Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • well be careful if the debt is above £600 you could have HCEO bailiffs at your  and for the want of logging onto MCOL and typing just as your are here  - it could all be simply sorted.   dx      
    • well they do have an alternate, do nothing.   I cant see a past thread on this? why didn't you come here and ask for advice first?   all your threads have a nasty trait you still haven't got out of and that's blindly contacting DCA's    you have never earned above the threshold you should have simply sent a new SLC deferment form.   in a way I think you've paid this money under duress when you had no need too.        
    • Interestingly I've just had another alert on my Clear Score report:   Upcoming Updates A new credit or store card will be added to your January report. Organisation Name: BAIA0090 Account Number: ****9048 Company Type: finance house What does this mean? This could mean that you’ve recently opened a new account, or it might be because a lender has just shared some information relating to an old account. Why is this change not on my report yet? We get your credit report every month from Equifax, a credit reference agency. This update can be seen on your Equifax credit report now but will only be reflected in your ClearScore report when your report is next updated, which is on 2 January. If you apply for credit now, lenders will see this update on your Equifax credit report. Now, this looks very much as if Hoist have taken my agreement off and transferred it to whoever BAIA0090 are.  I've not seen any new notice of assignement or anything.  
    • Sorry i am Not putting details in here. This bank i did have an account with in 1993. That is the last time i used them.   I am going to let them ccj me.   I am not going to even think about this any more. My bin will get the letters and my door will be ignored.   Thank you for the interest but i will waste time for another 6 odd years while i get my mind right All the best
    • Particulars of Claim (for Reference - not to be submitted with defence)   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? 1.The Claim is for the sum of £2722 arising from the Defendant's breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no xxxxxxxxxxxx   2.The Defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a Default Notice issued pursuant to ss.87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.   3.The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd (EX BARCLAYCARD) Written notice of the assignment has been given. The Claimant claims 1.The sum of £2792 2. Costs Defence   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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.   2.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. 3. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst I have had dealings with Barclaycard  in the past I cannot recall the specifics of the alleged agreement.   4. Paragraph 2 is denied .I have no knowledge of who the claimant is nor have I been provided with any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.   5.Paragraph 3  is denied.I am not aware of service of a Default Notice by the original creditor or Legal Assignment the claimant refers to within its particulars of claim .   6. It is denied that any amounts are due under any agreement.   7. On receipt of this claim I requested information pertaining to this claim from Howard Cohen & Co Solicitors by way of a CPR 31:14 request sent via 1st class recorded post on 19/11/2019.Further to the above I sent Hoist Finance UK Holdings 3 LTD a section 78 request via 1st class recorded post on 19/11/2019.  To date, neither Howard Cohen nor Hoist Portfolio are yet to furnish me with the requested information .   8.Therefore with the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to   a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for; c) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to Sec 87 (1) CCA1974. d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   9. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   10. On the alternative, if 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 crediticon Act 1974.6.   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. (Defence mainly taken straight from Micky the Hippo's similar defence)
  • 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 1088 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

Thank you, I will let you know as soon as I have heard back from them.

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 lines are you talking about?

I can't see any line.

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

Hello, it was contravention 86. I do not have images of the carpark signage.

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

Fair enough, I did not see that part! Thanks for pointing it out.

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...