Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Smart Parking ANPR PCN - Havens Bank Retail Park Exeter


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2129 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

need to start a new thread

of you own please

this one is for advising Ajjm

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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Another letter, this time from Zenith

- trying to pretend they are a new company appointed to collect the debt but are clearly part of Debt Recovery Plus Ltd.

 

Giving me till 27/11 to pay

- they keep extending this last payment date.

 

Don't suppose you need to see the letter

- full of the usual "may" threats.

 

Assume I can safely file it with the others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep

Same printer same portacabin next bloke at the next desk in a different coloured thing + skirt

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Watch out!

If you don't pay them this time, you'll be getting a "Reduced Payment Offer" next.

 

Their last desperate act to part you from your hard earned :razz:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

usual unrelated twaddle

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

shows you how bent this lot are,

why would Gladstones act as a licenced debt collector and ask you to pay some one who isnt a licenced debt collector rather then the principal ( creditor) unless they were conspiring to make each other a few quid out of the £60 demanded above the actual disputed debt?

 

Gladdys are of course the IPC so they are trying to keep their memebrs on side and DR+ pay the IPC a membership fee.

This is their payback, no lawful reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

hi

Firstly my ticket was issued outside the statutory 14 day period . So they didn't have a leg to stand on....even if everything else was fine. After 14 days they have missed the boat.

Was your ticket issued late?

But this is what I did:

I appealed to Smart, who turned the appeal down, but didn't elucidate on what grounds. So I went straight to POPLA as Smart suggested.

After a couple of weeks POPLA contacted me and told me that Smart would not be pursuing the PCN.

When I rang to tried to get some written confirmation out of Smart to this effect I drew a blank, at this point I sent them an email along the lines "if you don't contact me further I will consider the matter closed". Again not a sausage since so I've binned all the paperwork.

 

If your ticket was issued within the 14 days then (as far as I can tell) your next best defense is they will have written to you as the registered keeper but the offense was committed by the driver. So long as you don't tell Smart who was driving you can always claim the offense wasn't you because you weren't driving.

 

cheers

 

Tim

 

PS POPLA are financed by the industry (i.e. Smart) but when you appeal to them they get paid irrespective of which party it sides with so they can be considered neutral.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I haven't heard anything since the Dec letter - doesn't mean that I won't get another letter though - so the advice I've had from CAG to ignore these 'may' letters has been excellent.

 

Since the original parking charge notice in July, I've had 4 letters from DRP followed by 2 from Zenith and one from Gladstones.

 

Each one makes a threat of possible action with a payment deadline and each time I get a new letter there is a new payment deadline.

 

I have another thread on this forum relating to a different private parking company and have had 4 letters from their debt collection agency and 'solicitors', also saying they 'may' take action.

 

Last letter on that ticket was early Jan.

 

I hope this helps you to decide what to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I have received no further letters about this or the other ticket I received at Hillingdon station car park. Also Smart parking been in the news recently over their practices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, glad it was helpful.

 

I know I needed lots of reassurance from this website when I was receiving seemingly endless solicitoe’s letters.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘dealing with them’ but the advice I had on here to ignore them was perfect.

 

I would suggest you don’t make any contact with anyone before checking out your plan with the wonderful people on this forum!

 

Good luck

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

well, they start off by saying they have the right or maybe they dont as they are acting on behalf of someone else.

they then say alleged breach

- well they should know whether there was or wasnt, it isnt 20 questions.

 

They havent said why they are demanding the money or even hinted at what you could have done wrong, again they must state it or they dont get to win the jackpot.

 

They are also supposed to say who you owe the money to ( normally them as the creditor) and they havent so they again havent got this right so cant claim a bean from you.

 

This is normal for them, most of the recent NTK's are about this site.

 

In short they cant read or write so dont deserve any money from anyone. the POFA agrees with me on that so la la la to them.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...