Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. 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 simply contracted by the landowner 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. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

MIL and court action even tho I have proof I was using store....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2973 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've received a letter from a money claims court today for a parking charge I received back in November 2014, the claimant being MIL collections.

 

I am completely incensed about this because I got this ticket even though I was using the store the car park is for and have kept proof of purchase to show this.

This is Staples in Stevenage and I had spent about 20 minutes in the store looking at desks and chairs and then made my purchase. When I came out I found a ticket on my car, so as you can imagine I was totally ****ed off.

I called the parking company a few days later and they said their attendant had seen me leave the premises and wasn't using the car park for the purposes it was intended. I told them I had a receipt to prove otherwise and he basically said that makes no difference and I have to pay the fine!!

he got told what he could do and I hung the phone up and wisely thought I'd best make sure I keep hold of this receipt for future evidence.

 

Over the past year or so I've had various threatening letters like you do but due to the insolent nature when I first called them I chose to ignore all correspondence.

 

Now today I'm invited to court to pay a total cost of £199 for my perfectly legal parking!

What amazes me is the fact the date and time of the ticket issued shows as 14/11/2014 time 11.34 and my receipt shows the time of purchase as 11.53 so how the hell can they issue a ticket to me whilst I'm in the store shopping other than knowingly issue illegally and then try bully boy tactics to get me to pay!

 

My question is If I point the out to MIL collections advising them it's in their best interests to withdraw the court action are they likely to listen or should I let it go to court and present all my evidence so these cowboys can be further exposed for what they are? The only thing that worries me about the latter option is if it will end up costing me anything.

 

Thanks for any advice

 

Lisa

Link to post
Share on other sites

Submit a defence including copies of receipt. Also submit a counterclaim for expenses. It is important you do it ASAP so you don't lose by default.

If you have the evidence you claim, you shouldn't lose therefore it'll cost nothing.

If you lose you may have court costs on top of the 199

Link to post
Share on other sites

MIL dont own the debt, even if one relly existed and every time they have gone to court they have lost big time.

As well as responding to the service of the claim write to MIL and ask for proof of debt and a copy of the assignment of that debt to them and a copy of the letter of assignment that was lawfully served on you (they dont exist). add the point that the claim is vex and that you will be seeking a full costs order including your time as litigant in person @£19 p/h (minimum of 5 hours for research, couple of hours court time plus travel, printing etc).

have a look at the previous cases that got to court on the parking parankster blog. All previous cases are in the public domain so you can get the full details to add to your defence bundle should it get that far..

Link to post
Share on other sites

as for the person seen leaving site-this was shot sown in VCS v Ibbotson so no such a breach of conditions can exist. We can offer plenty more reasons why the original debt doesnt exist but they are not within the powers of MIL to contest so get the AOS and the demand for sight of contract off first You can head the letter that it is discovery under CPR 31.15 and give them 14 days to respond. Copy letter to the court address with claim number on so it is added to the file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure who the original PPC is but it's not a parking eye kind of parking.

The Particulars of claim are as follows: -

 

Charge for parking on private land

1. The Claimant purchased the debt on the 2/11/2015. Assignment notice sent 3/11/2015.

2.The defendant was the reistered keeper/driver of **** *** at the time. The charge is as follows:

JAS16723 Contravention: Customer parking whilst using premises only LOCATION:

Staples Stevenage DATE and TIME:

14/11/2014 11:34:00

3. In accordance with schedule 4, the protection of freedoms act 2012, Notice outlining liability was sent to the defendant by post.

4. The claimant wrote to the defendant on 14/12/205 informing of an intention to issue a summons. No resolution achieved.

THECLAIMANT CLAIMS:

1. Debt amount £149

2. Admin and collection fees £50

TOTAL £199

 

As I said before I contacted to car park company when I first got the ticket and they said unless I send the original receipt for proof they won't drop the fine, copies won't be accepted.

I sent back to the the original parking ticket with a letter stating the facts again that I was shopping in the store and have proof of this and would send a copy if they wanted. All I ever got after that was the bog standard demand letters saying I still have to pay.

 

It wasn't until I got this claim through that I noticed the time the ticket was issued which was before we left the store, so the dodgy parking attendant must have pounced on the car as soon as we went in the shop!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You were right not to send the original. It's funny how documents can go missing and being a parking company they were more than likely to claim they never received it.

 

If this was such a certainty, why have they sold it on, because they know they have nothing on you so unless they are tied in with the debt collection company that bought it, they were seen off as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as you are not being sued by the parking co it will make little difference what evidence you offer, they will either drop it when you show you are defending or they will take it all the way in the hope you lose your bottle and pay up. They have no cause for action and they know it so for the moment keep your powder dry and dont offer MIL anything. They will have to pay the allocation fee when your acknowledgement of service is processed and they may well pull out then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

The only way for MIL to take court action is if they have bought this charge. It is rumoured they buy these for £1 then chase for the full balance however there is one major flaw in their case.

 

They rarely turn up in court!

 

They will ask the court to decide the case 'on paper' but don't inform the keeper so you turn up expecting a fight with MIL but there is no one to fight with.

 

These rules set out what should happen.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...