Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Although I still think you will be ok on the mortgage front, it always helps to find a good Broker who can guide you around these sorts of things. 
    • Hello all   A colleague discovered he had a CCJ recorded against him by Lowell as a result of them acquiring an old Electricity Bill from around 2011.   They lodged their claim in 2019 to my colleagues old address and got a back door judgement.   I helped my colleague draft an application to set aside and it was decided by the court service to hold a telephone hearing which took place last week.   It was slightly comical.    The Judge had got my colleague on the conference call and rang the number provided by Lowell only to reach a call centre person who knew nothing about the case.  She offered to find somebody but the judge was not having it and said they had plenty of time to sort out the case and he had called the number they had provided and expected someone to be ready to handle the case.  He asked her if she was ready to deal with it.  She said she wasn't so the Judge "dismissed" her and was left speaking to my colleague only.   It then turned out that Lowell had submitted a response saying they agreed to the Set Aside providing Each party paid their own costs to which my colleague agreed.   Our application requested a set aside on the basis that the original claim was not received despite the utility having my colleague's address and for SB reasons.   The final outcome was the Set aside was ordered by the Court and the original Claim restored with 14 days to defend.   I am running the case here for any CAGers to advise and comment.   My next step is to write to the Court and Lowell asking for a copy of the original Claim Form without which it is difficult to defend.   The main details are that my colleague paid his electricity bill before moving house and indeed retained the same utility company in his new house, not something he was likely to do if he was evading them.   In any event the defence is an SB one as the original bill was around 2011 and any claim would surely have expired about 2017.   I will get back to the thread with more details.  If anybody wants to comment then all suggestions welcome.
    • All of the above but I don't think their default is going to hurt your mortgage application.
    • Unless you have already sent it – which I don't think it's clear – how about this as an alternative:    
    • You mention covid holiday in your title.. did you have one and missed or deferred payments?   tell us the story please though a mortgage company rarely refuses for one default.there must be another reason   DX
  • 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 1630 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

Parkingeye gave false photographic evidence on signs to POPLA Wright Hassell.


My appeal to them was rejected..



I did not find this out until after the rejection letter having looked at PEs evidence in detail.



I complained to BPA and ISPA but I don't think they want to get between the dog and his bone.


I have now had the letter before county court claim and expect court claim to follow.


I have written to PE informing them of the false evidence with copies of the photographic facts but nothing from them to date.


What are my chances of defending and winning on confusing and nonexistent signage and false evidence to POPLA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are correct then your chances of success should be very good.


Why don't you let us know a bit more about the discrepancy that you have found. Have you taken photographs of the same area so that the discrepancies are clear?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have very good photographic evidence taken and dated on the day I got the PCN.

See letter sent to Parkingeye.


Further to your letter dated 23rd August 2016.

I have no intention of paying Parkingeye as my appeal to POPLA Wright Hassall did not take into account the confused signage and mitigating ambulatory nature of the appeal.


I also believe Wright Hassall is not impartial having worked for multiple Parking firms in a Debt Collecting capacity and are only interested in the recent supreme court decision as a panacea.


Parkingeye also gave false photographic evidence of signage to POPLA Wright Hassall.


I have made a complaint to ISPA and they are looking into the matter.


I will set this out again for your information.


On arriving at the site with my patient/passenger I did observe signs that indicated that the car park was for use of NHS patients and as my passenger was a NHS patient with a disabled parking badge I parked in a disabled bay.


At this point my patient was in a very distressed state which I had to transfer to a wheelchair and apply oxygen before moving the patient to the NHS breast care centre, having had no time to read small print.


In Parkingeye’s evidence to POPLA Wright Hassall,

“which I have a copy of; Parkingeye produced a sign that does not exist on the site. (Photograph 1 enclosed).


This sign was not in place when I arrived; and to this date I believe it is still not in place,

I have photographic evidence (Photograph 2 enclosed) to prove this fact taken on the 15th of February 2015 and again in July 2016.


It would appear that Parkingeye gave false evidence to POPLA Wright Hassall.


If Parkingeye insist in following this churlish vexatious money making claim against disabled pensioners,

I will have no choice but to vigorously contest this matter and defend in county court using this letter and your confusing signage plus other photographic evidence I have in my possession.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you name the hospital please?




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

its not a hospital but two NHS sites

175 and 177 London road Brighton


175 was the car park I parked in,


the sign said patients only

the sign that was missing would have told me I was in the wrong car park.


when I returned to the car I read a sign that said register your car at reception,


When I tried to do this I was told they could not as I was not their patient

and they had a contract with Parkingeye to make no exceptions what so ever.


Both sites had NHS signs, that's the confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You were talking about fraud but now you are referring merely to "confusion".


What you actually mean by fraud? Are you saying that parking eye have acted dishonestly in some way or has there been some mixing up of photographs? I think that you need to clarify this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes in evidence to POPLA Wright Hassell,

Parkingeye produced a photographic picture of a sign that was not there on the day and was not there up to July 2016.



I have my own photographic picture evidence showing the sign was not there.

The sign read ( PARKING for patients visiting this building only NO PARKING for breast care southern dental Brighton diagnostic centre,)



this was on a post in front of a further sign that read Patients only

which also had small print which read all medical centre patients must register at reception,

this sign was there.



Had I seen the sign that was not there I would not have parked.

So yes I have proof of false evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as you have a letter threatening court action - respond to that letter



tell them that there has been no breach of the conditions as the signage is not present and that other signage doesnt form a contract.



As PE have provided false testimony to POPLA you look forward to seeing them in court where if they repeat this falsehood you will be making a complaint of perjury.


In any case their signage is prohibitive so you were trespassing and that is not a contractual obligation or a breah of contract.

The landowner may sue for damages if they can prove how your car damaged their car park but PE can do nothing.


I would reckon that your case all will go quiet,

they will continue to chase any other mug who hasnt spotted this

but it is unlikely they will want the bother of explaining this to more than one judge at their own expense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Parkingeye read letters sent to them, I have just received a further letter from them saying they have received my letter.

Saying I have been processed for further action because POPLA found in their favour and it goes on to say all the costs I will incur should court proceedings be issued. I now think I am corresponding with a machine.

I will wait for the machine to roll on into court.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...