Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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
      • 161 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

Gemini/gladstones claimform - Windscreen PCN Queens hosp Romford - P+D ticket !***Claim Dismissed***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2141 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 all,

 

I wonder if you can help me.

 

My partner and I had to rush our son into queens hospital on 02.02.17 on doctors advice as he had quite a severe reaction to antibiotics and needed to see a Paeds speciality doctor.

 

we arrived at the hospital and found there were no disabled spaces outside

- infact there were no spaces outside available at all initally.

 

We drove around past A&E towards the Maternity car park where someone was leaving a space

- which are marked as normal bays.

 

We have parked in these spaces before and asked site security (actual queens security) if we could park there with a Blue badge and was told we could.

 

We come out of A&E to find a notice stuck to the windowscreen of the car for not displaying a pay and display ticket.

 

We did not see any signs where the pay and display are,

there are signs on the other side of the car park on posts that say "Blue badge holders must Pay and Display if parked in non disabled bays"

 

these are above the usual tariff boards so are high and not very noticeable.

BUT are NOT along the pay and display bays...

. they are on the other side where the actual disabled bays are, so can not be seen.

 

do you see what I mean above,

they have the signs above disabled bays but the bays on the left of the picture below are pay and display (as im now aware) do not have any signage at all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

i'd edit the image that shows your car reg.

 

Since you got a windscreen ticket, for now do NOTHING until the NTK comes through the post. Then come back here. Meanwhile start having a good read around. But make sur eyou do NOT contact them until you show us the NTK

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

some more pictures grabbed from my wifes dash cam from her taking pics today -

 

From the entrance to the car park she parked in - note there are NO terms signs visable entering the route she did.

 

[/url]

 

From the oposite side of the parked cars

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you were told by staff on site that you could park as you did.

 

This trumps the parking co distance contract

 

when you eventually have to appeal this ticket you will have to read up on the new consumer contracts regs to get this point across

because the parking co's are ignorant or at least feign ignorance of the laws they operate under.

 

Wait for the NTK for the moment though,

it should arrive between 29 and 56 days after the date of the parking event so mark your calendar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Complain to the NHS Trust Patient Advice & Liaison Team (PALS)

copy your email to the Estates Dept,

 

consider calling the local rag Romford Post/Recorder.

 

As advised do nothing with the windscreen notice and wait for the NTK but get those complaints in now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

then complain to the Trust itself, formally.

 

when you do,

rub in the point about the staff their telling you that you could park in the way you did

and there is thus a vicarious contract formed between the trust and yourself

that Gemini have no interest in

 

so who runs the hospital, the Trust or some parking cowboy?

 

If they then dont accept this argument

it may be worth pointing out that any application to get the vehicle keeper details were done under false pretences and that the Trust is then placed in a position where they can be sued for breaches of the DPA.

 

Ramp it up rather than hitting them with everything in one go,

more likely to get a result as they may well order its cancellation just to make you go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately that means they cant sue you as they wouldnt have the necessary standing in law to do so. they are merely agents.

 

It has been the case that a hospital trust unwisely funded a parking co to go after one of their staff but they lost and ended up with massive costs as they had to underwite the parking co's costs and pay the defendantss costs and damages.

 

When they still deny any ability to call off the parking co's ferrets you will be able to point this out to them. ( we will dig out the thread from the archives but it was EAST KENT hospitals and another at liverpool.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

its better NOT to post large pictures into any thread

 

as it makes the thread very slow to scoll for people with slow internet connections

or wastes paid for access whilst on mobile phones as it instantly eats up all the GB allowed !!

 

pop all the piuctures into ONE PDF document and ATTACH THAT via GO advanced button

then prople can CHOOSE if they wish to view them.

 

follow the UPLOAD

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

  • 4 weeks later...

Owner or keeper?

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

the letter is garbage,

" you parked in a manner where a charge became payable" Really? and exactly how was that then?

 

these junior league parking companies don't put what the breach is because they know that by being precise people may take the trouble to read the signs and realise that no such condition exists and then decide not to pay.

 

It is really about coercion and getting as many people to give up without a fight as possible.

 

The lack of readable signage will kill their claim in most courts and the content often makes the matter worse for them rather than proving their case

Link to post
Share on other sites

up to you.

 

 

You can respond and say that no breach of contract occurred and that they should consider sending their employees on an adult literacy course instead of wasting money pursuing monies that are not due.

 

TBH, whatever you put in your appeal they arent going to accept as they only make money by avoiding the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you could write anything

 

 

your dog needed to have an MRI and got stuck in the machine

it wont matter a monkies they still refuse.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...