Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

actionplan36

Thurrock council PCN for parking with faded/non visible bay lines

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1086 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

I have been given a PCN for parking in council run car park, outside of a parking bay.

 

 

I wanted to know if I had a leg to stand on if I wanted to fight my case?

 

 

As you can see in the pictures attached

the bay lines are very faded and in most parts are completely invisible.

 

 

I have also taken a couple of shots of the rest of the car park to show how bad the entire car park is and how bad their bay marking are.

 

 

If anyone could offer any advice I would greatly appreciate it.

 

 

I have written to the council already protesting about the PCN and I am waiting to hear back from them.

Many Thanks

20161119_104331.jpg

20161119_104221.jpg

20161119_104354.jpg

20161119_104452.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

Could you tell us who the PCN is from please?

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

 

I'll move you to the local authority parking forum and leave a link for you to follow. The advisers should be along during the course of the day.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for the moment that you have done the right thing. Well done on taking the pictures. Many people don't bother but they look very convincing.

 

Come back here when you know the results of your appeal


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your soft appeal should include the photos and proof that you paid to be there (copy of ticket) If you are forced to take it to a formal appeal you will win as there is plenty of case precedent over markings that are far clearer than this. the council is having a laugh if they think that this will stick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ericsbrother, yes I sent them the photos and also a copy of the proof of payment to be there (the ticket). I will definitely keep this thread updated with what is happening. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the contravention stated on the PCN? And do you have any images/info on the terms and conditions on the car park signs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, fine - so that would be the correct contravention for not being properly within a marked bay.

 

State of the lines is awful. I think you will win, but please post back if not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone, I just thought I would keep you updated with what is happening. So after sending off the email with pictures, I got an automated response stating that they would get back to me within 10 working days. 10 working days has now passed so I called them up saying I have not heard back from them yet. Their response was: Them - A letter was sent to you on at the beginning of the week. Me - I have never received a letter? Them - Oh yes, you are correct, it was never sent as you didn't include your postal address in your email. Firstly, it never stated anywhere that I needed to give them my postal address. Secondly, what would have happened if I never contacted them myself? Would they have let it pass and then charge me.....even though they never sent me a letter out? Anyway, I have sent yet another email and no doubt will have to wait a while longer now to hear what their decision is. Just thought I would keep everyone up to date.

Edited by actionplan36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Challenging a penalty charge notice

 

If you receive a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) that you feel is unfair, you can challenge it. Your PCN number, vehicle registration number and address must be quoted in all contacts. You can challenge using the online form or write to us:

 

https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/parking-enforcement/challenging-penalty-charge-notice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume you quoted the PCN ref number so they know exactly who you are but are being bloody minded. In their defence though the driver may be appealing and that was not the keeper so confusion can be created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I presume you quoted the PCN ref number so they know exactly who you are but are being bloody minded.

 

They will have no idea 'who you are'. The PCN ref number will identify the PCN and therefore the contravention and VRM, it doesn't identify a person. Nor does an email address. No council will respond to an informal challenge (either email or postal) without a name and address.

 

It's not until they send the NTO having obtained details from the DVLA, that they will have any idea of the identity of the registered keeper, let alone the driver if t was someone other than the RK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my error, I has assumed that previous correspondence had already covered this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

 

I wanted to give you an update.

 

I have received a letter telling me that my challenge has been rejected. Most of the text is just a copy and paste job that they send to everyone (I'm guessing). They do have pictures that show my car on a 'T', but when you park....looking out your window.....what do I see both sides....empty space with no other markings? As you could see in my pictures at the start of this thread....most of the lines in the car park have vanished.

 

Do I fight this? 20161206_154317.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have called up the Council's parking department and they have said I should receive another letter soon as I emailed them a question. Every time I ask a question it takes another 10 days to get a response. When I called I was asking to make sure I wouldn't be charged the full amount as the case was ongoing. They reassured me I wouldn't. I said that is good as I am waiting to hear back from my MP who has been notified about the situation. They then said "it has nothing to do with an MP, it's council business". Which I replied "I understand, but the council are not taking responsibility for the state of the carpark and are giving out penalties and to people who cannot see the bay lines. to be continued.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone is following the thread any more, so this will be my last post. I have had another letter stating that basically they will no longer communicate with me and I have to pay. I have decided to pay the £25 so I don't get charged the full amount, but will continue to email them....every single week until they admit they are in the wrong and give me the money back as the whole thing is crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like you've already decided, and paid up.

 

Their images show the lines quite a bit clearer than your images, so there's some doubt over how this might have ended up had you fought on.

 

In any case, really don't keep hammering it out. Now you've paid, just move on. As the council said, this isn't a matter for a member of parliament, and you've closed the case now anyway. It's not worth even more of your time and energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is worth the time, as the state of their car pack is clearly very bad. Terrible in fact. Anyone could park in the wrong place in there and they will get charged for it. It's not about the money, it's more about the principle.

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...