Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • I'm on a Covid run all this week, for some reason I thought it would be quite easy, starts in St Andrews then Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Cumbernauld then Glasgow over 200 miles. I drop of empty Test boxes and collect the ones that are ready to go to the Labs for results.   Every Testing Station today said they had not been very busy over the weekend, it was quite nice weather over the weekend which is more than likely the reason for the lack of numbers.
    • Credit file: One account(showing balance of £0 due) for main line showing missed payments from December 2020 (when the contract itself was terminated in August 2020). One account(showing loan of £204 due) for second line showing as being in default since November 2020. As a result of these my credit score has gone down-this is due directly to these two accounts which showed on my credit report as a 'negative factor'   Credit disadvantage: When my Virgin contract ended, I attempted to take up a new contract with another company. I was prevented from doing so at Vodafone as they required a deposit of £150, plus I would not be entitled to the free handset, but would have had to pay £179 for it and the monthly payments would be increasd. I was able to take out a handset at Three, but again instead of being entitled to it free, I had to pay £189 for it.   I will check carefully to estimate the amount of time involved-I have queries going back to October 2019 attempting to deal with this.   I have also received from Virgin another letter giving me the password to unlock the files they sent me(shame it doesn't actually work) and a second email again confirming they will erase my data unless they have to keep it.   I'm wondering if they're planning to use that email as their response for the ICO where he gave them until March 11 to either tell me what they are going to do to put things right or explain why they believe they have met their data protection obligations'?      
    • “We want to get Amigo back to life again” – CEO’s statement as lender posts £87m loss View the full article
    • My case is adjourned to this Month. I'm about to send out my Supplementary Witness Statement. Could someone please check if the following is efficient? My court cost is now over £1000 as it was adjourned 3 times  Thanks!   Supplementary Witness Statement to address the new case exhibits introduced at the hearing on 10 November 2020   VCS v Ward  1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location. Both involve flawed reasoning and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.  Semark-Jullien Case  2.       Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.  3.       The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield  a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html  ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  
    • I'm ready to reject Hermes offer and issue the letter before claim. I've registered on the MCOL website and filled in my claim with the below particulars.   Should I tick the box to send the particulars directly to the defendant?   Should I also tick the box for the right to claim interest. If so do what date would I put for when the money became owed,  what is daily rate of interest up to the date of judgment?    Thanks again      
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1565 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

I am waiting for information regarding the planning permission.

 

I have the actual signage

 

I know who owns the land ... Hoults Yard

 

I am also waiting for the info regarding the contract regarding the arrangements to use the land

 

the photo is the entrance from the highway via google maps

but need time to get there to take the proper photos as I have to work (self employed)

 

I have put the actual sign where we were parked

but we were never in the actual parking bays

just right outside the actual auction house

who rents the property from Hoults Yard. post code Walker Rd, Newcastle upon Tyne NE6 2HL

 

their reason was that I overstayed the allotted time by 38 minutes but it is actually only 8 minutes

 

sorry what is NTK?

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice to keeper, this is spelt out on the stickies at the top of the parking threads.

 

This is a self help forum, we give advice on things but you have to do the running for your situation as we dont have the time to look up every sign on every plot of land, nor phone all of the councils involved in planning etc. We spend a lot of time repeating things but that is no bad thing because it does help tailor responses and aid anyone who reads a particular thread when they come here via a search engine.

 

However, i reiterate, once you are given what is essentially homework to do it is emcumbent upon you to get on and do those things. reporting back here what you find out allows others to be helped in a similar situation.

 

As you have a limited time to submit a response to court you should make an effort to do the things we suggest. being self-empolyed should make it easier for you to fit in such things and cost them out so you can claim the money back from PE when you defeat their claim.

 

If you dont do all you can do then you will have to pay them so consider it a chargeable job and make time for it.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sent my response and I have until the 11th November when the hearing is due.

 

With this is mind I have put together my response to their 68 page submission

which is all based around the ParkingEye v Beavis case

and my one cannot be as it is based upon them not adhering to the regulations

and making basic mistakes like stating that the time allowed free is 30 minutes

when the sign clearly says 1 hour,

 

 

and due to your point that there has to be a period of grace of 10 minutes they are in the wrong.

I am just waiting for a short while before I send my reply to their submission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Well the hearing is due in two weeks

 

Parking Eye has submitted their claim and the photos ALL show the date as 2015 and do say that the allowed free time is 30 minutes.

 

HOWEVER I have taken a boat load of photos of the area of all of the signs I can see especially the area they are claiming for and they ALL show one hour free.

 

I have even taken a video of the area with a photo of a newspaper showing the date (today).

 

In their claim they say that they follow the BPA's and section 13 states that there should be at least 10 minutes grace and as their statement says that I was there for 1 hour and 8 minutes I think they are skating on thin ice.

the hearing is on the 11th Nov so watch this space!

 

I am looking forward to hopefully taking them down and If I win I will be asking for a days loss of earnings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

their nickname is Parking Lie,

they recently got hammered for doing just that in a court claim

so expect them to continue as they know that they have already spent good money on this it wont cost them any more to continue.

 

 

Look at the parking pranksters blog for the case reference,

you may wish to use it in your oral evidence when rubbishing their witness statements.

You wont be able to enter it as written evidence though unless it is the same place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a whole lot of info from Parking Pranksters site so will be using some of it when I go to court.

 

 

As I said I am expecting to win and if I do will be asking for compensation of a whole days income.

Link to post
Share on other sites

slightly different defences but obviously we woulf like to knwo what went on so we learn and give better advice if necessary. PE are a big outfit and can afford to spend a lot of money losing a few now to make sure they win in the future. It will get harder and harder to beat them over many issues as they replace duff signage, apply for planning where it has been brought up as a defence etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...