Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1st again why do you keep changing things before you send them   you've added counterclaim in to our std CPR 31:14 you sent? why? this opens you up to additional costs and I hope you didnt tick counterclaim when you did AOS on mcol too?   also I notice you've  played with our std OD defence above too...   pers I would refrain from continuing to change things as they are written in the frain they are for specific reasons.   your defence is due by 4pm Monday [day 33]   here are 2 versions you will ofcourse need to adapt them to lowells para no's and remove the NOA stuff as your docs show Lowell have complied with those. but don't forget to mention other documents provided to date notably statements contain no proof they came from Lloyds but rather Lowells own internal data system    dx   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the [insert original creditor] . .  2. The defendant denies that the account exceeded the agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds but is as a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. .  3. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety. .  4. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon. .  5. The claimant is denied from added section 69 interest within the total claimed that as yet to be decided at the courts discretion. .  6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. .  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-. .  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.  (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.  (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. .  7. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated [xxxxxxx] namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. .  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. .  .............. or  Particulars of Claim  1.The claim is for the sum of 2470.56 in respect of monies owing pursuant to an overdraft facility under account number XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.  2.The debt was legally assigned by Santander UK Plc to the claimant and notice has been served.   3.The Defendant has failed to repay overdrawn sums owing under the terms and conditions of the bank account.   The Claimant claims:  The sum of 2470.56 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county courticon Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 7/04/2015 to the date hereof 14 days is the sum of 7.58Daily interest at the rate of .54  Costs Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of the 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. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant once having had banking facilities with the original creditor Santander Bank. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Original Creditor has never served notice pursuant to 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974  Any alleged amount claimed could only consist in the main of default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.  4. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.  (a) Provide a copy agreement/overdraft facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of all excessive charging/fees and show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.   (d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (e) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  5. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated April 2015 namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request.   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.  Regards  Andy    
    • Hi   Just read your thread and looked at the Docs posted in your PDF.   1. from AST to rent a Car Parking space you need to have signed a Car Parking Agreement for a Space and for visitors you should have asked permission for another space in advance with a fee to pay. (i also assume renting a parking space would be at a cost)   2. You have no signed Car Parking Agreement nor visitor space agreement.   Did you not fully read that AST before you signed it and pick up what is stated about parking and ask them about this Car Parking Agreement and if you need one to park in the car park?   You could formally complain to them about what was verbally said to you but unless you have evidence of this it may be hard to prove.   You should also contact them and ask how you go about renting a Car Parking space/costs and about the Car Parking Agreement also what the process is for a visitor car parking space/costs.   You need to be aware that they could class you and your visitor as illegally parking in there car park without consent nor a signed car parking agreement which they could use as a Breach of your Tenancy Agreement so you need to be careful in how you are approaching this and where you are parking.   Just for info on checking Manchester Life website they have numerous buildings/apartments/car parks but you may be in a building where some of the apartments are leasehold and as part of there leasehold they may have purchased a car parking space in that building. (so how do you know you are not parking in a space that someone in the building has legally purchased?)
    • It converts a forthwith to monthly payment which is set to suit your finances...so if £5 a month so be it...rubber stamped by the court....if you try to negotiate direct ...which it sounds thats what your doing.....they can alter it whenever they feel like it and if you dont comply can execute the judgment...but not if you submit an N245 as advised.   But hey what do we know ? 
    • you still got that spreadsheet I did for you?   dx  
  • Our picks

brassnecked

Another nasty one Hospital Parking tickets upheld

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 755 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Nasty one in the Mail

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4702178/Nurses-pay-150-000-parking-fines.html

 

County Court judge upheld all the tickets.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amazing

yet again the stupid mail calls them FINES

and shows a picture of a PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE!


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this being discussed on the wright stuff on channel 5 today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole affair is an absolute disgrace from start to finish.

 

The Hospital authority state that only a minority of people are involved. Hello!!-Over 100,000 unpaid tickets are apparently involved Not only that but the hospital staff have permits to park from the hospital which should give them primacy over Indigo's mickey mouse "contract". Plus they have fallen into Indigo's c--p that they are there to control the parking when they are actually there to line their own pockets. I understand that Indigo's remit lasts until next year when one can only hope that the contract is not renewed.

 

Indigo like many of the other rapacious parking companies know full well that many of their tickets are not worth the paper they are written on. They then have the cheek to state "The court's ruling has justified our decision to take this action" when they should know that they were damn lucky to get such a useless Judge who seemed determined to rule against every point raised against Indigo. One would hope that she is either sacked or sent for retraining.

 

A proper defence would have wiped the floor with Indigo and if the staff can get their act together and appeal the decision they should walk it.

 

This was covered by The Parking Prankster .

 

One would like to think that some of the investigative newspapers might take up cudgels for the nurses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it is a cash penalty that is being enforced by the courts, it is perhaps at least a defacto fine. Even if it is in no way 'a fine' and the Daily Mail is stupid, that doesn't help people much if they are still forced to pay it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not forced as it can be appealed at a higher court. The judge is basically saying all laws pertaining to it are wrong, and all other charges/appeals in the past etc were wrong too.

 

basically it sounds like the PPC got a judge who hadnt got a clue what they were doing so the judge sided with the company as a company would never do such a thing as try and con people out of money. Especially a PPC at a hospital :lol:


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further info on Parking Prankster appears that the defendants were going to be represented. However there seems there may have been some skullduggery afoot and their rep. decided to leave

the Court. The plot thickens. Perhaps those nice people at the top of the Judiciary are somewhat perturbed by the number of motorists flouting the Law as it is decided by the the Parking Companies and gave the Companies a helping hand. I do hope this is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Further info on Parking Prankster appears that the defendants were going to be represented. However there seems there may have been some skullduggery afoot and their rep. decided to leave

the Court. The plot thickens. Perhaps those nice people at the top of the Judiciary are somewhat perturbed by the number of motorists flouting the Law as it is decided by the the Parking Companies and gave the Companies a helping hand. I do hope this is not the case.

Sadly I think it may well be the case, don't forget that a very favoured by government provider of services, Capita owns a PPC, Parking Eye along with bailiffs Equita, and Rross 'n Robbers (Roberts) along with TV Licensing. A win for the NHS workers might harm Capita's bottom line as well as Indigo.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are a few judges who believe that it is their duty to enforce judgement for anyone claiming large sums of money as a punishment to those who havent paid it.

 

 

If you read the reports that are in circulation it does appear as this is a case of this thinking with the actual law ignored and a punitive aspect applied as the case should have been sent to a higher court in the first place other than it was broken down for being a specimen claim and then hundreds of thousnads added as costs o the whole lot.

 

 

Never seen this before

 

Also, I suspect that if the appeal is successful not only will the parking co be poorer for it courtesy of those costs

someone at the hospital trust will lose their job (probably not the person who caused the trouble though)

to make it look as though their sins have been atoned.

 

Please chip in to help fund the appeal via justgiving if you can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the appeal will be successful, this perverse judgment cannot be allowed to stand.

 

It is Kafkaesque that people should lose their homes due to some misguided judge orders that health workers to pay probably spurious faulty demands, from a rapacious busted-ass PPC with the connivance of the Hospital Trust that employs the workers.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this judge has made previous determinations that are different from the rest of the worlds view on things so the appeal should be OK, read the pranksters latest blog on the behaviour of the parking co and other parties involved.

I have said before that county courts always assume that people tell the truth but sometimes you do wonder how this can be so. A friend of mine was involved in a minor dispute over the sale of a car some years ago and sued the garage. On the day of the hearing the defendant car dealer turned up in court on crutches in a neck brace with a lady dressed as a nurse and claimed my friend had just assulted him. Despite a failure to show what hospital had treated him or any qualifications for the "nurse" being evident this was taken into account in the settlement.so even the more outrageous porkies get taken at face value

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...