Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • have you written evidence it was hacked?    
    • well you see the thing is that document could have come from anywhere here on CAG their filing cabinet then all they do it type your details in....no they wouldn't do that would they....   its supposed to come from the original creditor, and a correct return typically does have a tick box with your typed name by it and the IP address used and the time of it etc etc.   sadly cabot are masters and have alot of filing cabinets..... lots of claimform threads here on cat debts   is the address the correct one for time of sign up?   dx    
    • OK got access to the SLC portal and there is absolutely nothing there for the 1996 loan that Shoosmiths are dealing with, only a subsequent loan I took out in 2002.   What does that mean, if anything?
    • My son is in his 30's and he is very gullible.   The letter from his bank states " that they have contacted the retailer's bank and they believe the transaction to be yours. If you do not recognise this payment contact the retailer as they will be able to provide you with a more detailed information. Should you be able to provide further evidence to support that the transaction was neither made nor authorised by you, please contact us."   The bank also provided the delivery address and the name of the retailer.   How do you provide further evidence to support a transaction that was not authorised by you when the account was hacked through scammers?
    • So they have to basically provide full proof that I checked a box in agreement to validate that CCA? And at the minute it's basically just a piece of paper with my name and (old} address on it?   Is it worth putting in another IA a little nearer the time demanding this again? Stating that? Giving them enough time to legally comply, but not too much time?
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

UKCPM/gladstone claimform - Windscreen PCN - visitor permit own space *** Case Dismissed ***


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 957 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

My daughter parked in my private parking bay and viewed the visitor permit in the windscreen rather that the permit with the bay number.

When we returned she had a parking ticket.

 

I wrote to UK Car Park Management Ltd advising this was an error and that she had my permission to park there me being the resident for that bay and provided photographs of both the visitor and bay number permits.

 

She still received letters requesting payment which rightly or wrongly i told her to ignore as i believed we have the proof that she had permission to park there.

 

She has now received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors stating 'Letter Before Claim'

 

The initial ticket was for £100 which increased to £149 and the latest letter states £160

My daughter has never responded to the letters in respect of this ticket by my advice as i gave her permission to park there.

 

Should i or her respond to the 'Letter Before Claim' or ignore it?

 

Any advice would be gratefully received

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So, you have the land owners authority to allow whoever you like to park in the bay allocated to you?.

 

The 'problem' being that instead of your daughter showing a permit with 'your' bay's number on it she showed a visitor's permit (presumably there are visitor's bays, too).

 

If I've got that right, then in fact:

a) they have suffered no loss ( and they 'gained' the use of the visitor's bay she might have occupied)

b) she parked with permission, giving her 'supremacy' over any rights claimed by UK Car Park Management Ltd.

 

I'd not get into letter tennis with Glady's, but one letter in reply would be my advice.

"Dear Glady's,

I've already explained to UK CPM Ltd why this sum isn't owed.

The reasons are [as set out above].

Any claim will be robustly defended on this basis."

 

If they were daft enough to try to take this to court it'd likely be small claims track (where costs are limited), but none the less you want to be seen to have been reasonable and tried to give them the info so court could be avoided (so that, when you win, you can still claim those limited costs allowable!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bazza

Thanks for the advice.

Yes, anybody can park in the numbered bays displaying the numbered voucher. That was the error. My daughter displayed the visitor permit by mistake.

 

You are also correct that there are visitors bays and one would have been used by her.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cant claim that they 'lost' the numbered bay as the numbered permit (that wasn't used, in error) wasn't valid for a different bay.

 

They can't claim she was parked without permission, as your permission grants 'supremacy' (if the bay is allocated to you).

 

Whilst it is always worth telling them so politely, as correspondence can feature in any future court case, they can 'jog on!' :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I told my daughter not to respond to previous correspondance as it is her mums address and not hers.

That way any future actions (should there be any) the debt collectors could not be sure that my daughter lives there.

 

The only concern by responding to Glady's is that it will confirm the letters have been received.

 

I am confident it won't get to that stage but don't want to give any information away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A potential problem then is that any court correspondence will go there.

Is there any concern court correspondence might be missed? As then they'd get a backdoor CCJ, and it'd be messier to get it undone.

 

If that isn't a concern for you you can "keep your powder dry" and just defend IF they issue a claim. If you are asked why you didn't respond to the LBA I can see how you could think "but I'd already told UK CPM Ltd why they didn't have a claim ...."

 

Question : For those who "know the pattern of who does court & who doesn't" :

Do Gladys's do court (on behalf of UK CPM)?

Do they issue claims & then discontinue?

What should the OP expect based on "previous form"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They ukpcm rarely do court

And when they have

They've lost

 

Supremacy rules here

Ignore now till claimforn

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

gladstones will certainly try and persuade CPM to do court,

they need to show the parking world they have the biggest cojones and are the masters of the universe.

 

 

They do this because they are also the IPC in a summer frock so some observers might think there is a conflict of interest here but you can be assured they, as the worlds greatest legal minds, would never act in a manner that is greedy and self serving.

 

Now, what I dont understand is why it is problematical for letters to go to the registered address of the keeper of the vehicle unless daughter is using a false/outdated address.

 

daughter should respond or Gladdys will think they will win by default.

Daughter need to simply tell them that she had permission from the landowner to park there and that this supremacy of contract makes anything they offer invalid and thus any claim made via the courts will be vex and a ful costs recovery order sought.

 

She should say that she is minded to sue their client for a breach of the DPA for obtaining her keeper details contrary to the terms of their KADOE contract.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple reason is that i was unclear of the possible action by UKCPM and wanted them to stay uncertain as to where she lives and if she was receiving the letters.

 

It seemed plausible that debt collectors would not attend the address for such a small amount.

 

In a quandary now whether to contact them or not??

Link to post
Share on other sites

dca's ARE NOT BAILIFFS

they have

NO SUCH LEGAL POWERS.

 

so time to respond unless you are 1000% sure that if a claimform was issued to the address they are writing too

will get alerted to you quickly [

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

who is the registered keeper of the vehicle and where is it registered to?

That will determine where the letters go unless they have been told the drivers address.

 

If vehicle keeper and driver the same person (daughter) then she needs to do the running, no-one else can

She should use the one line response suggested,

she had landowners permission to park there

and they have no say in this matter as the land is not covered by any agreement

 

 

they may have with an uninterested third party and that she is minded to sue them for breach of the DPA for obtaining her keeper details without a reason contrart to their KADOE contract.

 

now stop worrrying about toothless letter writers (dca's cant do anything else) and let the solicitors know they arent getting a walkover.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

only the keeper should be writing unless someone else has been identified as the driver at the time

It is your space so you can be a witness to all of this later but you cannot write to them at present.

 

What you can do is write to them and tell them to desist their harassment of people who are invited on to your property

let them know that you may well sue them as per a motorist who successfully got an injunction against a parking co for trespassing in his space and harassing him for payment.

 

 

It was thread on here a couple of years ago and reported on the parnksters site but I cant find references at present.

 

When you find it you can let them know that they will be about £10k out of pocket if they continue to harass your daughter.

 

 

When you have all your info you can also go to the papers over this,

your local and the Daily Mail would be a good start,

the latter has a long running campaign about the parking cowoiys

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Good morning all.

A letter was sent to Glady's taking ericsbrothers advice stating supremacy, no loss of parking and breach of Kadoe.

 

A reply has been received stating.

 

A. It is not alleged that our client suffered a loss from your parking, only that the driver accepted our clients charge upon parking as it was parked not in accordance with the terms and conditions of licence offered to all motorists on the land, i.e display the correct permit for parking.

 

B. Permission or the ability to park on the relevant land is shown by way of a valid permit being displayed. In parking without it, the charge was accepted. If you wished to park with permission, the correct permit ought to have been displayed to avoid incurring our client's charge.

 

They also say the will defend any claim of breach of the terms of Kadoe advising payment needs to be made within 21 days of the date of this letter. Or they 'may' be instructed to commence legal proceedings.

 

Could you offer any advice?

 

I am minded to ignore the letter now and let it go to small claims court if proceedings are brought.

 

My daughter had a valid permit but a visitor one not the specific bay permit.

I advised the parking company that she had permission to use the bay and sent proof that the bay was mine.

 

It was my daughter who wrote to them with my assistance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are still hinting that their client is right but wont go as far as actually asserting the driver accepted terms they are not actually obliged to.

 

They then try and fudge the whole thing by talking about permissions and they know that no permission is required.

 

That is why they then give another 21 days for you to be frightened by this

or they will be forced to either sue you and lose their clients a pot full of money

or go quiet and lose face as the hard men of the parking world.

 

Generally they would rather lose thier clients money

because they still make a few quid at their expense

even if they cant get you to cough up.

 

the sad thing is that the mugs at UKPCM may fall for that yet again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we reply stating the voucher is valid and the resident who's bay it is had given full permission for it's use by the defendant of which UKPCM were advised immediately so as to prevent this process.

 

Or should we now ignore it and wait to see if a CCJ is applied?

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope sit on your hands

 

unless you get a claimform from northants bulk.

 

dx

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

you come here ofcourse...:madgrin:

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
And if we do?

 

You have a nice day out in County Court at UKCPM's expense. It'll be quite an easy win for you :wink:

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

you wait for them to decide,

you will have no influence from now on until they send out a proper lba.

 

As for CCJ

you have used a misnomer so make yourself aware of what the procedures are so you understand what may happen next and how many stages there are before a CCJ is issued.

 

A claim and a CCJ are often a year apart with several steps between them if the claim is acknowledged and defended.

 

Gladdys hate it when a claim is defended because they do such shoddy work they will invariably get up the judges nose for procedural reasons and that leads to a walkover for the defendant.

 

You save it all for that moment,

they have been given the opportunity to consider things

and deseve to get a costs order for unreasonableness if they do try their luck.

 

If they come back with a proper lba then we advise responding in no uncertain terms but this taradiddle isnt worth a stamp.

 

Should we reply stating the voucher is valid and the resident who's bay it is had given full permission for it's use by the defendant of which UKPCM were advised immediately so as to prevent this process.

 

Or should we now ignore it and wait to see if a CCJ is applied?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another PPC was spanked for a non display of permit in their own space, might be useful:

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/private-parking-solutions-hammered-in.html

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...