Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

G24 ANPR CPCN: overstay, Toys.R.Us Meole Brace Shrewsbury


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2206 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

Hi all,

A good friend of mine has received a letter from G24 asking for £100 for stopping at a car park for 199 minutes when the free parking was only for 120 minutes.

 

Please can I ask what he should do?

 

So far, his other half wants to pay it to 'get it out of the way' but, fair play to him, he is holding firm until he gets advice....so here I am ;)

 

Please help if you can.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Apologies. I now have done.

 

Hi all,

A good friend of mine has received a lettericon from G24 asking for £100 for stopping at a car park for 199 minutes when the free parking was only for 120 minutes.

 

Please can I ask what he should do?

 

So far, his other half wants to pay it to 'get it out of the way' but, fair play to him, he is holding firm until he gets advice....so here I am

Link to post
Share on other sites

urh?

 

didn't ask you to start a new thread in another forum

 

can you please answer the questions in that link

and copy/paste the Q and you answers here please..

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

1 Date of the infringement

27 Dec 2017

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]

3 Jan 2018

 

3 Date received

5 Jan 2017

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?]

Not specifically section 4, just 'The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012'

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

Yes

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal]

No

 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up

N/A

 

7 Who is the parking company?

G24

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

Toys R' Us, Meole Brace Retail Park, Hereford Road, Shrewsbury SY3 9NB

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

Appeals: IAS

For complaints: IPC

Link to post
Share on other sites

as the trade association these lot belong to is the IPC it isnt worth appealing

the easiest way to fight this is to look at the offer made by the signage.

 

For that we need to see it

get them to take pictures and also tell us exactly what the claim is for.

Ideally post up the NTK with personal details redacted so name address car reg their bard codes etc removed.

 

Now many parking co's get the wording of the NTK wrong or even fail to name the land the event supposedly happened at so lots of scope to pick holes.

 

Another thing that would be useful would be to ask the local council planning dept if there was any time limit for customer parking on the planning application or consent.

 

Many of these retail developments have that stipulated so no parking co or even the landowner can change it without going back to the council and putting in another planning application.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

What a site! Three different parking companies work at the site. UKPC, Horizon and G24. I cannot zoom into the pictures of the signs at the store so a return trip is needed to get some close ups of the signs.

 

A little thinking outside of the box here. The signs say 'Customer Parking Only' What would happen if he wasn't an actual customer. Would he then be a trespasser?? :|

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, as the trade association these lot belong to is the IPC it isnt worth appealing so the easiest way to fight this is to look at the offer made by the signage. For that we need to see it so get them to take pictures and also tell us exactly what the claim is for. Ideally post up the NTK with personal details redacted so name address car reg their bard codes etc removed. Now many parking co's get the wording of the NTK wrong or even fail to name the land the event supposedly happened at so lots of scope to pick holes.

Another thing that would be useful would be to ask the local council planning dept if there was any time limit for customer parking on the planning application or consent. Many of these retail developments have that stipulated so no parking co or even the landowner can change it without going back to the council and putting in another planning application.

 

Brilliant stuff, thank you.

Just to clarify, then you say ‘get them to take pictures’, you and obviously mean my friend to take pictures of the sign?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, pictures from the road showing any (and all) entrance signage, from different angles, and if you can, some kind of 'drivers eye view' would be very useful.

 

Then have a wander around the car park taking pictures of all signage that's dotted around the car park. With close-ups so that we can zoom in and read all the text.

 

You can almost guarantee that if multiple parking companies are operating on the site, the signage is going to be confusing to the extreme, and this can only serve to help your case.

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

Having had a look at the site on Google street view (although I don't know when those images were taken)... All of the signage I can make out relates to UKPC. So I can't quite work out how G24 come in to it.

 

Also, it's free parking, so why are there "Ringo, pay to park" signs all over the place?

 

UKPC are BPA (AOS) members, and G24 IPC (AOS) members. So there's a real 'hotch-potch' of problems with this site that only clear, up to date images can sort out.

 

If the signage is still the same, I don't think that there's going to be too much problem with beating these clowns at their own game.

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

Having had a look at the site on Google street view (although I don't know when those images were taken)... All of the signage I can make out relates to UKPC. So I can't quite work out how G24 come in to it.

 

Also, it's free parking, so why are there "Ringo, pay to park" signs all over the place?

 

UKPC are BPA (AOS) members, and G24 IPC (AOS) members. So there's a real 'hotch-potch' of problems with this site that only clear, up to date images can sort out.

 

If the signage is still the same, I don't think that there's going to be too much problem with beating these clowns at their own game.

See post 8 above

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you pop that scan up as a PDF please

read upload

its too blurred.

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

the NTK fails to carry a proper address for the service of legal documents so it isnt POFA compliant.

A PO box number doesnt cut the mustard.

 

I also note that they are quite specific about the land

so this indicates they have a contract with toys r us,

who may well not be the landowner,

just an occupier,

who have less rights to allow parking cos to ply their trade on the site.

 

I agree with dragonfly and others,

the signage on google is most confusing and not an offer of a contract with anyone as far as can be determined by the sign at the entrance

so unfortunately pictures will be needed to sort out the mess.

 

It is a good idea to photograph all of the signs you see not only within this car park but anywhere on the retail development.

 

Reason for this is if the land is owned by a large developer and each car park is parcelled off with a certain store

then the contracts the parking co's have will still have to be with the developer

 

then we can show that for example 3 arrangements were made between different parties

how is the customer expected to know who has any rights and where these rights extend to in terms of both the land covered and the permission between the different parties.

 

ou can only be bound by a contarct if it is clear from the outrset what you are entering into so introduce this amount of fog and a judge will side with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See post 8 above

 

I get that... The point that I was trying to make (probably badly) is that you have to pass numerous UKPC signs (on the roadways) before you enter in to any of the car parks which may or may not be "controlled" by A.N.Other bunch of halfwits.

 

Who's contract are you accepting?

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...