Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So I just found a couple abandoned traffic cones locally by some bins.   A bit squished but free!  So have placed them on the land.  Will wait to see if the cones get moved and signs ignored again this week before I consider rocks/ boulders.
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later the your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. So if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place and park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and then unload the children followed by reloading the children getting seat belts on etc before driving to the exit stopping for cars, pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
    • Hi  no nothing yet. Hope it stays that way 😬
  • 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

Part 85 the Civil Procedure Rules ..... Discussion


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2578 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

DB is perfectly correct..the case I mentioned was heard in Watford, the claimant was in Court as was his solicitor. The matter I speak of was only a small part of the evidence given to the Court from a whole raft of ridiculous claims made against a LA and Enforcement company...all thrown out I believe.

 

A few more details would be helpful. Seeing as you already know the court, the claimant and their representative, this shouldn't be difficult. What are the details of the case and the arguments used?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

As I understand it.....most ( not all) enforcement sgents photograph the car when clamps are in place.

 

And they could also then remove them. The police, it seems, are far too quick to fully believe anything a bailiff tells them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few more details would be helpful. Seeing as you already know the court, the claimant and their representative, this shouldn't be difficult. What are the details of the case and the arguments used?

 

This would be best discussed when the Jugment is released and all the facts are there to see. (as I am sure it will be given it's importance)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be best discussed when the Jugment is released and all the facts are there to see. (as I am sure it will be given it's importance)

 

Judging by your previous posts I assumed you already had the details of the judgement as you were commenting on the outcomes. It now seems that the judgement has yet to be released.

 

However as I said earlier, Bailiff Advice assured us on Sunday that she would be posting the details 'in the next couple of days'. So that would indicate the judgement has been released. Things appear very contradictory at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And they could also then remove them. The police, it seems, are far too quick to fully believe anything a bailiff tells them.

 

There are many'what if' scenarios.I for one have no intention of entering into circles of discusion on them all I prefer to facts to opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging by your previous posts I assumed you already had the details of the judgement as you were commenting on the outcomes. It now seems that the judgement has yet to be released.

 

However as I said earlier, Bailiff Advice assured us on Sunday that she would be posting the details 'in the next couple of days'. So that would indicate the judgement has been released. Things appear very contradictory at the moment.

 

Perhapse if I were to replace the word 'released' with 'published' it will make for better reading. Sorry if I confused you, it was unintentional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DB is perfectly correct..the case I mentioned was heard in Watford, the claimant was in Court as was his solicitor. The matter I speak of was only a small part of the evidence given to the Court from a whole raft of ridiculous claims made against a LA and Enforcement company...all thrown out I believe.

 

I wonder who has been misinforming this poster ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway no matter. The truth will out as they say.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhapse if I were to replace the word 'released' with 'published' it will make for better reading. Sorry if I confused you, it was unintentional.

 

County Court cases are rarely 'published'. The only conclusion is that someone who was present on the day has released or fed the details to Bailiff Advice (seeing as she was to be posting the details), who has then passed this info on to yourself.

 

I doubt whether Bailiff Advice or yourself were present, so it can only be from the following list - the judge, the LA, the EA company, the EA's solicitor, the claimant or the claimant's solicitor.

 

I doubt that the judge or the LA would do so, nor would any of the 'losing' parties, so that leaves just the EA company or their solicitor. Going by past evidence I would hazard a guess at the EA's solicitor. I find that a little troubling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry my mistake - he was given leave to appeal on that date.

 

Must be the wrong one. This one certainly did not get leave to appeal, not at ll.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry my mistake - he was given leave to appeal on that date.

 

Apologies again, the case I am referring to was on the May 10th. Leave was also given to appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

County Court cases are rarely 'published'. The only conclusion is that someone who was present on the day has released or fed the details to Bailiff Advice (seeing as she was to be posting the details), who has then passed this info on to yourself.

 

I doubt whether Bailiff Advice or yourself were present, so it can only be from the following list - the judge, the LA, the EA company, the EA's solicitor, the claimant or the claimant's solicitor.

 

I doubt that the judge or the LA would do so, nor would any of the 'losing' parties, so that leaves just the EA company or their solicitor. Going by past evidence I would hazard a guess at the EA's solicitor. I find that a little troubling.

 

I am afraid this is largely incorrect. Cases are of course recorded and anyone can order a transcript from the court office. I have done s on many occasions.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or paid for transcript?

 

If you're suggesting that Bailiff Advice paid for a transcript then that would be impossible. The case only concluded just over a week ago and a transcript would not be available that quickly, what with the filing of the EX107, the court sending the recording, the written transcript being made then waiting for it's delivery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. So you must have all the details then. Would you share them with us?

 

Don't be so petulant all comes to he who waits. ######:)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid this is largely incorrect. Cases are of course recorded and anyone can order a transcript from the court office. I have done s on many occasions.

 

I'm sorry Dodgeball but you are mistaken. Of course recordings are made and transcripts can be ordered, often at a considerable cost. However, CC rulings are rarely publically 'published' by the courts for everyone to read.

 

Could you elaborate on how my post is largely incorrect? All things considered, I cannot see how the details of this case have been released other than how I explained. If you have an alternative suggestion I'm all ears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be so petulant all comes to he who waits. ######:)

 

Not sure how I'm being petulant. It seems that between yourself, Bailiff Advice and wonkeydonkey, you claim to be privvy to the details of this case, but then claim you don't have the details as the transcript has yet to be released. As I said, on Sunday Bailiff Advice assured us they would be posting the case details in the next day or two yet nothing has surfaced. However it seems that you three are freely sharing the details amongst yourselves leaving not just me, but everyone else on these boards in the dark. I find it very strange.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're suggesting that Bailiff Advice paid for a transcript then that would be impossible. The case only concluded just over a week ago and a transcript would not be available that quickly, what with the filing of the EX107, the court sending the recording, the written transcript being made then waiting for it's delivery.

 

The case I was referring to was heard in February!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who pays for them I don't know but many transcripts are used for legal training, especially those that cover matters appertaining to current lectures.

 

I doubt that would be the case in this instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...