Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Essex trading standards department have now given me a reference and are investigating this man/companies.
    • Good question. Rayner's CGT pales into insignificance really, doesn't it? 
    • Hi everyone,  out of the blue my husband yesterday received a call from the employee who lost the key the first time and asked to settle the bill plus court costs. Apparently the boss said that if he didn't pay he would be sacked. My husband asked for this in writing,  got it and payment followed. So we discontinued the claim and marked as settled. Apparently the employee who lost the keys the second time is paying for the other carpenter's bill plus court fees because he'd started court proceedings as well. So, all is solved. Thanks everyone!
    • With thanks. Updated defence.  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. 1. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Halifax PLC part of the Lloyds Group of Companies but do not recognise the specific account number referred to by Claimant and on which its claim relies. To enable clarification a sec78 request pursuant to the CCA1974 was made dated 11 May 2024. The Claimant provided various documents which appear to be incomplete with page numbers missing and incomplete Terms and Conditions. If this is a copy of the original agreement it appears to be unexecuted by the original creditor. 2. Paragraph 2 is noted. I do not recall receipt of a Default Notice which the Claimant refers to within its Particulars of Claim and on which its claim relies. A CPR 31.14 request was made dated 11 May 2024. To date the Claimant has not provided a copy. 3. Paragraph 3 is noted. Although I had not recalled a copy of the Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) I requested a further copy from the claimant which has since been provided in response to the CPR 31.14 request dated 11 May 2024. 4. Paragraph 4 is noted. It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. (b) Show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice Pursuant to s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 5. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 6. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief.
    • "Testing the stability" ? I suspect the Tesla Map would have picked up that the car was being driven in a car park and the default safety settings required a shut down. Reassuring that Tesla have public safety built in, to try to stop drivers driving in a way that may be risky.
  • 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 2175 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

Indeed not directly but does mention Keeper liability, which has to be estabished under Pofa I think ? Or am I way off ?

 

I really appreciate everyones help, please dont take me as being rude - Im so tired, have two poorly babies and now my wife has flu.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

well as long as you don't get the flu.....

 

its not for you to prove or disprove

think about it...you are not the claimant.

 

send a separate letter asking for the claim to be struck out under CPR 3.4 under s2a and b.

an abuse of process as there is no keeper liability.

 

see post 38 here

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?482796-UkCPM-gladstones-claimform-PNC-St-Michaels-Church-Church-Square-Basingstoke&p=5087224#post5087224

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

post 45 same thread

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

hows this look ?

 

To the County Court Business Centre,

 

am contacting you today in regards to the above claim number.

 

I am requesting this claim be struck out on procedural grounds, namely Civil Procedure Rules 3.4 2(a)(b), an abuse of process as there is no Keeper Liability.

 

The Driver was not the keeper of the vehicle and the claimant does not know the identity of the driver.

 

Furthermore, the amount claimed is in excess of the charge for allegedly breaching the contract for parking.

 

This under POFA 2012 amounts to an unlawful sum.

 

I request this letter be placed in front of a Judge and further request summary dismissal of this claim.

 

Sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

let EB check it in the morning

don't forget to inc the claim number....

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

Yes it is against the POFA and as they havent followed it with the rest of the demand

then it comes into play rather than ANY OTHER bit of contract law.

 

So, the most they can claim is £75.

It wont matter of their signs say they can claim £1000 if you dont pay up in a millisecond,

that was an offer to the driver, NOT the KEEPER.

 

That is why all of the scribble about recovery fees etc is just garbage.

they rely on your ignorance to get you to pay when it isnt due.

 

I am reading the POFA 2012 but cant get my head around how they fail on this ? Dont really understand it tbf

 

The only bit I can see of POFA 2012 is -

 

Section 4 (5)

 

(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

 

The NTK states £75, then the letters from Zenith state £160 but will take £136, then letters from gladstones state £160.

 

Then court claim states - £169.62 (£160 charge + £9.62 interest) + 25 + 50 = £244.62

 

Is this in breach of POFA ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wrote an essay on this then did a second posting and the first one disappeared so here goes again

you write the words in quotations, no need to say dera sir, it will be sent from one place to another so polite formalities not needed

 

"Claim ref:

 

I request that the claim be summariy struck out for the following reasons:

 

1. the claimant has failed to state why there is a cause for action against the defendant as the claimants know they were not the driver at the time and there is no keeper liability in this matter as the plaintiff didnt not follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to create one.

 

2. The amount claimed is greater than the sum that would be due if there was a liability from the defendant to the plaintiff created under the POFA so the maximum that could be claimed would then be £75.

 

There is no explanation as to what lawful reason the extra amount emanates from as there is no contract between the claimant and defendant,

no allowance for any additions to the contractual sum liability under the POFA

and it is not allowed under civil procedure

so I assert that it is not a genuine claim for the recovery of monies owed but an abuse of the Civil Procedure process."

 

Signed and dated

 

you will repeat this as part of your defence when you submit that as well.

 

hows this look ?

 

To the County Court Business Centre,

 

am contacting you today in regards to the above claim number.

 

I am requesting this claim be struck out on procedural grounds, namely Civil Procedure Rules 3.4 2(a)(b), an abuse of process as there is no Keeper Liability.

 

The Driver was not the keeper of the vehicle and the claimant does not know the identity of the driver.

 

Furthermore, the amount claimed is in excess of the charge for allegedly breaching the contract for parking.

 

This under POFA 2012 amounts to an unlawful sum.

 

I request this letter be placed in front of a Judge and further request summary dismissal of this claim.

 

Sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.The Driver of the vehicle registration ******* ('the vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on 02/02/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Queens Hospital - Queens Hospital Rom Valley Way Romford Essex RM70AG

 

2.The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle.

3.AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

£160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable,

together with interest of £9.62 persuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day.

 

Defence

 

1)Can not be confirmed or denied as the Defendant was not the driver at that time or date.

 

2)It is denied the Defendant was the driver, it is admitted the Defedant is the Registered Keeper.

I request that the claim be summariy struck out for the following reasons:

 

(a) the claimant has failed to state why there is a cause for action against the defendant as the claimants know they were not the driver at the time and there is no keeper liability in this matter as the plaintiff didnt not follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to create one.

 

 

(b) The amount claimed is greater than the sum that would be due if there was a liability from the defendant to the plaintiff created under the POFA so the maximum that could be claimed would then be £75.

 

There is no explanation as to what lawful reason the extra amount emanates from as there is no contract between the claimant and defendant,

no allowance for any additions to the contractual sum liability under the POFA

and it is not allowed under civil procedure

so I assert that it is not a genuine claim for the recovery of monies owed but an abuse of the Civil Procedure process.

 

3)It is denied the Claimant is entitled to any parking charges/damages or indemnity costs from the defendant as there is no keeper liability.

 

Thats what Ive got so far ?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is your defence, not a set aside or anything else

so get the language right or you bury yourself as it will be picked up on.

 

If you dont know a legal term use plain english in its commonest meaning and you wont go wrong.

 

your point 1 is dangerous and has already been advised against,

what are you thinking?

at this stage you arent cross examining them so no need to offer a defence against every detail of their claim.

 

start off with the following:

points 1 and 2 identical to the letter you are sending as you have already written.

 

3. the signage at the site does not have planning permission so are there illegally and it is not possible to enter into a criminal compact as a result.

 

4 in any case the terms offered for disabled parking offered by the hospital have not been broken and as they are separate and superior to any conditions offered by the plaintiff there has not and cannot be a breach of contract because no contract was ever formed between the two parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you have all of the details so you can go into it should you have to.

 

Just filing a defence makes them think about whether they are going to make any money from this ( most people dont)

and then the letter asking for a strike out will probably result in a Case Management Order from the court making them either rewrite their POC or give up.

 

As Gladstones do this by autopen and charge little for doing so

they wont want to spend any real effort on it

or they wont profit from the claim

and their clients will be livid to have to fork out more money due to the incompetent filing of Will and John.

 

As you can see from other posts ,it is rare to actually get as far as a hearing so dont lose faith- they are hopng you will bottle it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

#trying to put defence up before we go back to hospital but am getting this page when i try to save or submit/next

 

We are sorry, but your request has been rejected owing to one or more technical reasons. Please check your input and try again. If you continue to get this message then please contact the Money Claim helpdesk.

 

It can be contacted for support between 9:00am and 5:00pm, Monday to Friday on:

 

Tel: 0845 601 5935

Fax: 0845 601 5889

 

If you prefer to write your query instead, please contact:

 

Money Claim Online

Northampton County Court

21-27, St. Katherine Street

Northampton

NN1 2LH

 

Or email to [email protected]

 

Please make a note of the following support id: 4147096528445175408

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes.

If you have the original N1 form use that,

otherwise a letter with the claim No on it.

 

Send it back to Northampton bulk centre or whatever address they have given you.

 

Failing that hand deliver to your local court or fax it to Northampton or your local CC

 

then worry about getting the online bit sorted later and resend if you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

keep try mcol

its quite usual for it to have issues.

 

that's not the correct email address either.

 

no need to send the form you can email it to mcol too.

 

don't panic you have till 4pm

 

dx

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

comeback at about 3pm if you still cant file your defence via MCOL

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...