Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Wayne Ting, chief executive of e-scooter firm Lime, says there's room for improvement. View the full article
    • If you are absolutely certain* that you were parked OK, write a letter of complaint to the Headteacher and copy in the Chair of the school governors.   If you or the car were identifiable in any way from the photo (eg visible registration number, driver's face etc) I would very politely write that you resent the untrue suggestion that you had parked/had stopped/were waiting in a way that contravened any traffic regulations, and that you are sure that the school will understand that you would like an apology and a correction to be printed in the next newsletter.  (You can also clearly state that you were identifiable from the photo because other parents have mentioned it to you).   See if that works.   You don't want to go to court for defamation as you'll need access to about £10k in fees before you get out of bed.  You just want an apology and a correction.  If what you've told us is accurate, I don't see any reasonable school failing to say sorry.     *My wife is a former school governor and my experience listening to her is that very very few parents actually understand the meaning of the no stopping/no waiting signs and road markings outside schools.  Don't complain unless you are sure you weren't stopped where you shouldn't have been.
    • And they haven't offered a speed awareness course either?  (Have you done one in the last three years or is this in Scotland?)   And is one of the notices for 34 in a 30?  As Man in the Middle says, that ought to be below the level at which they take action.   (And sorry - I don't want to appear preachy - but...  there don't have to be any warnings or signs or lines on the road to advise you of the presence of speed cameras.  If you get away with an exceptional hardship argument you will need to stick to speed limits in future - whether you know there are cameras there or not.  NB Don't know if this applies to you, but most 30 mph limits are restricted roads with a system of streetlighting and don't even need speed limit signs - you are assumed to know this from the Highway Code).
    • It's up to you if you want to pay £300 you don't owe plus whatever Unicorn Food Tax with no basis in law whatsoever that they will have made up in the Letter Before Claim.   We'd prefer you didn't.   But you have received a LBC so it's make your mind up time.   So please    - post up photos of the signage in the dark that you'll have taken two months ago (post 14)    - post up details of planning permission for their signs you'll have found out after you got onto the council, again two months ago (again post 14)    - also let us know if you agree with Brassnecked's excellent letter or if you'd like to tweak bits depending on what you've found out    - upload the LBC.  Some of them are appallingly drafted and invariably contain Unicorn Food Tax which is all useful extra ammo    - also, where are you living now (post 35) and are you comfortable with legal communications arriving at your parents'?   If you look in our PPC Successes thread at the top of the page, you will see 275 times these cheats have been seen off with their tails between their legs (and all had the same "well known legal companies" (ho! ho!) on hand).  In reality 275 times is a massive underestimate, in all 275 cases there was a "moment of victory" IYSWIM where the PPC were thrashed in court or discontinued a claim or were called off by a supermarket chain, etc., etc.  There will have been at least that number again where they were told to Foxtrot Oscar and then crawled back under their stone.  They are eminently beatable but logically when you're in legal dispute you have to put some graft in to beat the other party.
  • Our picks

PPM/gladstone claimform vanished windscreen PCN - West Gate Plaza West Brom. *** WON - CASE DISMISSED ***


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 961 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

calm down and read things properly.

 

 

you post your strikeout letter to northants bulk tomorrow

 

 

you pop your proposed defence up here for checking

then once sorted you WAIT until the 6th before 4pm and file it on MCOL the same way you did the [AOS]

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
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thank you for advice.

 

Please kindly check if this will be good enough for the strike out letter?

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Request a strike out for the case xxxxx . Parking and Property Management LTD v (defendant).

 

1. The claimant has no proof a notice to driver has been issued, as the driver at the event witnessed of the claimant operative actions and it is denied the claimed that a NTD has applied to the vehicle, therefore as Para 9 of POFA, stated the registered keeper needed to be informed within 14 days after the event, which in this case I was not informed within the time frame, therefore no keeper liability was created.

 

2. The claimant has failed to response CPR 31.14 request sent on 09/09/17 and received on 11/09/17.

 

The claimant has failed to comply with the above order and no documentation has been received by me by the deadline set of 21/09/2017, as the claimant has failed to produce any documentation and therefore broken the terms imposed by the court I am requesting the case be struck out.

 

Yours Faithfully,

 

(Sign)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll let eb comment

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

none of that is any use,

you havent read the Civil procedure regs otherwise you would know that you ask for the claim to be struck out

because:

 

1 PPM have not shown a cause for action against the defendant,

their claim is too vague to comply with CPR 16.4 in as much as it doesnt identify that the defendant has any liability

as it fails to identify the capacity for which they are being sued,

either the driver at the time or the keeper,

 

 

they do not say whether the claim is the result of a breach of contract and if so the nature of this or whether it is a claim for a contractual sum.

 

 

The amount of the claim does not reflect the amount advertised in the signage advertising the contract so it is not evident why the amount claimed is more than the supposedly advertised sum.

 

2. PPM have failed to show locus standi by way of responding to a CPR 31.14 request for sight of the contrct between themselves and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts and to make civil claims in their own name.

 

3 PPM have failed to show evidence of planning permission for their sigange and equipment as required by the 2007 Town and Country Planning Act.

As it is a criminal offence to place advertising hoarding without such permissions any offer of a contract is void as it is not possible to enter into a criminal compact so PPM cannot show a cause for action.

 

The defendant requests a strike out of the claim under CPR 3.4 as the claim is an abuse of process

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you I'm glad I didn't send it yesterday..

. I will send it today,

it is also resonable to end the letter with 'please response if the strike out has been successful or unsuccessful. ' or skip it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

skip it, they dont respond.

 

 

If the application is successful you will be told

otherwise it becomes another document added to the pile the judge will have in frony of them on the day of the hearing

 

 

make sure that you add it to your evidence bundle if it gets to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I have to file a defence on 6th Oct on MCOL.

 

I saw in other threads EB suggested file a two line skeleton deference such as:

 

The defendant denies that any contract was formed between the palintiff and herself.

It is put to srtict proof that such a contract exists as there is no keeper liability under the POFA in this matter.

 

The Particulars of Claim contain no detail as to the nature of such a breach of a contract, the amount claimed does not reflect any contractual obligation and the general vagueness of the claim means that it is not possible to submit a proper defence.

 

Will this be good enough for my case or should I prepare a more in dept defences statement? Also anything in the meanwhile I can do?

 

Thanks

Kikic

Link to post
Share on other sites

first bit OK,

I would then add as point 2 (yes, number them) that in any case the signage at the site is inadequate to form a contact

 

then

3 the POC do not contain sufficient detail to show what is being claimed either in terms of monies due, whether it is for a contractual consideration or a breach of contract, and why the defendant is liable.

All this is contrary to CPR 3.4 and 16.4 and therefore it is impossible to submit a proper defence at this time.

 

4 The claimant has failed to show any authority from the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name by way of response to a CPR 31.14 request for documents.

 

The defendant believes that no such authority exists and the matter should be struck out as having no locus standi.

 

Now after this you have to do all of the other things you have failed to do,

get decent pictures of the signage,

find out who owns the land and whether that person owns all of the courtilage to the entire parade of shops or just where their sign is,

whether planning permission was sought for the signs,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening EB, thank you for your help.

 

Deference statement for case xxxxx Defedant v Claiment.

 

1. The defendant denies that any contract was formed between the palintiff and herself. It is put to srtict proof that such a contract exists as there is no keeper liability under the POFA in this matter.

 

2. The Particulars of Claim contain no detail as to the nature of such a breach of a contract, the amount claimed does not reflect any contractual obligation and the general vagueness of the claim means that in any case the signage at the site is inadequate to form a contact.

 

3. The POC do not contain sufficient detail to show what is being claimed either in terms of monies due, whether it is for a contractual consideration or a breach of contract, and why the defendant is liable. All this is contrary to CPR 3.4 and 16.4 and therefore it is impossible to submit a proper defence at this time.

 

4. The claimant has failed to show any authority from the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name by way of response to a CPR 31.14 request for documents.

 

The defendant believes that no such authority exists and the matter should be struck out as having no locus standi.

 

So will this be ok for the defence statement?

 

Also next task to take picture of the signage,

because the NTK 'evidence images' shows at night time,

 

do I take pictures of the carpark during the night

(which I already did, as the signage was high up, I needed to zoom in) ,

 

so it will shows the signage was not clear enough and do I need to have a approx measurement of how high the signage were because I think it is placed too high up?

 

Would I need to contact PPM and ask if they have the planning permission for the signage or search online for the landowner details and ask the landowner?

 

Thank you

Kikic

Link to post
Share on other sites

No the local council planning dept

 

3. The POC do not contain sufficient detail to show what is being claimed

 

Does not

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

Take pictures night and day, and the height of the signs imho

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

on point 2 it should be vagueness of the claim AND in any case....

you take pictures in both daylight and at night without flash so try and avoid using your mobile as the CCD camera will automatically adjust to the conditions. what you want to show is how dificult it would be to read the sgnage in the dark, not how clever your phone camera is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hi a quick question as im doing the MCOL now it asked me do i wanted to make a counterclaim? should i take yes?

 

As I had to submit before I go work so I just ticked no to counter claim I don’t know if it affect anything I will do later

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to say several stages still to go but we will guide you as best we can. Gladstones usually screw it up for their clients so you wont have to do much on the day if it does get to court

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Unfortunately I received an EMAIL!! which was in my ‘Junk’ that was sent yesterday morning from one of Gladstone’s litigation assistant.

 

Email copied:

‘We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.

 

Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

 

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

 

You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward. ’

 

Along with N180 direction forms and n180 special direction form.

 

I had no idea how they got my email, it is because I left it on Mcol? I did request from signage permission and they said will reply before end of month and took more pictures of signage. How should I proceed next? Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

That's a pretty standard letter from these guys. They always suggest a hearing on paper because if people turn up and challenge them, they lose. You definitely don't agree to that. Please wait for the forum guys to advise, but as yet it seems they haven't activated the plan to go to court?

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

as the lady says^^:-D

 

have YOU received your N180 from THE COURT

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

Oh wow so Gladstone like to play it this way...

 

no I haven’t received any letter from court yet.

 

how do I stop them from contacting me through my email, just blocking them will solve the problem?

and remove the email from MCOL if I can?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

just ignore them

you only react to stuff from THE COURT.

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

yes, block their email.

They do this because it is a free way of harassing you, same as phone calls.

 

Note the content of their communication that says

"we have a big stick, you cant see it but it is real and if you dont do as we say we will get our friends to tell you that they are going to tell us to hit you with it.

If you dont believe us about the invisible stick then our friends wont talk to you at all and you will be sorry"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I had a response from the local council. I’m not sure if it any useful to my case?

 

‘I’ve been asked to respond to your email dated 16th October 17 regarding West Gate Plaza, 19 Moor Street, West Bromwich.

The type of sign that you’ve referred doesn’t usually need advertisement consent & I’ve never dealt with an application for such an application.

However I’ve had a look at the advertisement regulations and this type of sign should not exceed 0.3 square metres in area and should be non-illuminated.

Also it/they should be not more than 4.6 metres above ground level.

 

I understand you may be preparing a legal court case but in all honesty I don’t think we’d pursue an application, or take any enforcement action if the sign is slightly over what’s permitted as I doubt the signs are causing any loss of amenity.

Further I can’t find any record of any existing complaints to this department in relation to the sign.‘

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...