Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Armtrac Security windscreen PNC - Over stay at St.Ives


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2099 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

DF, this is soooooooo much better than back to back eastbenders.......when you say it like you do, it really is crystal clear, they tie themselves up in their own BS and legal jargon, AWESOME!

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Will and John, owners of the International Parking Community have threatened some people for misquoting the name of their organisation as the Independent Parking Committee (which coincidentally happens to be the previous name)

 

so Armtrac are in trouble for claiming to be a member of an ATA that doesnt exist and could well be sured by Gladstones for pretending to be an accredited operator of an organisation that doesnt exist but whose name is a trade mark.

 

Comment has been made about the signs,

the blue one with a big P on it is taking the P,

it is an invitation to treat so not an offer contract as there are no contractual terms.

 

The red one offers parking at £100 but this clashed with the blue tariff board that says you pay £1 or so and has a penalty charge for parking other than accordance with the terms BUT these terms are the precise terms you are ALLOWED to park under on the red sign for free!

 

so is that a flat fee of £100 reduced to zero if you park badly or £1 increased to £100 if you park badly?

You dont have to accept either of these sets of terms anyway because the signage fails to meet the standards laid down by the POFA and the worst that can legally happen is the landowner asks you to move.

 

So you want to appeal to a company that gets things this badly wrong and hope they take any notice?

they really cannot find their own backsides with both hands so good luck with that

 

looking on the bright side, it does create a paper trail and shows how unreasonable any action they decide to take afterwards si as they have been told they are talking cobblers.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I did post them a letter stating:

 

I am the keeper of vehicle xxxx and am in receipt of your Notice to Keeper xxxxx

 

The NTK fails to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, namely, but not limited to, section 8 (2) (f) in that a warning to the keeper has not been made.

 

I agree with you that the the driver is liable for this charge but I, as the keeper, can not be held liable for the actions of the driver at the time. There is no legal duty to identify the driver and I will not be doing so.

 

I have, as requested, passed your NTK to the driver and they may contact you about this matter. Consequently I do not expect to hear from you again other than to confirm that no further action will be taken against me on the matter.

 

Received a letter back from them, I went to the website to view the photographic evidence but it's nowhere to be found!

ketter.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the usual waste paper. File it.

 

With the signage that you've already posted, there's not a chance on earth that they'll win a defended county court claim, so let them waste their money while you sit back and laugh at their ineptitude :lol:

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 should NEVER agree with them that the driver is liable, who are you to say that given that you cannot create a third party contract nor force someone into a criminal compact.

 

If their procedures were close to being POFA compliant this sort of statement may well be taken at face value and having agreed with then that the driver is liable you leave yourself ope to a civil tort if the driver doesnt agree with you on this but is put to expense to argue against it.

 

This is why we say ignire them when they get things wrong, let them make the errors rather than you putting your foot in it. However, as they are so incompetent this will never see the light of day even if they do try their luck so you can ignore them and do so this time.

Edited by DragonFly1967
Added paragraphs
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

What's the problem?

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

this is not a lba, just a threat to pass the matter on to a dca (ooh scary!) or to Gladstones the incompetent solicitors who own the IPC ( well own a company that calls itself the international Parking Community because they are too incompetent to actually register their name as a trade mark so that tells you a lot about how good they are).

 

You have already told them they are wrong so no need to tell them again, let thek spend their money getting someone else to fail to get you to pay up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hello,

have you got any further with your Armtrac issue?

I have one of my own which is proving to be very upsetting.

 

I parked in one of their Hayle car parks last June 2017.

I purchased a ticket, put it right way up on dashboard, checked it was visible.

 

When I got back to the car I had been issued a parking ticket.

I checked the time and I was inside the allocated period

 

I wrote to them thinking there had been a mistake and the fine would be rescinded.

Instead I was told that I had not stuck the ticket to the windscreen as the signs dictated and the ticket was not clearly visible.

 

I had taken photos to prove it was, but it was clearly visible from standing by the windscreen and not from in front of the car where Armtrac had taken the photo.

 

In my naivety, I still thought this an error that would be resolved easily, so I appealed to the IPC.

Again I was ruled against.

 

I called Armtrac and said I was not going to pay a fine as I had proof I had paid appropriately plus the amount they were claiming was disproportionate and inappropriate.

 

I heard nothing more for nine months, until out of the blue I received a Letter before Claim from Gladstones.

 

I moved house three weeks ago, so they do not have my correct address, but in the move I threw out the parking ticket and letters thinking I would hear nothing further (I still have the photos though)

 

It has been 13 months now and I am very unsure what to do.

I did however act correctly, pay the correct fee and enter into dialogue to try and sort this.

Please help!

Thank you

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi ya

please start a new thread

of your own

this one is for advising Jim Rogers

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 need to contact Gladstones in writing (never email) and tell them that you deny owing any monies as their terms were not breached and Armtrac are as likely to win a court claim as England are to win the world cup retrospectively. Abusing their position as the parking worlds worst solicitors and owners of the IPC should make them ashamed of themselves but it is well known that Gladstones have no moral comass so you suspect that they will try and persuade Armtrac to try their luck in court as it is all money for them even when they lose their clients money.

 

 

Dont be shy, they arent just the next taxi on the rank, it is in their interestes to try it on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...