Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Honestly you are all amazing on this site, thank you so much for your help and time. ill keep an eye out and only return when i receive a claim letter for sure also, i updated my address with amex and tsb before i even missed payments. the initial address was my family home but i dont reside there. to avoid a bombardment of letters there i have now updated my address, will they send all threats etc to the new address? Or old address?   do you reccomend i send both tsb and amex my update in address via a letter?
    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
  • 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
      • 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

Smart Parking' penalty' for entering 1 digit wrong reg no. !!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2814 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

Smart Parking have just taken over the parking at the local retail park

and the cost is the same as before, 50p for two hours and £1 for 4 hours.

 

 

They have introduced a new system whereby your reg is photographed on entry and exit

and you need to put your full reg into the pay machine and display the ticket.

 

 

However, if you use the gym in the retail park then there is no charge,

there is a Smart Parking computer in the gym where you have to input your reg,

but you get no ticket, the message simply says parking validated.

 

I went to the gym but input my reg incorrectly by one digit i.e.64 instead of 63.

I subsequently received a fine for £60 reduced to £36 if paid promptly.

 

 

I appealed stating that I had no intention of avoiding the cost as it was in fact free to park.

I pointed out that they could check that I had entered the wrong reg as they could see that on their system

and also no car with the incorrect reg had entered or left.

 

I assumed my appeal would be upheld as it seemed a fairly simple mistake that could easily be checked.

Of course I left the car park in plenty of time.

 

 

My appeal was dismissed on the grounds that I had failed to validate the vehicle

and the parking charge was issued within the terms and conditions.

 

Can it be that I must pay £60 for car parking that is free to users of the gym

just because of an error that can easily be checked?

 

 

Any views would be appreciated.

 

 

Thanks for your help in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

firstly its not a penalty nowhere do they use that word

neither is it a FINE, you wont see them using that word either.

 

 

its a speculative invoice

 

 

you got caught by an anpr camera and a slip of the finger

and they are trying to spoof you.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

by contacting them first you have made their life easier to persecute you. When you get another demand from them please come back adn we will advise how to respond. Smart dont live up to their name so their rejection of your appeal means nothing when it comes to the law. They simply dont have a right to claim and the arrangement with the gym is one of convenience and not contracual obligation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ericsbrother.

 

Should I not go to the independent appeals body as I think I have an open and shut case?

 

I'm retired and I don't really want the stress of this hanging over me for weeks and months with various degrees of threatening letters.

 

I just don't believe they can demand £60 for a slip of the finger and surely an independent appeal panel will see this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense doesn't really come into it.

 

From my experience

 

, I suggest that you follow the advice of Ericsbrother to the letter and that will take the stress out of things.

 

You're in great hands with the people on this forum so hang in there and listen to the experts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to by all means do as they are members of the BPA you will get some sense.

It will also cost Smart money so that is worth it on its own.

 

in their letter of rejection did they give you a POPLA code?

if not then you ignore them,

if they did you can go online and enter this and then the outline of your appeal

 

. Your appeal will say that:

the ANPR system covers the entrance to land not managed by Smart parking and nothing to do with them

 

. This means that your use of that other land does not create a contract between yourself and Smart so there was no breach of contract.

 

Their claim that they have an arrangement to create a whitelist of vehicles using that other land doesnt itself create an authority to offer contracts to users of that land but is merely an administrative convenience to prevent Smart from harassing to those who have a reason to be there as they are unable to identify those persons who are not subject to an contractual conditions imposed upon those who use the land they do manage.

 

For this reason ther has been no contract formed between yourself and Smart so there can be no breach of contract to give rise to a claim by them.

 

Also demand sight of the contract between Smart and the owner of the land you parked on (they wont have one otherwise they wouldnt need this convoluted number plate entry scheme) if they wish to claim that the sign in system is binding.

 

They will probably prefer to drop the matter than admit they are in the wrong publically.

 

The POPLA decision will be binding on Smart but not on you, it will carry no weight in a court should POPLA find for the operator as their remit is very limited.

 

It is not worth going on about the input of the wrong reg as this wont win you the appeal

 

. It will be useful in a court as a second point as there are cases where this has been brought up and the parking co have lost because of proportionality.

 

always a toss of the coin though if that is your only defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Ericsbrother.

 

 

You mention parking on different land but this is not the case.

The retail park has one large car park and you can park anywhere and pay the 50p and enter your reg number.

But if you use the gym in the retail park you use the machine located in the gym, there is no separate land involved.

 

 

I guess the gym somehow pays for its members using the car park through the gym membership fee?

I had pinned my hope on simply putting in the wrong reg by a single digit and the fact that Smart Parking could easily check but chose not to.

 

 

Are you saying that that this has no chance?

I was also hopping that £60 was a penalty as for members of the gym it was free parking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if there is a whitelist for gym members then there is a whitelist

and that is between you and the gym and nothing to do with Smart parking.

 

 

essentially you are allowed to negotiate your own contract that trumps their blanket ANPR.

 

Smart will know this but will hope that you dont and are scared enough just to apy up rather than argue.

 

So, let us know when they write again andwe will advise what to say then.

 

 

No point giving them hope by writing now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news.

 

 

Smart Parking took over this retail car park six weeks ago

and the retail park management company has already decided to end the contract with them.

 

 

There have been so many complaints to the management company that it is having an adverse affect on business.

There are signs in the car park put up by the retail management saying everyone should appeal

or re-appeal and that all tickets will be cancelled.

 

 

I think the management company realize they have got into bed with a money grabbing cowboy firm and now regret it.

 

Thanks for the advice given on this forum.

 

I think the answers to car parking cowboys are political.

 

 

What is the incentive for these companies to consider an appeal fairly?

 

 

For the cost of a stamp they can turn down 100% of appeals

and threaten to increase the charge if not paid,

 

 

what have they got to loose - their reputation!!

 

 

Either people pay up or not but all its costs the company is the price of a stamp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...