Jump to content


PPS/Gladstones/BW Windscreen PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform, - Not Parked In Allocated Bay - Premier Inn, Southernhay Exeter


Recommended Posts

thankyou for your comments, amended sections below

10.    The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. The contract provided in their exhibit bundle pages 1,2,3 is an old contract dated 2015 which makes no reference to the claimant having rights to sue under their own name.

 

11.    The defendant has the reasonable belief that no planning application for signage or ANPR cameras in operation has been made to Exeter City Council. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence and thus no contract can have been formed.

 

 15.    The yellow lines were painted over the bay later (Exhibit A4) clearly if those yellow lines had been present on the day I received the PCN, I would have parked elsewhere.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Once you receive their Witness Statement please post it up so we can give you possible rebuttals to their points.  Also if you look at the Stickie section of the Private land enforcement you will see

Probably best to reply as it's a Letter Before Claim.   ------------------------------------   Dear Sirs,   as I've already told you on XXXXX and on XXXXX, as the world's

it will come in their ws as an exhibit.    

Hang on, I made a mistake re (10).  Under "Terms & Conditions" in the fleecers' contract in (2) there is written "the Client authorises the Company to take legal action to recover these excess charges if needed", so you can't argue they aren't authorised.

 

Instead point out it's an old contract from 2015 with no proof of renewal.

 

Plus, did you find out who the landowner is?  Is it this Hobstone Limited?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

amended

The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. The contract provided in their exhibit bundle pages 1,2,3 is an old contract dated 2015 with no proof of renewal.

 

i have also amended this because it was June i went back

 

I later returned to the site as I had been advised to take pictures of the signage, I found the space where I had been parked to now have been clearly marked with yellow paint. (Exhibit A4)

 

how do i check the landowner because hobstone ltd was dissolved in 2015

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07961378

but there is a hobstone homes ltd maybe a type on their part

 

i read the clients VAT number on that contract as 003946881 which does not return any results on the HMRC site here https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check-vat-number/enter-vat-details

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb news - your detective skills are second to none!

 

So it's impossible for the fleecers to have a valid contract with a company that doesn't exist.

 

So, after "no proof of renewal" in post 157 add "Indeed, the contract is with Hobstone Limited, a company which was dissolved in 2015, so the contract cannot possibly be currently valid".

  • Like 1

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

That should kill it they would nee d to counter that with a signed & dated contract current and valid

  • Like 1

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

so all speculative invoices since that date should be refunded....ruddy fleecers!

 

dx

 

  • Haha 1

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

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...