Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
  • 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

Parking Fine Greenwich London


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2435 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

Hi Everyone,

I had parked on a single yellow line on a Sunday afternoon in a street in Greenwich in Jan 2017. I was given a ticket for this. I had appealed / challenged the fine on 23.1.2017. I had no response from the Parking Fines office till 14.7.2017 rejecting my challenge and asking me to pay. I have two questions.

1. What is the time limit within which a Parking fine Challenge/ Appeal should be responded? In my case it was 5 months and 2 weeks.

2. What is the rule for displaying parking restriction sign posts in any restricted area? Within how many metres should a sign be put and be visible in the area? In my case there are no sign posts within 100 metres from where I parked.

3. Should I take photos/ videos of the street with no visible restriction sign posts for my next Appeal?

 

Please can someone answer. I shall be grateful for your guidance.

Many Thanks.

probe

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. There is no statutory period within which the council must reply to an informal challenge. They have 56 days to reply to formal representations to the Notice to Owner, which is what you will receive next if you don't pay the discounted amount.

 

2. Signs for a CPZ are only required at the entry points to the CPZ, and are not required in streets within the zone.

The whole of Greenwich, being a popular tourist area, is a CPZ Mon-Sun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there a rule about how long the Council has before it issues the first NTO against a PCN? I thought that was 56 days, but I'm not certain of that.

 

Good point, it's 6 months, but it's already at 5.5 months.

 

So the OP has a dilemma, pay the discount now on the basis that he is bang to rights with no real grounds for appeal or wait for the NTO in the hope that it's issued after the 6 month cut off and that an adjudicator allows an appeal on that basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When they rejected the informal appeal, they should have given 14 days to pay.

 

So, in post 1: "I had appealed / challenged the fine on 23.1.2017" - The PCN can't have been issued any later than that - so the NTO has to be served no later than 23.7.2017, ie yesterday?

 

He says "I had no response from the Parking Fines office till 14.7.2017" - if that's the date on their letter, then they won't issue an NTO for 14 more days, meaning when it comes along it will be dated 28.7.2017.

 

Therefore, the NTO has not yet been served and when it is, it will be more than six months old, and unenforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the information as above.

Please excuse my ignorance but what is NTO?

Yes, in their response dated 14.7.17 to my Appeal it has given me 14 days to pay or Re- challenge / Appeal to the independent body.

Is this letter the NTO or is it different?

Link to post
Share on other sites

An NTO - Notice to Owner - is a document which establishes legal liability for a PCN. It's a formal document which is posted out. When you get it, it will ask you to pay the full amount or lodge formal representations.

 

The Council can issue more than one for the same PCN, for instance, if a person receives one and then advises the Council that someone else owns the vehicle, they can issue a second one to the correct person, and so on.

 

However the first one has to be issued within six months of the PCN. You can expect to receive one, and I guess there's no reason to think this is not the first one issued for this PCN?

 

As it's more than six months since the PCN, you would have grounds to have the charge cancelled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone.

I have had a look and it appears that they sent me an NTO on 5.6.17 and I appealed again against it. They have sent a rejection letter dated 14.7.17 in response to the second Appeal. So iI guess, I better go ahead and pay rather than contest any further. They have accepted to pay only the initial PCN fine of £65.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi Everyone,

I have been away for a while. Thank you all for your suggestions in my matter. I have paid the fine on time.

 

Still I would like to raise the issue of the Borough Council using this spot as a money making corridor. Whenever I went round this street to see for evidence in my support, I used to see 2 - 3 vehicles parked there and stuck with the Parking Fine notice on the windscreen. So I feel that there is something that is not evident or clear to passengers in the area and they fall prey to the Fines. Some smart Parking Inspector and the Borough Council is making easy money and bonus for themselves from this street.

 

Is there anything that can be done for this to be challenged? Something like a PIL from the Forum or a RTI as to how much fines are collected from this street and why?

 

Just a thought ....

Best Wishes to All.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to think driving is an entitlement and make little effort other than that required to pass the test to understand the ins and outs of traffic law.

If I had a quid for every person that has told me single yellows don't apply on Sunday, after 6pm, 6.30pm, 7pm etc I'd be rich, some drivers have told me they thought the yellow plate was when you COULD park.

 

 

Theres a bay near me that is loading only in the day and disabled overnight,

its clear as day if you take time to read the sign

 

 

but like you each time I walk past a PCN has been issued, I just laugh at peoples stupidity.

 

 

From years working in parking and on here I can tell you most tickets are issued due to peoples ignorance and not council dodgy dealings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again.

 

Yes I agree that most fines are due to Drivers' ignorance.

But at the same time there have been many evidences where it has been clear that the Boroughs and Councils deliberately make such blind spots to earn money.

 

 

I strongly feel this street, Norman Street /Road in Greenwich, is one of them.

Surely they can put up more prominent signs along the street to make people aware, specially when they see that so many Drivers are fined from that one street.

 

 

It becomes their moral duty to come clean, display better and create awareness when citizens are making same mistakes. Rather than sit quietly and enjoy the fun and the money.

 

 

There are no signs along the whole street / road, neither at the entrance.

It will just cost them a very tiny percentage of the money they collect from fines to put up more sign boards along the road.

 

Please can someone advise me how to submit a 'Right to Information' application to the Borough?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again.

 

Yes I agree that most fines are due to Drivers' ignorance.

But at the same time there have been many evidences where it has been clear that the Boroughs and Councils deliberately make such blind spots to earn money.

 

 

I strongly feel this street, Norman Street /Road in Greenwich, is one of them.

Surely they can put up more prominent signs along the street to make people aware, specially when they see that so many Drivers are fined from that one street.

 

 

It becomes their moral duty to come clean, display better and create awareness when citizens are making same mistakes. Rather than sit quietly and enjoy the fun and the money.

 

 

There are no signs along the whole street / road, neither at the entrance.

It will just cost them a very tiny percentage of the money they collect from fines to put up more sign boards along the road.

 

Please can someone advise me how to submit a 'Right to Information' application to the Borough?

 

I can understand why it will look this way, but I honestly don't think the Council are trying to trick anyone. Remember they aren't a business, and there are no shareholders enjoying the money. It is all in the public purse - if anyone 'enjoys' it, it is the people who live in the area, rather than the people working for the council.

 

Why don't they erect bigger, clearer signs? Probably because they are constrained by 1. regulations as to sign design and sizes, and 2. pressure from complaining residents who don't like unnecessary signs going up in their streets.

 

As for your Right to Information / Freedom of Information request - what for? You will ask them questions, like how many PCNs they issue, how much money they generate etc, and they will tell you. Seems pretty futile to me.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

perhpas the OP means the Traffic Order that applies to this street? You simply ask them for a copy, they will send it to you or direct you to where it can be found in their web site or portal. I would surmise that it is one of the many controlled parking zones that councils use so the signage wouldnt necessarily have to be on that particular street. I agree that they can be confusing, especially around places like football stadia but quite often the lack of other parking there should warn you to be on the lookout for relevat signage just around the corner. I tend to go and look for the end of the marked line if no signs in the street.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again everyone. Good points and messages.

In response - that is what I have said that he Borough earns from that spot and should re-invest to put more normal small signs along the street on the lamp posts as in other places. Not big posters.

I had been up to 100 meteres on both sides along the street and there are NO Signs at all. Not even the small 'Parking restriction timings' on the lamp posts or elsewhere nor around the corner.

Yes I think it is Freedom of Information. Sorry for the confused term. I think it will only raise awareness and some eyebrows in the Borough when they have to tell how much money they earn as PCN fines from this spot and why so. Then may be pass it on to BBC. I will look at the cost : benefit ratio of the effort to see if it will be worth trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...