Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • DO NOT APPEAL, CEL are the most dishonst parking co in the country. their paperwork doesnt comply to the protocols of the POFA so you cannot be liable for the charge. Now in the meanwhile get on to KFC and ask them to get this cancelled but before you do check with the local council to see if CEL have planning permission for their signage and cameras. they do need it so dont be put off by some bod telling you it is deemed consent, it isnt. once you have found out that therer is no PP, let the KFC know that you are going to sue them for allowing CEL to process your personal data as they are merely the agents of KFC if the whole matter isnt dropped. Try asking nicely at first and them tell them about the big stick you will use. It will be KFC HQ, not the local branch that has the clout. If they dont do something then dont sweat over it and wait foe CEL to sned you some more begging letters. You can get soem pictures of the entrance to the land and the soganeg there once KFC have decided not to play ball
    • UPDATE. discontinued by Lowell donations will be arriving soon thank you Andy and Dx for putting up with me 
    • Personally I have always sent the CCA Request to whomever was chasing me because they do have a duty to pass it on to the creditor, however in this case maybe sending it straight to TSB would be good. make sure you keep copies of everything
    • That is somehting to shove home in your WS, VCS will claim that they areall one and the same but Companies house doesnt have any connection between any of simon R-S's businesses. If one was a subsidiary of anither then you can be sued in the name of a different co but that doesnt apply.  there is a previous court report on this on the Parking Pranksters blogspot somewhere. Copy it and use it in your defence
    • While I think Doyle will be used by many a DCA particularly if they are against a LiP, it really does depend on each case. For example, my old Capital One card gave a very specific process which outlined what would happen prior to a DN being issued and pretty much when it would be issued. As it happened they didn't issue a DN and Lowell lost in court.   Peoples opinions change rapidly on forums and I can't remember who said what about BMW v Hart although my view was always, to be on the safe side , the initial COA was the remedy date for a DN. Don't get me wrong, I would have tried six years from the date of the first missed payment if I had to but luckily I never did.   I think it is always very easy to play fast and loose with other people's claims , after all, the only thing that we will suffer if they lose, is our pride. If someone wants to defend a claim and they honestly have a case, all we can do is advise.    I also would, if possible take more than just limitations into court - you only need one thing to be on your side and you win- it is up to the DCA to prove they have all their ducks in a row. There is a lot more to enforceability than just the agreement.    
  • 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 903 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


..

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


..

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


..

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...