Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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
      • 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

Smart Parking charge ,Haven Banks Exeter.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2118 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 Every one,

 

Please help/Advise.

 

I was photographed entering the haven banks car park on the 22/dec/2017 at 11.42am.

 

Paid £1.00 for 2hrs /120mins parking at 11.46.

 

Was then photographed leaving at 14.03pm on the same day.

 

Unfortunately I entered the last two digit's of my registration wrong ****LKX when it should of been ****LXK.

 

So received a parking charge letter on the 01/01/2018 stating that I needed to pay £54.00within 14 days ,if I was to appeal and fail this would go up to £90.00.

 

I of course contacted Smart Parking and forwarded on the parking ticket which I paid for hoping they would see scene and cancel the charge.(Ya Right!).

 

There letter arrived on the 27/01/2018 ,stating that as the motorist and that there are signs clearly stating not to make mistakes it was my fault. Also I was over my paid 120mins by 20mins.(I understand that this is the 5mins entering the car park parking and paying for ticket and the 15mins leaving).

 

I again appealed To POPLA, stating that I was in my car within my paid time ,but due to the excessive amount of vehicle's entering/leaving this car park over the xmas period ,I was unable leave hence the 10 to 15min wait ,but didn't realise I was over my time when I eventually drove out.

 

But on the 5/3/2017 while POPLA agreed the wrong reg details should cause the fine my overstay still did. So the charge is £90.00

 

Sorry that there's so much to read , I have all letters and the £1.00 parking ticket so can forward them on .

 

haven't paid the charge yet ,hoping there's some one that will advise me.

 

Cheers

Edited by DragonFly1967
Added spacing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is easy.

 

Do absolutely nothing!

 

When you say you forwarded the P&D ticket to Daft Parking... You mean a copy of it right, not the original?

 

Can you scan in and upload (

 

Entering the wrong registration number is not a cause for action and Daft Parking know it. They are one of the companies that have been spanked in court for trying this.

 

They might be trying to get you for the *alleged* overstay. But if you were queuing to leave the car park then you could not also have been parked. So that's a non starter too.

 

Havens Bank is a well known site on here. Have a read of some of the other Havens Bank threads. https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-0964707606882478:652l7hswbgv&ie=UTF-8&q=havens+bank&sa=Search+CAG#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=havens%20bank&gsc.page=1

 

So, upload what you have and let's have a proper look and we'll see what we can do to beat these clowns :thumb:

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

Could you also have a look at this post and then copy & paste the relevant bits (along with your answers) back to this thread.

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

1 Date of the infringement 22 /12 /2017

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 01/01/2018

 

3 Date received 3/01/2018

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?]not sure

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?yes

 

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

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

 

7 Who is the parking company?smart parking

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Haven Banks Retail Pk,Exeter

 

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

Letters.pdf

Edited by DragonFly1967
Added redacted PDF
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. You've done all that you can now. The Hoopla decision isn't binding on you, so sit back and enjoy all the junk mail that you're going to be getting from Daft, their pet DCA and then their pet snake (solicitor).

 

Both Daft parking and Hoopla seem to think that a) a small inconsequential human error makes the PCN valid, and b) Parking is the same as queuing. Neither is true.

 

So if they want to take this any further, unless Daft parking supply their own Judge, I can see snowballs and hell in their future. :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

  • 3 months later...

Hi everyone,

just a quick update and not including the initial letter from Smart Parking .

 

I have received three DRP (debt Recovery Plus Ltd) (2 in Apr &1 may) asking for the money £160. within the 1st sentence it states 'Most people pay their parking charges straightaway' Well I wont!!!

 

Then a change to Zenith Collections (same company but different letter heading I'm sure) in which I now have two letters (1 in May & 1 in June) asking for the £160.00 .

 

Each time demanding the money or they would advise to take court action(bring it on), But always Extending the deadline.

 

I only hope that one day this car park changes its ways, I have not once set foot or placed a car wheel onto their property and never will do again due to the way they behave.

Cheers all...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

This car park has shown up time and time again so it begs this question. Why this particular site? I have looked on Google Street View and there seems to be no reason why this is happening. As it was near Christmas, you would expect that it's hard to find a space in the first place and then the queues leaving and SP should have allowed for that. If they chose to go to court, I would say that any reasonable judge would take that into consideration.

 

 

 

The fact you mistyped your reg number is neither here nor there. You paid for parking so any claim will (in my opinion) fail.

 

 

You are quite correct that Zenith are DR+: just another desk in the same office.

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

they have form here and you need to acquaint yourself of all the other postings about the site, including the ones on the parking pranksters blog. if they do try and get tough you can let them know that they have been rumbled and you will be quoting all of the other dodgy demands to show that their system isnt fit for purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...