Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Served on 16 Feb.   On reviewing the MCOL website today for an updated, I noticed that 1) Hermes has aknowledged the claim, but not yet filed a defence, and 2) that I there was a glitch / error on the form. Essentially, it looks like I had accidentally left the "I will send detailed particulars of claim" box ticke (I thought I had unticked it), with the result that the claim section has been truncated, and some extra text has automatcially been added - in red below):   "...Claimant seeks £XXX, plus I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of..."   This is obviously not ideal. Is it better to try to amend the claim somehow, or to just submit a brief POC that a) clarifies that I am seeking £XXX plus costs (which was automatically truncated), and b) sets out my calculation of the £XXX?  
    • Hi   It amazes me how they pass the buck as they don't want to deal with a private homeowner but if the shoe was on the other foot they would be hammering down on you for breach of tenancy.   As this is council housing you need to make a Formal Complaint in writing to the Council Housing about this (as a social housing landlord they have a complaints process they have to follow). you need to exhaust their complaints process. Make sure and title your letter Formal Complaint.   From what you have posted this tree is not just a nuisance but also a Health & Safety risk:   1. The tree being overgrown is now a danger to the occupants/Guest/Visitors to your property   2. The tree has overgrown into the Council Housings Boundaries your property causing damage/endangerment to the occupants/guest/visitors.   3. As the roots of the tree are also overgrown into your property you have concerns that these may be causing/damaging to any underground pipework that may be within the boundray of the property.   4. So far the Councils actions have been to treat their Council Housing tenant as a third class citizen with a private homeowner aloud to cause endangerment/possible damage due to these overgrown trees which are encroaching on your council house property/bounderies.   You also require clarification why you were sent the Healthy Neighbourhood Information which states I have to pay £375 to make a complaint. (make sure and attach a copy of the response that states this cost)   You also require copies of the following:   1. Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Customer Service Standard (not the leaflet) 3. Health & Safety Policy (not the leaflet) 4. Public Liability Insurance Policy. (not the leaflet) 5. Clarification from you if their is any underground pipeworks running through the bounderies within the garden area (you should have full knowledge of this it being your property/plans) 6. Compensation Policy (not the leaaflet) 7. Equality & Diversity Policy (not the leaflet)   When you get the above policies sit with a pen/pencil/highlighter and take you time reading them and just think to yourself 'DID THEY DO THAT' if not mark it then leave it for a while then do the same again this way you can basically throw/write back stating the haven't followed x policy with which part of that policy and your reason. (you are building evidence to use against them using their own policies. I would also like to refer you to The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1976: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/57/part/I/crossheading/dangerous-trees-and-excavations     You need to remember yes it is the Council but the Council Housing is a separate entity and is a Registered Social Landlord (RSL)   Is the Council Housing classed as a registered Charity? (what is their registration number whether charity or RSL?)   Also have a wee look at this CAG link:     
    • @rocky_sharma   Fame at last!!   Dunno how much help it would be in your case, but I could try digging out the txt of my defence if you think it might be relevant to your defence. We might hafta do this via PM, then e-mail though if ya wanna go down that route.   Good luck with yours anyway mate.
    • The car finance firm, owned by Provident Financial, voluntarily handed the money to all 5,933 customers potentially affected by the breaches, which occurred between April 1, 2014 and October 4, 2017. It was also fined £2.77m by the Financial Conduct Authority for the way it behaved. The FCA said Moneybarn's actions meant more than 1,400 customers, many of whom were vulnerable, defaulted on their loans after entering into 'unsustainable short-term repayment plans'. This meant that they were punished with extra fees and charges, which many could not afford. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-8013573/Moneybarn-pays-30m-customers-failing-treat-fairly.html   dx  
  • Our picks

acc5845

TPS Parking Charges on NHS Hospital site

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1253 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

Hi, i'm a newby on this forum and need a bit of advice re everyone's friends TPS.

 

I have had two run-ins with them in the last month at my place of work.

 

The NHS trust I work for have been using use TPS for their parking for about 6 years with staff paying a monthly parking charge which comes directly out of our salary.

 

The first incident was a simple case of my parking pass falling out of my windscreen and ending up on the car floor.

 

They issued a “Parking Charge” for failure to display a valid parking pass.

I have appealed this one and await their initial reply.

 

The second one was for my motorcycle which I sometimes park between two buildings. There are no “No Parking signs” or “No Motor vechicles beyond this point” signs etc in this immediate area and I have been parking my bike here for over 4 years and one of my ex colleagues for over 20 years without any issues.

 

Following a Fire and Rescue service inspection it was deamed by Fire and Rescue that any vehicle parked here is a risk of fire due to arson.

 

The site estates department obviously asked TPS to start ticketing to stop people parking rather than get any signs or notices put up to that effect.

 

The ticket from TPS states

“Parking attendant x had reasonable cause to to believe that the following breach of the terms and conditions of parking occurred on private land (details of which were clearly and prominently displayed and agreed to by the driver by the act of parking the vehicle).

 

Issue Reason:

 

“The vehicle was incorrectly positioned to the inconvenience of other users.”

 

Then in scrawled pen “Fire Risk – one warning issued”

 

I have to say that I did ignore the first warning that had the same lame

“vehicle incorrectly positioned rubbish” on but scrawled in pen ( not in block capitals) was possibly Risk of fire which I read as “risk of fine”

 

This was a load of rubbish as I was not blocking any doors, exits or blocking anything else causing an obstruction.

 

Following issue of the ticket I contacted the estates manager responsible for parking and he informed me that Fire and Rescues issue was the close proximity to the building

- apparently this needs to be 1.5 metres from the building and parking this far away from the walls would indeed be blocking access in the area.

 

Obviously I have stopped parking here as it was a perfectly valid inspection by Fire and Rescue and I can understand their reasons - they are not my problem, TPS are !

 

Whats are your thoughts on both of these misdemeanors ?

 

Parking charges demanded are £60 or 30 if paid within 14 days for each "offence".

 

Looking round various forums the standard advice in the past seems to have been ignore these clowns

 

i'm wondering if the situation has changed following the Barry Beavis v's Parking eye ruling and have TPS now grown some teeth and are willing to go to court which I don't really want to do and risk a CCJ.

 

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavis does not give any PPC magic powers

But no you should not ignore them

 

As for this bit about fire access etc quite laughable for them to use that as a reason to issue....


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you have to pay for parking

so you have supremacy of contract.

 

 

dx


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision to prohibit parking on the grounds of fire safety following a review by the Fire Service is justifiable, supremacy of contract or not (you shouldn't park a skip within 3 metres of a building either!). However, there must be signage to indicate the fact to the motorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who did the risk assessment and where was it published? Anyway, that is a H&S matter that can result in your employer taking action but nothing to do with some ex-clamper and his pad of tickets.

Phohibition is never a contractual matter, you cannot agree to break the law.

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...