.

I'm sure the regular contributors will be back to you with advice on how to win.

 

 

The retailers you visited can get it cancelled for you as well but if you have any documentation from the nurse

it will help to give the parking company a valid reason to cancel.

 

 

They don't like to cancel on the many legal points that will be raised with regard to signing,

contract formed, genuine pre-estimate of loss etc.

 

 

In the meantime you can do a bit of research with:

 

Google "Parking Cowboys" site and take a look around to familiarise yourself with some of the terminology.

 

There's lots more info available and I'm sure someone will be back with some fairly simple solutions for you.

 

Good Luck

 

PS. Looking around the site a bit more i thing you've posted this in the wrong place, (as i did earlier) Look at "Private Parking Tickets" there's lots of other folks in the same boat.

Edited by ABONE
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

I have moved this thread to a different forum as from what you are saying (and the thread title) this is a private parking ticket.

 

I am assuming this is a Notice to Keeper that has come through the post.

 

Can you confirm that and the name of the company.

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

You owe nothing don't worry yourself over it, it's nothing more than an invoice that you don't have to pay.

 

Was the letter you received through the post a 'notice to keeper'?

 

It's only Parking Lie and they like to prey on the vulnerable who don't know their rights, ericsbrother will advise you how to kick them back under their little rock!

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thought so, sounded very familiar. if you read the thread I've linked to you'll see a very similar situation, the signage at that carpark is atrocious with unreadable T&C's.

The experts will soon sort this out, you won't be paying a penny.

Illegitimi non carborundum

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for your help. Will be drafting the appeals letter today and also send the confirmation letter from the walkin centre confirming the delay. Will keep you posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

your appeal to pe can say pretty much anything, it's the POPLA code you're after which costs them money, in the other case they lost on no contract with landowner.

The land is owned by a church trust and run by a management co. so chances are they haven't got one.

also only reply to pe as the registered keeper, never identify anybody(including yourself) as the driver,

Just say as registered keeper you are not liable for this invoice and as the signage is unreadable no contract was formed with the driver so either cancel this charge or supply a POPLA code.

Illegitimi non carborundum

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the drive through in the retail park by any chance? If so your appeal is that the veihicle was parked for a time allowed by the contractual terms offered and any time beyond those permitted hours were spent queueing at the KFC so not parked. If they do not cancel immediately you require a POPLA code and you WILL be making the story public via the local papers when your appeal has been upheld as it certainly will be.

If they dont cancel then there are numerous grounds to go to POPLA with and yes, get the local paper interested in the story about being fined for going to the local KFC. KFC wont be happy that they are seen as participating in robbing their customers so more pressure will be brought to bear on the landlord to get rid of these vultures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi I've received a letter back from Parking Eye to say my appeal has been unsuccessful. Its been unsuccessful on the basis that I should not have parked on the retail park as I was at Moorgate Walk-in Centre which is separate to the Retail Park and also due to the signage which clearly states the 2hour limit. When I draft a letter to POPLA, should I include a copy of the letter I received from Moorgate Walk-in Centre as well as the receipt from KFC, even though I was at KFC drive through for about 5min? Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, dont bother with the letter, the reason your appeal was turned down is because of that despite it being completely irrelevant as far as parking where you did goes.

Your appeal to POPLA should be that You were parked less than the permitted 2 hours and the other time was spent looking for a parking space to begin with, trying to comprehend the awful signage that offerwed tyou a contract to park, queueing at the KFC (you can send a copy of this receipt if you wish but not absolutely necessary) and queueing to exit. All of this time beyound the 2 hours PARKING limit was whislt engaged in activities that meant your vehicle was not parked and so there has been no breach of that parking condition.

That in any case no loss has been caused by your action to either the landlord or the parking company and therefore the claim from PE is an unenforceable penalty and not a claim for an actual loss.

If you mention the health centre they may be minded to disallow your appeal, why you were there is not the business of the parking company or the appeals adjudicator but dont mention it and they cant use it against you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...