Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on! Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before). -
By rocky_sharma · Posted
Thanks for all the suggestions so far I will amend original WS and send again for review. While looking at my post at very beginning when I submitted photos of signs around the car park I noticed that it says 5 hours maximum stay while the signage sent by solicitor shows 4 hours maximum stay but mine is related to electric bay abuse not sure if this can be of any use in WS. -
By Consumer Lover · Posted
Not sure what to make of that or what it means for me, I was just about to head to my kip and it's a bit too late for legalise. When is the "expenditure occured"? When they start spending money to write to me? Or is this a bad thing (as "harsh" would imply)? When all is said and done, I do not have two beans to rub together, we rent our home and EVERYTHING of value has been purchased by and is in my wife's name and we are not financially linked in any way. So at least if I can't escape my fate I can at least know that they will get sweet FA from me anyway edit: ah.. Sophia Harrison: Time bar decision tough on claimants WWW.SCOTTISHLEGAL.COM Time bar is a very complex area of law in Scotland relating to the period in which a claim for breach of duty can be pursued. The Scottish government... This explains it like I am 5. So, a good thing then because creditors clearly know they have suffered a loss the minute I stop paying them, this is why it is "harsh" (for them, not me)? Am I understanding this correctly? -
urm......exactly what you filed .....read it carefully... it puts them to strict proof to prove the debt is enforceable, so thus 'holds' their claim till they coughup or not and discontinue. you need to get readingthose threads i posted so you understand. then you'll know whats maybe next how to react or not and whats after that. 5-10 threads a day INHO. dont ever do anything without checking here 1st. -
I've done a new version including LFI's suggestions. I've also change the order to put your strongest arguments first. Where possible the changes are in red. The numbering is obviously knackered. See what you think. Background 1.1 The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of November 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019. Unfair PCN 4.1 On XXXXX the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request. As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) the solicitors helpfully sent photos of 46 signs in their evidence all clearly showing a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced if paid promptly). There can be no room for doubt here - there are 46 signs produced in the Claimant's own evidence. 4.2 Yet the PCN affixed to the vehicle was for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced if paid promptly). The reminder letters from the Claimant again all demanded £100. 4.3 The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract. It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100. 4.4 The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim. No Locus Standi 2.1 I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is- (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44 For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures. 2.2 The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request. The contract produced was largely illegible and heavily redacted, and the fact that it contained no witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “No Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract. Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed 3.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved. 3.4 I also do not believe the claimant possesses this document. No Keeper Liability 5.1 The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time. 5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”. 5.3 The claimant did not mention the parking period instead only mentioned time 20:25 which is not sufficient to qualify as a parking period. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 The notice must - (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; 22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim. 5.4 A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable. Interest 6.2 It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for four years in order to add excessive interest. Double Recovery 7.1 The claim is littered with made-up charges. 7.2 As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100. 7.3 As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. 29. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.” 30. In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...'' 31. In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 2) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case. 7.7 The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14. 7.8 It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4). In Conclusion 8.1 I invite the court to dismiss the claim. Statement of Truth I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are 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 its truth.
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
Reassessments scrapped for chronically ill benefits claimants
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 2795 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts