Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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
      • 160 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

Parking Eye PCN Cockhedge Park St Helens POPLA rejected my claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2735 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

Hi everyone

 

I sent a claim to POPLA and I got the decision on the 12th September. I will post the decision below, I just want to know if there's anything more I can do or should I just pay it.

 

Thanks

Andrew

 

Decision:

 

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the driver has remained in excess of the free stay period, and failed to purchase time thereafter.

 

 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that there is no contract between the landowner and the parking operator.

The appellant advises that no contract could be formed with the driver due to inadequate signage, and that the keeper does not believe the operator has sufficient permission to erect signage at the site.

 

 

The appellant further states that the charge requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss with reference to Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915.

 

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Parking Charge Notices (PCN’s) issued are done so out of the driver’s obligation to pay parking charges in respect of entering a contract by parking the vehicle on relevant land.

 

 

Upon review of the information provided in relation to this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified.

As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the strict requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper.

 

 

After reviewing the notice to keeper against the relevant sections set out in PoFA, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with PoFA.

 

 

As a result, the keeper is now liable for the charge.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle, registration number 0000000, entering the car park at 12:19, and exiting at 15:20, totalling a stay of three hours.

 

 

The operator states that it has issued the PCN as the driver has remained in excess of the free stay period, and failed to purchase time thereafter.

 

 

The appellant states that there is no contract between the landowner and the parking operator.

Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators,

“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent).

 

 

The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for.

 

 

In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

 

 

The operator has provided evidence of the contract it holds with the landowner, confirming that an agreement has been in place effective from the 4th January 2016 for a period of 36 months.

 

 

As the PCN was issued on the 25th May 2016, I am satisfied that the operator had sufficient authority on the date of the contravention.

 

 

The appellant advises that no contract could be formed with the driver due to inadequate signage, and that the keeper does not believe the operator has sufficient permission to erect signage at the site.

 

 

When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period.

The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract.

Therefore upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park.

 

 

Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice explains that signs

“must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

 

 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states

“2 Hour Free Stay: If you want to stay longer, parking tariffs then apply and a ticket must be purchased: Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”.

 

 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map establishing the locality of the 61 signs in place throughout the car park.

 

 

I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA.

While I acknowledge the appellant has concerns regarding planning permission to erect signage, I do not consider this necessary to the particular case.

 

 

When looking at appeals, POPLA must consider whether the motorist complied with the terms and conditions of the car park, and whether the PCN was issued correctly.

 

 

The appellant states that the charge requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss with reference to Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915.

The case of Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915 was an appeal heard in the House of Lords over one hundred years ago.

As such, I have not considered this case to be relevant, as the precedent set in regards to parking charges has been reviewed more recently by the Supreme Court, in the case of ParkingEye-v-Beavis.

 

 

The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable.

 

 

It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount.

 

 

Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable.

 

 

Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty.

Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss.

 

 

The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets.

The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin.

 

 

Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices”.

 

 

Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable.

While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

 

 

Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable.

 

 

Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver has remained in excess of the free stay period, and failed to purchase time thereafter.

 

 

As such, the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.

The operator has complied with PoFA, and the keeper is now liable for the charge.

Based on the evidence provided, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Edited by dx100uk
line spacing - dx

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

whats the offence when where how ...

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

Hi dx100uk

 

The offence is over-staying the free stay period. It was at the Cockhedge Shopping Park site in St Helens and the period was from 12:19 to 15:20. 25th May 2016

 

My mum bought a ticket but put the wrong registration on it, so I guess their system didn’t know about the car and give her a fine. But at the time we appealed we couldn’t find the ticket so I just went with the case mentioned above in the assessor summary.

 

That case worked for another appeal back in 2015 I did but I think because of the supreme court case that’s mentioned in the decision, the Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915 is no longer listened too.

 

I can upload the information sent to POPLA from Parking Eye if it will help.

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

who is the parking co?

As POPLA no longer show the operator evidence to the appellant we dont know if they do have a proper contract with the landowner or whether it is just with an agent (allowed in BPA world but not in law so that is a problem in the making) and also they always dismiss out of hand the lack of planning permission when it is an absolute offence and you cannot form a criminal compact with the parking co, even if you agree to.

 

Post up the original NTK if you still have it,

we can often find fault where POPLA dont as the wording must be exact, not just showing an intention.

 

 

POPLA's hands are tied by their deal with the BPA so this is not the end of the matter.

Sight of the sign at the entrance to the car park will help us form an opinion as to whether it is a contract or an invitation to treat.

 

 

the numerous signs around the car park are really irrelevant if they differ even slightly from the one at the entrance or refer to other signs or conditions.

 

Also, the prescribed fee was paid,

the ticket machine entry is really irrelevant as they are known to be inaccurate and probably outside the law's requirements of being of the approved type.

 

So, what to do?

well I wouldnt be paying anything,

gather your evidence and post it here adn wel will advise as to whether there is a reasonable prospect of defeating the claim in a proper court setting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by "who is the parking co" or the "original NTK" ericsbrother. All I've got is the case evidence that parking eye give POPLA.

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you attach that as a direct PDF please

go advanced

Manage attachments

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

in short,

the sigange isnt a contract but an "invitation to treat".

By staying and not paying you are a trespasser and that is between you and the landlord.

 

the very small print is the contract, not the big signs you can take it or leave it.

 

What to do next?

Ask the local council if PE have planning permission for their sigange, machines and cameras under the advertsing hoardings regs of the Town and Counrty Planning Act 2007.

If they dont then they cant form a contract anyway

When you get an answwer from the council come back here and tell us what it was verbatim.

 

PE will undoubtedly now send you a new bill,

dont pay it if you intend to continue this battle as they will lost a court claim but the above planning matter may well bury them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got a judgement today for £200 for non payment of 50p ticket...yes? The judge refused reference to BPA code of practice as it was not law, judge asked "is it law"? Additionally, when I made reference to case law the judge asked "can I view your copy of the case law"? I didn't have any copies of the case law with me. So to sum up take a copy of any case law you make reference to and only refer to BPA code of practice if it's in law. I made reference to ParkingEye v Cargius which held that ParkingEye v Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid rather than free, the judge wanted to see a copy. I made reference to Vine v Waltham LBC, the judge wanted to see a copy, therefore could not be used as a defence.

Judge said we could not appeal. Does anyone have any advice were we can take this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got a judgement today for £200 for non payment of 50p ticket...yes? The judge refused reference to BPA code of practice as it was not law, judge asked "is it law"? Additionally, when I made reference to case law the judge asked "can I view your copy of the case law"? I didn't have any copies of the case law with me. So to sum up take a copy of any case law you make reference to and only refer to BPA code of practice if it's in law. I made reference to ParkingEye v Cargius which held that ParkingEye v Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid rather than free, the judge wanted to see a copy. I made reference to Vine v Waltham LBC, the judge wanted to see a copy, therefore could not be used as a defence.

Judge said we could not appeal. Does anyone have any advice were we can take this?

 

You need to start a new thread

Of your own

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

Thank you ericsbrother

 

How would I go about contacting the local council?

 

Is there any templates for asking about planning permission and where would I find the address?

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry but this is what happens when you go unprepared. If you had asked for help when you first got the demand from the parking co you could have easily defeated this claim. you now have the choice of going for a set aside based on proof of lack of planning permission so impossibility to enter into contract at all (read about that) or paying up.

Just got a judgement today for £200 for non payment of 50p ticket...yes? The judge refused reference to BPA code of practice as it was not law, judge asked "is it law"? Additionally, when I made reference to case law the judge asked "can I view your copy of the case law"? I didn't have any copies of the case law with me. So to sum up take a copy of any case law you make reference to and only refer to BPA code of practice if it's in law. I made reference to ParkingEye v Cargius which held that ParkingEye v Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid rather than free, the judge wanted to see a copy. I made reference to Vine v Waltham LBC, the judge wanted to see a copy, therefore could not be used as a defence.

Judge said we could not appeal. Does anyone have any advice were we can take this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it have to be a long winded request I need to send to the council? or could I just put something like:

 

Dear Sir/madam

 

I would like to request a copy of the planning permission for Parking Eye at the Cockhedge Park, St Helens, WA1 000. I am currently disputing a Parking Charge Notice and need to see the planning permission to see if they can enforce it.

 

Thanks

Andrew

We live in a world where seeing is not believing, where only a few know what really happened.

NatWest Problem *****Refunded*****

Link to post
Share on other sites

read the other threads about planning,

particularly the Mansfield thread so you get the wording of the law you are asking about right.

 

 

A sloppy request will not be taken seriously,

they need to know what it is you are on about.

 

 

do not limit your request to PE,

the landowner or occupier also have a liability so may have applied on PE's behalf.

 

Also, dont say you are disputing a parking charge, you will certainly get an unhelpful reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...