Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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

National Parking Control Ticket


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3122 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 wondering if some people can give me some help on a parking fine from NPC.

 

 

It States. THE DRIVER IS REQUIRED TO PAY THE CONTRACTUAL PARKING CHARGE OF £100 WITHIN 28DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE. THE CHARGE WILL BE REDUCED TO £60 IF PAYMENT IS RECEIVED BY 17-05-2015

 

 

We do not know then name and current address of the driver. Under the protection of freedom act 2012, schedule 4, you are now required to do one of the following by no later then the last day of the 28days beginning with day after date on witch this notice to keeper is issued. pay the outstanding amount if you were the driver of the vehicle, or provide us with the full name of the driver and current address where a notice can be served ( you are also provided to pass the notice to the driver ) Or make representation against/challenge of the contractual parking charge notice. If at the end of the period of 28days, beginning with the day after the date of witch this notice to keeper is issued you have not complied with the above, then you ( as registered keeper of the vehicle ) will become liable for the charge and we will have the right to take recovery action against you.

 

 

This was in a leisure centre car park and I had just ran over the time on the parking ticket. I know they use there own staff to patrol the car park as the fine ticket was a piece of A4 paper saying CONGRATULATIONS YOU HAVE A £100 FINE place under my windscreen wipers. Not very professional at all.

 

 

Should I respond or Ignore these letters? I can see by other threads these are a bunch of no gooders.

 

 

Any help would be very much appreciated

 

 

Shaun

 

 

Shaun

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for replying. My scanner has gone down at the moment but I might be able to scan it at work next Monday. I could try taking a picture of the letter. Are they right to say as the registered keeper of the vehicle you will be liable for the charge and we will have to take recovery against you, even if I wasn't driving the car on that day?

Link to post
Share on other sites

CONGRATULATIONS YOU HAVE A £100 FINE

 

Really! Be very interested to see that, as it isn't even a fine, donuts!

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

its obviously done in house by the leisure companys staff as its nothing like a ticket you would get by a public traffic warden that works for the council or any legit parking control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love to see the signage at the site if this is how they think a contract is formed. There is a difference between an agreed contractual obligation and a charge for breach of contract so looking forward to see how and agreed contractual sum is a court ordered penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you agree to the contract they are offering, then if you pay the £60, you can park there for ever more...

 

Could work out cheaper in the long run....

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are there but they are utter gibberish. It is said that you cant park but if you do your are breaking this agreement and forming aonther one that allows them to claim £120. If you dont pay up them we will charge someone else £260.

Sorry my mateys but you wont get that one past a lawyer. If a contract is formed and then broken you can only claim for the losses caused by the breach, so £3.00 at most for the latter.

Now, moving on to the incorrectly parked vehicles. This is an absolute gem as there are no conditions to breach on this so no claim can ever be made. In this case the argument is that any vehicle there that shpuldnt be is incorrectly parked and so as there is no definition of that no brach caused to that condition of parking and so nothing due.

Who writes their signs for them, I want that job. My 5 year old grandchild can help me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not respond to the NTD if you are the RK.

 

It is a waiting game, as NPC have to give the driver 28 days to respond before they pay the DVLA to get RK details. This is if they are hoping to use the POFA.

Then a NTK must be received between 29-56 days of the parking event.

 

We all want to see a picture of the NTD... :nod:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they havnt contacted DVLA yet, how did they get my details and address to send the letter?

 

You said it was a windscreen ticket??

 

Looking back your first post states;

 

It States. THE DRIVER IS REQUIRED TO PAY THE CONTRACTUALparking charge*OF £100 WITHIN 28DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE. THE CHARGE WILL BE REDUCED TO £60 IF PAYMENT IS RECEIVED BY 17-05-2015

 

 

Then you state;

 

 

Hi the date of the offence was 30-07-2015

 

Can you give us a correct time line and dates as to what has been received please....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, sorry yes the incident date was 30-7-2015 there was a piece of paper left on my Windscreen saying Congratulations you have a parking ticket fine for £100. My partner it ripped up and through it away as we thought it was just a scare mongering tactic as it was homemade and very amateurish. I then got a letter through the post with pictures of my car ( with out the £100 parking fine piece of paper on it ) on the 7-8-2015

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you probably should appeal the NTK and try to get a POPLA code. The appeal must state that as RK you are not liable for the charge and you were not the driver. Then add ericsbrothers dismantling of the signage that the driver had photographed.

 

 

But National Parking Control only issued 23 codes last year.

 

 

Then you have sorry state of this ' company ' ;

 

 

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07630266/CASCADE-FINANCIAL-LIMITED/company-summary

 

 

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Approved-Operators

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I right in thinking that the sign isn't compliant due to the use of a PO Box address and not a physical address also, amongst other mistakes?

 

This lot seem to be at the bottom end of the PPC industry, no doubt one of the rogue cowboy clamping companies before they promoted themselves to PPC cowboys.

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

so paper ticket on screen on 30-7. They then have to give 29-56 days grace before sending out NTK and then the keeper has 28 days to appeal, name the driver or pay up at the discounted rate. They have failed miserably on this front so there is no keeper liability under the PoFA

The use of a PO box as a service address is a no-no but that isnt the worst of it. They claim to be compliant with the CoP's of the BPA yet their claim about the fees doesnt sit with that and the wording of the signage is just gibberish. They are saying 3 complately different things and none of them match with the supposed breach so there has been no breach so no demand for payemnt can be made..

I would respond and say you are appealing as the keeper of the vehicle against any liability as they protocols of para 8 and 9 of the PoFA have not been met and therefore they should cancel their claim aginst you or issue a POPLA code.

They will lose at POPLA for many reasons and it will cost them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou for the advice guys, I will get a response posted out to them tmoz.

 

 

One last Question! On there letter it says if I do not tell them the name/address/details of the driver on the day of the incident they will be forced to take recovery action against me as the registered owner of the vehicle. Is this right/legal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou for the advice guys, I will get a response posted out to them tmoz.

 

 

One last Question! On there letter it says if I do not tell them the name/address/details of the driver on the day of the incident they will be forced to take recovery action against me as the registered owner of the vehicle. Is this right/legal?

 

They have not met the conditions of PoFA, so can only chase the driver. They are idiots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DO not identify the driver and they cant chase anyone as they clearly do not know who it is. They cannot say that they assume it is the keeper nor claim that it is for the keeper to prove they were not the driver, despite the IAS thinking the law works that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...