Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   Something else I think you need to ask the Insurer for Clarification on is.   That you require full clarification on which clauses within the Terms & Condition of the Policy they are using to refuse payment under the Policy.     I would also consider sending the Insurer a Subject Access Request simply asking for 'ALL DATA' this covers whatever format they hold it in whether it be email/telephone recording/written format etc. (note: if they require you to use their own subject access request form always put 'ALL DATA' on their form)    
    • matters not what they come up with it's statute barred      
    • Revised defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. 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. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply. I dont believe they have provided this yet correctly   2. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all. still stands   3. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   4. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   6. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.    
    • Just received a letter from lowells sols stating they have note of my aos   They have stated they have attached -  Copy of agreement, statement and notice of assignment   HOWEVER - they had not attached my notice of assignment and they have sent me the same 'agreement' as before which was 3 pages of a computer print out, statement and some rehashed t's anc c's. i can re upload again but its exactly what i uploaded before   They state they have requested a copy of my default notice   So in light of this shall i still send the same defence? i think it still stands right?  
    • Just had a Clear Score update which says:   A credit or store card account will be removed from your January report. Organisation Name: Hoist Account Number: ****9048 Company Type: finance house What does this mean? This means that you’ve closed an account. Maybe you’ve changed your phone contract so the phone loan has been removed from your report. Why is this change not on my report yet? We get your credit report every month from Equifax, a credit reference agency. This update can be seen on your Equifax credit report now but will only be reflected in your ClearScore report when your report is next updated, which is on 2 January. Is this a usual part of the process? I'm submitting my defence this weekend. I'll post it on here first.
  • Our picks

Sk1p

Being hounded by Sussex Security

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 861 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

Oh boy am I relieved to find this thread.

 

N1ch3s what happened in the end?

 

I've just got the DP+ letter.

 

What bothers me is the reference to the binding court test case.

 

DP+ are the sister company to Sussex Security Solutions and Parking Enforcement.

 

Rumour has it they're owned by Van Hoogstraten.

 

Please, please, please tell me what the outcome was!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there - I did not appeal, I ignored.

 

 

I had two fines for two very short periods in a period of under half an hour

(around ten minutes and then a couple of minutes

- no signage,

the word PRIVATE on the tarmac does not make it clear that these bays are private

- I did look for signs!).

 

 

The letters do not indicate the time

- the time period says 0:00 to ...8.25am or whatever.

 

 

I got follow up letters, twice, and I've got a DR+ letter,

which refers to the legally binding important test case

which means that all courts have to abide by that ruling in favour of parking companies.

 

I want to not pay this as it's legalised extortion and it's morally wrong.

 

 

The charity shop nearby this spot says they get many calls every day about this.

 

 

Rumour is, it's owned by Nicholas Van Hoogstraten.

 

 

Please help with some advice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

I've started a new thread for you, please continue to post on this one.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore DR+ They are actually ran by a PPC iirc and will say and do anything, including lying, to get what they want anyway.

  • Confused 1

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private parking company

And they are not fines either

Speculative invoices

 

Can we have the dates and where


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, the bit about the test case is true - I checked.

moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/04/private-parking-fines-judges-rule-against-motorists

 

The PPCs have latched onto the Beavis case because it's a rare win for them. Someone will explain why it doesn't apply to many of the cases here because I can't remember :(

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes. Debt Recovery Plus are owned by the same people as Sussex Security Solutions. Same address and everything.

 

Honeybee13 I'm loving you right now. Truly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful. :redface:

 

HB

  • Confused 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx100uk - it was in Lewes in April 2016

- one period of around ten minutes and twenty mins later a period of around three or four if I remember right.

 

 

The letters only indicate roughly as they start the clock from 0:00

- so a letter has a photo and says you were there from 0:00 to 8.25 for example.

 

I know that they're speculative invoices but this test case thing is worrying me.

I've fronted it out with Parking Eye before and won

but when the courts find in favour of these extortionists, that's very concerning.

What on earth were they thinking of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore the test case. It has no bearing on your issue at all. They know it, but they love to lie and throw it in every single letter they send out hoping people will pay up.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have already donated to the CAG.

 

 

I looked up the founder and learned about the fight he won against bank fees.

 

 

One of my boys had his entire childhood birthday savings taken in overdraft fees from his bank

and the FSA only got a bit of it back. You lot are heroes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google parking prankster and have a good read.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, renegadeimp - Parking Prankster is superb. It's a shocking business. How does Government allow them to get away with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long story, but they allow the PPC's to self regulate themselves. The PPC's are pretty much cowboy clampers. But because clamping was made illegal, they adapted.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court case was PE v Beavis

it was everntually determined that PE didnt have to show a schedule of loss

and could chage £80 as a breach of contract penalty fee as in this instance it wasnt an "unconscionable amount".

 

 

In short commercial contract law was imposed on certain consumer contracts

and if the right authorities and clear contract signs in place

the £80 could be charged for breaching the contract entered into when parking.

 

This is not the same as you case

 

 

the parking co's like to tell everyone that Beavis means they can charge what they like for anything

and they will always be right.

 

 

well, the parking co's went on a court claim feeding frenzy after this

and have lost every one of them that was defended by people who did a bit of homework.

 

the wording at the site where Barry Beavis parked was very clear,

it was a pay and display car park and the parking co had a cast iron contract with the landowner,

not some agent or tenant.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for your encouragement, it's really appreciated, ericsbrother :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, and hopefully ericsbrother, as you've been so helpful before.

 

It was ages and I thought I'd heard the last of them,

but now they seem to have sold the debt on and I've a had few more letters

- remember this is twice in the space of half an hour

- that's how much I didn't see any signage.

 

The letters continued to express that they "may" be asked to take me to court.

This time, the wording has changed - to "we anticipate", and referring to CCJs and court costs.

 

Advice? I've held out this long.

 

Many thanks in advance for your help...

 

Sk1p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHO IS Pulling your chain now


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just posted elsewhere that I've had letters today saying that they - right hassle, that is - "anticipate" being instructed to take me to court.

 

Carry on ignoring then?

 

Advice welcome!

 

(I love this forum).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant sell a debt on when it didnt exist in the first place :) Theyre just con artists.

 

Also, anticipate is the same as may.

 

I anticipate i will win the lotto on sat because i believe my choice of numbers are good.. Doesnt mean i will.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right hassle. and yes, it bothers me.

 

renegadeimp - thank you! That's reassuring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wright Hassell you mean

bunch of powerless idiots

read the letters properly....

 

 

they don't say WILL anywhere.

 

 

the only thing you never ignore is a claimform from Northants bulk

it will come in a large brown A4 windows envelope

 

 

and you wont be seeing one of those on this incident


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you noticed the key word, they anticipate, NOT they have been instructed. So, same as before- just hot air so ignore.

 

I like the fact they are happy to waste money for nothing on this.

Just posted elsewhere that I've had letters today saying that they - right hassle, that is - "anticipate" being instructed to take me to court.

 

Carry on ignoring then?

 

Advice welcome!

 

(I love this forum).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...