Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

PPM/gladstones Claimform - 2 PCNs fallen permit - Flats Winterthur Way Basingstoke


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1870 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

The previous tickets were for parking in the 'visitors' spaces can I still use my tenancy agreement for that?

 

Or just my current case where I have two additional PCN's for parking in my own space?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

on private land any marking are purely tarmac graffitti

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

Whilst I wait to hear back from my bank I have been doing some more research on the planning permission for the parking signs on the estate.

 

Am I right in thinking this falls under the 'Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007'?

 

I have gone through Schedule 1 Class A to I and believe the signs do not meet the criteria for planning permission exemption.

 

Any input would be appreciated especially if someone has a background on planning permission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no private parking Co signs can be classed as adverts.

but cant be exempt

 

they must have sep planning permission in their own name.

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

Charge back now sent, thanks for the advice dx!

 

I have emailed the council with regards to planning permission as well. I want to do my best to hit these frauds where it hurts.

 

If it is found the council agrees that they do not have permission to put their signs up. Is the estate management held accountable for letting them do it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sent? usually done over the phone...

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

sent? usually done over the phone...

 

Went into the bank where they sent the case to their head office for review I believe. Apparently only takes a couple of days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lets hope

would be a nice kick in the lower regions for them...

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

right the main point of all of this is it is your space so you can sue the parking co for trespass.

People have done.

 

Your tenancy give you the same rights as the person who owns the flat has

so you may need to look at the lease but generally an allocted space comes with the flat

and that is part of the lease so untouchable by parking co.

 

If you have paid for their tickets when parked in YOUR space you may be wanting to tell them that you want your money back as it was obtained by deception and you will take them to court to recover it.

 

get reading the lease and come back here.

 

Yes PP is needed but is rarely enforced by the council as they are too bust to bother with such minor breaches.

however, that doesnt change the law

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I guess I just wait until I get the letter through from gladdys saying they want to take me to court.

 

I would rather not have to deal with the hassle.

 

If I was to just write to them and quote "Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016]" would this not put them off as it's almost a sure fire loss for them if they go forward with it?

 

I am just trying to find ways of nipping this in the bud early.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in short, no

unless you word the letter in such terms that they are convinced you will go after them for breach of the DPA, trespass and harassment and your posting makes it clear that you want a quiet life and that is not on offer.

 

 

Your actions so far mean they are convinced that you are a cash cow so they wont be wanting to suddenly give that up

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So the Charge back did't work as it was carried out over 'Authorised by Visa' of which my bank does not deal with!

 

I am trying to get the actual landlords lease agreement to see what it says about the parking space, however this is proving difficult as all my correspondence have to go through the lettings agency.

 

Although many cases at court have just been won by the judge just seeing the 'Tenancy Agreement' so if i couldn't get hold of the lease from the landlord I should be okay.

 

I tried messaging the estate management team who employed PPM but I got shut down. There response will make you guys laugh,

 

"Dear XXXXXXX,

 

Unfortunately I am unable to intervene despite my best efforts as the ticket was issued correctly.

 

You can appeal through the IAS (Independent Appeals Service), they are totally independent and will look at your case fairly.:lol:

 

I wish you all the very best with this

 

XXXXXX"

 

This response got me thinking, technically the estate management company who employed PPM are theoretically employing people to trespass on the residents spaces.

 

Would that mean the management company could be held responsible for letting them do it in the first place ?

 

Just a theory and wanted all of your opinions !

 

Regards,

 

Tissot

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Have just received my first letter from gladdys,

 

I did see a post from 'ericsbrother' on another post about writing to them.

 

Explaining supremacy of contract, sue them for trespass, harassment and DPA etc.

 

This is a Final Demand letter not a summons for court.

I can post up letter if it helps.

Just wondering if writing to them is a worthwhile exercise.

 

Regards,

 

Tissot

Link to post
Share on other sites

post it up suitably redacted.

We can then compose a suitable response to send to them copy to PPM

 

When I say explain supremacy of contract,

I mean in the shortest tersest manner possible.

 

They are the IPC in a different dress so not an uninterested party.

I expect there are other juicy add ons to the sum demanded

and a comment on that is worthwhile as ultimately they have to explain themselves to a court

 

they don't actually turn up to do that themselves because they don't remember to carry a toothbrush.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write back to Gladdys the following:-

 

Dear Will and John,

 

as you are the world's cleverest solicitors you would never do anything as stupid as sending out demands for monies that are not due on purpose.

 

Remind your clients that

firstly

I have supremacy of contract they can shove their demands where the sun doesn't shine.

 

secondly,

even if I didn't, the amount due can never be more than the contractual sum, where they get the idea that somehow the £200 can magically turn into £320 I do not know, perhaps they have been listening to the wrong person who is either spinning them a yarn or is actually too thick to know better.

 

I would also remind them that they would lose a claim for

damages

trespass,

harassment

and for breach of the DPA

for obtaining my keeper details when they have no cause to do so.

 

The sad thing is their trade association didn't warn them that parking management is not a licence to print money, that they have responsibilities and they have failed to carry them out with due diligence.

 

Perhaps, once you clients have cogitated on this for a while they should write to the IPC and tell them what an unprofessional bunch they are for allowing this situation to occur in the first place as their advice when vetting of the operations has clearly failed.

 

As you know, the IPC and Gladstones are the same two people who just like dressing up differently to claim they are not the same organisation.

 

Send a copy to PPM so they know that you aren't going to give them an easy ride as the chances are they have been misled into believing that it is money for old rope and perhaps they wont bite when Gladdys tell them that there is no risk involved in suing people.

 

Dont water it down,

that will make them think that you may waver if you do get a court claim form.

 

As it stands,

this letter will be part of the evidence paper trail and I cant see that being easily waved away when the "reasonableness" test is applied to a failed claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks EB you are a poet to say the least !

Wish I could send it exactly like that.

 

 

Shall suitably edit and get it sent to both gladdys and PPM shall let you know if anything happens.

 

 

Thanks for your help.

 

tissot

Link to post
Share on other sites

no, you send it exactly like that,

If I wanted people to edit my copyright material I would charge you for its use in the first place.

 

Editing will reduce its effect and probably show that you dont actually know what you are on about or are unsure of your legal position.

 

That WILL result in getting a court claim form where with this you reduce that likelihood as the letter will be produced in court to show that you have communicated with them and their action is entirely unreasonable

 

Cant you be bothered to read about these people?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you alter it it loses it's impact so best follow EB's advice. PPC's and Gladstones are not ethical people, they can and will make spurious demands also they probably break the law to make a few quid.

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

no, you send it exactly like that,

If I wanted people to edit my copyright material I would charge you for its use in the first place.

 

Editing will reduce its effect and probably show that you dont actually know what you are on about or are unsure of your legal position.

 

That WILL result in getting a court claim form where with this you reduce that likelihood as the letter will be produced in court to show that you have communicated with them and their action is entirely unreasonable

 

Cant you be bothered to read about these people?

 

Sorry if I offended you EB, but you do have to understand for someone that spends all their time in a corporate environment. Sarcasm is not a communication style that is often adopted.

 

However I trust fully in your advice !

 

Letter was sent a few days ago (unedited) so it's just a waiting game now.

 

Regards,

 

Tissot

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tissot

many of these parking companies are nothing like the most of the kind of corporate companies you are used to dealing with.

 

Most of the parking companies names that appear on this Forum are nothing short of criminal organisations

though too stupid to aspire to anything other than being tuppeny ha'penny whizbangs

[that expression reveals my age since those pennies were old ones not the newones we have now.].

 

They cheat and lie, commit perjury,overcharge, ignore the Law and do not adhere to the guide lines of their own Associations

which they have to in order to receive our data from the DVLA.

They operate to extract as much money from motorists as they can and that is their sole modus operandi

they do this behind a cloak of doing good by keeping car parks free for genuine customers].

 

The truth is that genuine customers are just as likely to be fleeced as anyone else.

 

So EB fights fire with fire.

He wants them to know that they are not going to get an easy ride

so they may as well go and look elsewhere if they want to make easy money.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

UPDATE: Well since I sent EB's letter in October I have heard nothing back so either it worked or I am now just waiting for a letter from small claims.

 

Fingers crossed not the latter !

 

Thanks for all your help so far and shall keep you updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is good news.

However do not throw away all your correspondence as they might wait a couple of years and try again.

They will be hoping you will not have kept their paperwork.

 

This thread will still be available of course to help you and you can always come back in the months that follow if they are stupid enough to try again.

 

And sadly they are stupid enough.

 

So that's £320 that's better off in your pocket than theirs.

 

it is such a pity that so many people do pay up to these crooks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...