Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, Firstly, I am a few steps into this whole process so unfortunately I have missed out on the advice which states what I should have done initially. I am hoping I can still salvage my situation from this point. Facts- - I own the flat and the parking bay that comes with it. - The management company have hired a separate company (LinkParking) to manage the parking. - I have a permit for my car but my car was elsewhere which is why I couldn't give the permit to anyone else. - My girlfriend parked her car in my bay without a valid permit, instead we had a photocopy of the original permit- I realise this is where I went wrong but the original permit itself was printed on a piece of A4 paper AND when I bought the flat I was never told about requiring a permit and had issues with these guys before. Unfortunately we appealed to LinkParking with a substandard appeal (I realise this was substandard after reading through everything else on these forums). They of course denied it. We then appealed to IAS directly based on guidance from other websites, copy of the appeal is below- I was issued with a parking ticket on 20/12/2019 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I have responded to this notice and 'LinkParking' have denied my appeal and have requested I contact the IAS. I am writing to you as per Section 7.4.2 from the IPC Code of Practice and would therefore like appeal this notice on the following points The car was parked in my own car parking bay which I OWN. I was still unfairly issued with parking tickets. The lease agreement does not state that I require a permit to park in the bay as I own the property and the parking bay that comes with it as per the HM Land and Registry register. This lease has primacy of contract over any agreement the management company may have with LinkParking and therefore legally is invalid. The large sum demanded amounts to a penalty and/or is not an accurate reflection of any loss suffered so it is not a reasonable charge. The monetary claim is disproportionate, punitive and unjustifiable in total. It may also be an unfair term and therefore in breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The contractual breach can have caused no financial loss whatever to LinkParking or to the land owner. Once again, the car was parked in my OWN bay and therefore did not cause damage to any third parties. The Parking Charge Notice constitutes an invoice for payment. Accordingly the invoiced charge must include an element of VAT. However, the parking charge notice does not state either a VAT registration number or an invoice reference number and so cannot constitute a lawfully valid demand for payment. Having examined the parking charge notice further I believe it is a non compliant demand for payment as the notice wrongly requires payment to be made “within” 28 days of issue which is contrary to statutory requirement that provides a period of 28 days from the date of receipt. As a sign of good faith, I had purchased a permit anyway to avoid any unnecessary hassle for both parties but have been issued a notice anyway which is unacceptable. I understand that LinkParking are appointed to monitor the car park to prevent trespassers and I agree with this but it seems it is the residents that are being 'ticketed' without good reason for parking in their own bay. I look forward to hearing from you. We have now received the following response today- The operator made their prima facie case on 27/01/2020 14:10:48. The operator reported that... The appellant was the driver The appellant was the keeper The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA.. A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle The ticket was issued on 29/12/2019 The charge is based in contract The Operator made the following comments... The appellant parked their vehicle on land we manage and incurred a charge as they were not displaying a valid permit. Our signs clearly advertise the terms of parking and the charges which apply if they are met. The appellant chose to display a very poor copy of one of our permits, it is a fraction of the size of a valid one. We are unsure why they chose to do this and to date we have not received an explanation. We do not have to prove any loss and invoice does not have to have a VAT number on it if the issuer is not VAT registered. Our PCNs have passed audits by the IPC and DVLA. In addition to this I have also looked through all my documentation with regards to any requirements to require displaying a permit in the contract and I can't find anything. I've owned the flat for almost 2 years now and I do not believe I was given any documentation which mentions this. I have also looked at the HM Land Registry document which doesn't state I need a permit and I believe this ties in with the Primacy of Contract (my law understanding isn't the best). I have also contacted the management company last week to request all information from them with regards to giving me copies of documentation which covers car parking, building services etc. so I have everything. What really annoys me is that I didn't cause anyone any damage AND I WAS PARKED IN MY OWN BAY!!! I really hope I haven't messed it up too much and this can be salved. Any help for a response is greatly appreciated! Thanks!
    • Yes DX, both come up as Cap 1, one a classic Card and the other a Mastercard. 
    • Now that you have the proof - I think its time to consider taking legal action against the Bank.  Remind me who made the decision at the FOS? Adjudicator or Ombudsman? 
    • I would be starting by sending Plusnet a SAR and gather all your data......one DD for two accounts...alarm bells ringing.   Andy
    • Its easier if you wait until you get the claimant's statement...then you can use this as a guide on the points they will rely on and then simply respond by refuting or agreeing or offering alternative argument.   Problem is they tend to leave it to the death and you dont have time..or they wait for yours first then counter your points.If they fail to serve a statement at all then thats a good sign that they are getting ready to discontinue the claim....   Here is an example...and I stress example ....no use to you apart from showing you the usual layout into and conclusion.   Witness statement Lob.pdf
  • Our picks

Recommended Posts

Yes Fletch, the popular press are not the best source of accurate information, and they fuel, mobthink The Legal system is supposed to be above politics, but yet the two have become more entwined and there is not enough engagement from the readers of DE, Heil et al.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want to be a constitutional lawyer at the moment - they faced being damed if they do and damned if they don't. I remember some very anti judges front pages not that long ago with personal details splashed across the DM's front pages - we all know being a woman/BME/gay means any opinions are invalid (no we don't but you know what I am getting at).

  • Like 1

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone imagine enough Mp's voting for a deal that splits the UK?

Johnson might claim that NI is still part of the UK that border down between us is just a mirage ..

- but I really can't see Parliament voting for that.

 

anyway, surely everyone sees that its just a ploy to 'get a deal' to go into transition and remove the option to revoke/referendum, then they can trash any deal and default out.

 

Its all smoke and mirrors.

Who remembers there being a deal before - then Rabb said 'NO that isn't what we agreed at all to his own deal - when it came down to legal text,

... after Dozy Davies walked out on his own negligence.

 

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read on the BBC that No10 insiders are saying that BJ will ask the other leaders to veto an extension - but it is generally agreed no deal will be bad for everyone not just the UK

 

Maybe something will be decided so I cam get on with work and not spend my time looking at the news 


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully a ditch will be a place of pilgrimage and historic national importance in the UK shortly ...

 

Off out with a shovel to pick a good spot and dig a trench by the side of the road about half way back from the local watering holes as an offering

 

... Pick a good spot where I might get caught short on the way back every Friday night


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

anyway, surely everyone sees that its just a ploy to 'get a deal' to go into transition and remove the option to revoke/referendum, then they can trash any deal and default out.

 

 

 

Don't forget ... the attorney general (Cox) who apparently advised 'misleading the Queen, Parliament and the British people as ' sounds good to me .. actually said they could ..

 

He doesn’t much like the idea of staying in the European customs union But said he would be willing to accept one if it would secure the goal of getting Britain out of the EU. 

 

BUT He followed with

“If we decided (meaningless distracting time suggestion) that we wanted to review our membership of any such customs union if we signed it – and I'm not saying we will – that's a matter for negotiation and discussion,”


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does this latest pronouncement from Juncker mean- is it more game playing or are we truly stuffed with my deal or no deal?


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know.

but I suspect its Mays deal with a UK/NI customs border in the sea and some mechanism where NI can back out of the EU alignment if there is a majority vote for it. aka no simple DUP veto/revoke.

 

.. which I believe the brexiters said was a no go when it was considered under May

including Mays 'no Britsh PM could consider it

 

Wonder of Johnson is going to claim 'its a deal' so I don't need to ask for an extension whether parliament votes for it or not?

 

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnsons' deal apparently also agrees to the money settlement and removes a lot of the future relationship endeavours (like rights and regs alignment)

 

 

Its unlikely to be Johnsons deal or no deal

 

The EU is extremely unlikely to refuse an extension to hold a confirmatory referendum, or a general election. It seems it will resist any woolly extensions just dragging out the bull.

 

I think they are quite clearly saying 'we've had enough - sort yourself out or just P* off

 

Despite what the Brexit Bullpooers say

The EU is democratic and will always allow the people a say

The EU is NOT desperate to keep us in

The EU does not NEED us

 

 

I hear that a second referendum vote might have been on the cards - apart from Corbyns resistance

 

 

 

Wheres that picture of May and Corbyn - needs to be Corbyn propping up Johnson now.

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just outline how the EU is democratic so we all are happy TJ


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The council of ministers is made up of democratically elected ministers from the member states.

The European Parliament is made up of  democratically elected representatives of each member state and are proportional to that state's size.

 

These are the people who make, pass and agree any legislation so yes it is democratic 

https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/procedures_en

 

In fact the EU is probably more democratic than our outdated FPTP system 

 

 

  • Like 2

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very clear and concise fletch. Impressive.

 

 

No outdated Henry VIII powers to abuse either ..

 

What are Henry VIII powers?

‘Henry VIII powers’ allow the (UK) government to change an act of parliament, or even to repeal it, after it has been passed and without the need to go through parliament a second time.

 

The clauses take their name from the 1539 Statute of Proclamations, which allowed Henry VIII to rule by royal proclamation, ie by decree.

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waste of a link - no preview to attract attention

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and why from the horses mouth

 

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with Johnsons' 'deal:

* Actually imposing the worst case scenario extreme end backstop .. of Mays 'only in the case of all else failing backstop'

(you know - the bit Johnson and the ERG absolutely and utterly declared as Vassalage, the break up of the union, unthinkable, an abomination etc etc)

 

* Agreeing to pay the EU the settlement

(So much for giving up negotiating tools/weapons as claimed by Johnson and the ERG)

 

* Removing even the 'aspirations of a level playing field with EU rights and regs from even the none-binding political declaration

(The Bonfire of workers, food and environmental right and regulations)

 

 

1. How is this in any way a better deal than Mays

2. How can anyone who voted against Mays deal vote for this

3 How can any MP who gives a damn about their voters rights, health and well-being vote for this.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a shame the scrutiny on Brexit Deal Vote today in the Commons was not set up for the UK people to see when the referendum was announced by Mr Cameron.

 

All what we've seen in the last few weeks could have been aired three years ago, and now left to last minute tactics.

Edited by determindator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they all forget, is that the Withdrawal Agreement is just that, it puts in place how we interact during the transition whilst the FTA or whatever is negotiated,  that in theory is until December 2020, its the start of a process not the endpoint.  There is still danger of No Deal if they chuck this one out Benn Act notwithstanding.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is ALWAYS the danger of a no deal

especially given Johnson being quite happy to prorogue lie and cheat to cause a default

 

.. and that also spreads into any transition (or not) where Johnson and the ERG would do their utmost to foil any agreement with the EU

 

.. as any real agreement with the EU would prevent the rights and regs bonfire they want and need to get their American corporate pals profiting from the UKs planned deregulation.

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we should actually never forget is that the referendum result (in simple agreement/contract terms) was void within a few hours of the result ..

 

.. When the leave campaign started back-peddling/denying/reneging on pretty much all their campaign pledges and promises.

.. which has continued over the three years with pretty much all the pledges completely and utterly broken.

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the same people who are saying MPs don't need to see the economic impact assessments or the full text of what's proposed before voting on the deal?

 

'I'm Boris, just trust me.'

  • Like 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather trust the No 10 cat than Boris.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Benn has said that the Withdrawal Bill allows for a no deal Brexit at the end of next year.

 

 


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Deal is always there lurking in the background.  Any Withdrawal Agreement is only the guidelines for the Transition Period ending on 31st December 2020 whilst negotiations for the final deal take place during that period. Unless an extension is requested by June 2020, the period cannot be extended, so |No Deal is still in the mix.  As a Final Agreement could take years, the timespan is too short. EEA/EFTA best way if we are leaving.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only because they for some reason they left the date of the transitional period as December 2020, which is complete nonsense.  It will take longer than that to agree a deal with the EU as well as all the other nations that have a direct relationship with the EU.

 

I don't understand why he's crying about the possibility of a no deal, but not highlighting the fact part of the withdrawal agreement is complete BS, and nonsensical.  But maybe I'm being naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...