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 ? 
  • Our picks

jonnymango

Gemini Parking PCN claimform - Olympic Park

Recommended Posts

why all the blanked out stuff in the parking contract?

and no proof its paid this year either?

 


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

all the cases they mention have zero relation to parking matters

 

use the custom google search after click our top squares logo

and type each cases name in and read.

 

else see the parking prankster site.


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

the majority of their signs just say permit parking only and make no offer of a contract for random people to park.

You need to work out exactly where all these signs are located and the liklidood that the ones that mention paying to park and especially being charged £100 for doing it wrong actually are.

 

If you take council controlled on street parking as being the gold standard then this lot will need the correct sign at every place where public parking is permitted and where it is permit only then they cant and aren't offer you a contract to park in the first place.

 

Also you find out who actually owns the land as they have a contract with a management co who may or may not have the necessary chain of authority to enter into a contract with the parking bandits.

 

The judge may assume that such authority exists but by doing your homework and stating that the parking co has failed to show they have the necessary agency they cant offer you anything.

 

What about the planning aspect?

you need to bone up on that, the parking pranksters blog of dec 2017 called the great private car park approval [problem] and follow the link near the bottom of that article to a paper on the subject.

You will copy that into your evidence and use it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you both once again for the directions. I'll be back when I've done my homework!

 

When I had no response to my CPR request I started looking for any evidence of planning consent for any signage and found none. I'll continue to dig to make sure I'm not missing anything.

Edited by jonnymango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then you can state that they dont have it and thus are a bunch of criminals and you cnat enter into a compactthit is only created by criminality.

again you will need to look this up and ram it down the judges throat as it is often lied about by parking co's and misunderstood by the judiciary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I gather from the Parking Prankster Blog. My only concern is whether they have got wise and made sure all of their signage is less than 0.3sqm and so given deemed consent. Trip back there with a tape measure coming up.


That and the POFA errors in the NTK could be key - stating that "the overdue charge will increase to £160 in the first instance of further action"  implying potential further costs, where if I'm reading things right it should state the maximum costs they may seek to recover?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then you havent read the 2007 ACT have you? the deemed consent only applies to certain classes of sign

also if they are that small then they fail the ATA size test and cant be good enough to offer a fair contract as they will be illegible from a moving vehicle etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Apparently not.. off to find it now. Thank you!

 

Am I right re the NTK?

Edited by jonnymango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there we go then..


They're not gov't related (1), identifying, warning or directional, relating to a business, religious, educational, cultural etc institution, hotel, pub, etc (2), temporary (3), illuminated (4) or otherwise(5) on business premises or forecourt (6) thereof. They're not flags (7), not on hoardings (8) or highway structures (9). They're not for Neighbourhood Watch(10) or directing peopple to a residential development (11). They're not inside(12), and they've certainly not been there for ten years (13). No consent has expired(14), they're not on balloons (15) or telephone kiosks(16)

 

So unless they have applied for planning they are there illegally, so copied from elsewhere..

It's a criminal offence to breach the legislation. 

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 (as amended). Regulation 30 makes it a criminal offence to display advertisements without the relevant consent.

If there was a contract between the PPC and the driver, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (the erection of the un-consented signs which the PPC relies on as having made a contractual offer). 

Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under it, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced

This allows Defendants to run a defence of Ex dolomalo non oritur actio

 

Also  that Gemini are operating with disregard to the AOS CoPs and therefore not entitled to obtain keeper details from the DVLA under the DVLA's own terms. Ergo they have no right to to obtain my details either.

 

Am I getting warmer?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that means you can sue them for obtaining and PROCESSING your keeper details unlawfully but it would be wise to do this as a separate action.

 When you submit your WS you could send them a letter before action demanding £250 in this regard just so they know that it is a 2 way street. Thjey will of course deny that they are in the wrog but then they will have to persuade a judge twice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...