Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • p'haps not the best thing to do just use the N244.and the ex160 let them sort it out don't complicate things..   don't worry about the bailiffs there isn't really anything they can do there is no right of forced entry upon consumer debt CCJ enforcement.    
    • again you appear not to be understanding things.....   a default does not go statute barred - as carefully explained in post 4....once it reaches its 6th birthday it along with the associated account will be removed from your file. that happening has no effect on the debt itself. it does not mean it is no owed.    your debt is NOT statute barred it has a CCJ . should the claimant fail to enforce the CCJ by it's 6th birthday, when, as with a default, it falls off your credit file, then they would need to return to court to do so. and again that happening has no effect upon the debt itself.   they both operate under the same ICO rule, quoted as in post 4..   All references to a defaulted debt must be removed from your credit files after 6 years  has passed from date of default, whether paid off, paying now or not.  . This is so that someone who continues paying something  - even after 6 years from default  - should not be at a disadvantage to someone who pays nothing after default  and ends up with a clean file after 6 years. 
    • Pleased to say that the default has gone from my credit report due to being SB. My Experian credit score is now 978 out of 999 and excellent. Experian doesn’t show my 2 x CCJ’s. Equifax’s shows just 1.    my question is this.... clearly the debt is still owed for the SB debt, the CCJ is still live until June next year.   Can I make an offer of 10% to settle the debt now that it’s SB? If so is there a letter template that I can send to them to make such an offer?   thanks in advance 
    • Your position is not untenable in any way. You have already mitigated partially any impending disaster by opening another non Paypal linked bank account so they cannot arbitrarily seize what they want.   First thing to remember you are in control here. Whatever you offer to pay them must be something you can reasonably afford even if its only a pound a week and you must pay it to Paypal. If like me they freeze your account then there is no way you can reasonably pay them. They are not going to give you another account to pay it into.   The reason I got into difficulties with them was because I had recurring large payments being made to a supplier of mine which continued after I was rushed into hospital for series of emergency operations. When I came out of hospital Paypal had simply frozen the account which I discovered when I tried to pay money into it to alleviate the huge deficit that had accrued. So I paid nothing of what I owed. I received about 4 or 5 threatening missives which I ignored as well as any phone calls. I tried for several months to make payments into the account and in the end I gave up. Despite all the threats nothing actually happened.   If you read all the answers to your posting as well as all the other Paypal posts I doubt you will find any evidence of Paypal doing very much to enforce outstanding balances and funnily enough they do not make it easy for those that wish to repay them as I discovered.   So stop getting yourself into a flap over something that is very unlikely to be nothing more than a storm in a tea cup.   Make or start you offer to re-pay them at a figure you can easily afford then forget all about them except to make your regular payment if you can still do so.   DO NOT under any circumstances get yourself deeper into debt over this.
    • she certainly hasn't any authority to 'fine' you. what was in the contract regarding vacating the property by when?  
  • Our picks

apahtan

PCM Windscreen PCN claimform - Sailsbury village - REsidential Permit fallen on Floor **WON**

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 240 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

Thanks for the additional info! Should I post this special delivery as it needs to get to Gladdys/Court by the 7th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st will do, get a pop from the post office counter. it is deemed delivered 2 days after posting so no need to spend money on special

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For cases that I have mentioned, should I include the whole transcript or the front page? I will bring the full transcript to the hearing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just the front they can look it up themselves if they want too

and ofcourse the 'bit' you relate too.


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

I disagree, the whole transcript has to included in your evidence bundle, some judges are very particular on that as they woild not like the opposition using it as an excuse for an adjournment. Copy of the POFA and the like can just be taken with you and the same goes with the 2007 planning act for the signage planning permission argument.

Now as they will put in a witness statement that the person who wrote it wont be there you can attack the for not having someone to cross examine if you find flaws in their testimony. Again, the judge wont g for an adjournemtn but may well decide that their WS isnt admissable if you find enough propblems. That will give them nothing to talk about and you win the day. happens quite a lot when people prepare and ask the right questions. when you get their WS we can help you pick out the suspect bits and go on the attack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summary of Witness Statement:

1.       Parking charge issued due to contravention of T&Cs – no valid permit on display

2.       Paragraph #5: Signage quote: “Vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within the windscreen of the vehicle, providing …”

3.       Defendant raises issue with the authority by which my Company has issued the above charge. Document GSL1 – copy of contract with Landowner

4.       Goes on to mention that Company has authority to enforce parking charges. Quotes Beavis and VCS vs HMRC “made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance.”

5.       Quotes Lord Justice Lewison in VCS vs HMRC 2013

6.       Paragraph #11: Defendant suggests there was no contract, this is not agreed with. Terms of signage are unambiguous in nature…

7.       Rules of interpretation require simply that the parties knew of their obligations to one-another. The Defendant was offered to use the Land and thereafter either follow the rules and park for free or in breach of the rules and agree to pay £100.

8.       Quotes Alder v Moore – court concluded that one should consider obligations imposed by the agreement, not the terminology used.

9.       Principles in the case are same as Parking Eye (vs Beavis), except the rule breached was that motorists must leave within 2 hours.

10.   #Paragraph 18 – Signage (…) has been approved by the International Parking Committee.

11.   Quoted a letter I sent, where I mentioned their stupidity !

12.   #Para 26: Company is an Accredited Operator of International Parking Committee and goes on to quote the code.

13.   Para 27: In view of Defendant not paying charge within the initial 28 days or the further 28 days allowed after the NtK has been sent, the charge has become overdue and £60 added.

 

 

a)       Already included Beavis transcript + Beavis sign in my exhibits

b)      Can I be sued as both the driver and the keeper – because it doesn’t seem to concretely mention what they are suing me as.

c)       The contract they have – attached – mentions “The scheme will be operated in accordance with the BPA (British Parking Association) and AOS (Approved Operator Scheme) Code of Practice. Could this provide a line of defence – i.e. they were not following their own contract, therefore have no authority?

6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to answer your questions, b and c,

 

They have to say in waht capacity they are suing you. You may have a liability as the driver (if they win all of the other points) but to create a keeper liability they have to follow the protocols of the POFA and use the correct wording on their letters and the correct time frame.

 

Yes they have to follow the code of their ATA (the BPA) as that ACOP is binding on them otherwise they fail to fulfil the requireemtn sof the POFA. As they are members of the IPC then to strictly adhere to the BPA CoP may mean they arent following the IPC one so you need to look at bothe and write down all of the difference and be prepared to ask which of the clashing points they have applied. I wouild suggest that they ended their contract when they changed to the IPC and you want to see the new version.

 

Now they signed their deal with Bovis Homes in 2004 so what evidence is there that (1) Bovis still own the land where you parked as they usually sell it on and (2) the contract is still in force. It doesnt have an idication of how long it is in place so is it unfair to assume it is only for a week or a year?

 

The most important thing about this is that they have written that their interest is very limited and they cant actually sue you for not showing a permit as the comtrcat isnt for parking management it is for enforcing 2 particular points that are not an offer of parking so no contract can be formed between the motorist and PCM. Bags of previous cases on this so look some up and dos creen shots of what you find. parking pranksters blogspot and web site will be first port of call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/03/2019 at 08:52, ericsbrother said:

 as the comtrcat isnt for parking management it is for enforcing 2 particular points that are not an offer of parking

Just to clarify - the contract they've shown says "We will require PCM UK to undertake the management and/or enforcement of parking on the land specified above"

The contract explicitly says that they are required to manage parking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the date of that?

 


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

so have you read the judges open ended parking contracts as per one of the court reports on the parking prankster's blogspot? Also have you looked up who owns the land as it isnt usual for Bovis to hang on to it. you can ask the council when you ask about the planning permission for the parking signage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ericsbrother said:

so have you read the judges open ended parking contracts as per one of the court reports on the parking prankster's blogspot? Also have you looked up who owns the land as it isnt usual for Bovis to hang on to it. you can ask the council when you ask about the planning permission for the parking signage

 

Can't find the judgement about open ended parking contract,

Found out from council that road is still unadopted but the property which the vehicle was parked in front of, is not owned by Bovis Homes - not sure if this counts, as Bovis could still own the road or if frontage applies

Edited by apahtan
clearer wording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Used map locator on land registry. Still owned by Bovis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it is likely that Bovis will pass on road to council at some point in furure.

you need to reread the pranksters blogspot for the last 3 years at least. It is there somewhere. then you can copy and quote it. Time spent reading all those blogs will not be wasted, you will leanr a lot more than you will from me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Won the case!

 

No solicitor for the claimant came, Judge asked us to explain our case (I brought a friend who I thought would be my lay representative, but Judge said they could only be a Mackenzie friend)

 

Argued over following points:

  1. Prohibitive sign - although I dont think I explained myself clearly and Judge didn't seem too convinced by it
  2. Misleading signage - Judge didn't accept our argument of "within windscreen", but was convinced by logo and Unfair Contracts 2008 regs
  3. Locus Standi - argued they breached their contract because said sign didnt follow contract documentation
  4. Conduct - made point that no record of LBA or NtK received - WS from Gladdys mentioned an NtK

Judge also said this charge was a penalty and they were familiar with Beavis case but not PCM v Bull

Also, the fact that it was a residential road, the Judge disagreed that any services were provided by PCM

 

Funny thing happened when it came to asking for costs, Judge said that it might not be the end of the issue and to take the dismissal of the claim, still asked for travel costs and they seemed peeved off.

Was a bit put off by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, and well done for sticking to your guns.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still a great result, another PPC loses money chasing what they weren't entitled to in the first place.  Nice One.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, I think we had some luck on our side. If anyone is reading this for their own claim you need to put a LOT of research time in. It took me at least a good 20 -30 hours overall reading, editing, copy/pasting and trying to understand the arguments. It wouldve been a lot easier if I had done this in a more organised fashion. I went into this without knowing a lot. 

Personally I think the stuff I presented was confusing and didn't follow a nice, logical format and was not succinct. That's mainly down to doing it last minute - so avoid that at all costs!

 

Finally, thanks to all your help guys. To be completely honest, I think the £60 fine at the start would have been cheaper when considering the time cost and stress of the process, and I know many, if not all on this forum would disagree with me (since we are all here to fight these extortionists). The PPCs have used the legal system to make this process lengthy, (stress-inducing for those not in the know) and full of uncertainty and for them it is a numbers game, which unfortunately continues to net them lots of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine?

 

 


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

consider this, If you didnt fight it why would the parking co stop at £60? They would soon ramp the amount demanded up to say £200 or whatever the amount most people would pay up without a fight.

Consider how much this has cost them, Gladstone dont work for free even thtough they are the IPC in another frock. they have wasted money on letters, dca threats, the DVLA access charge etc, all in all they have probably spent a lot more than £60.

 

As you now have proof that they had no claim you can also sue them for breach of the DPA/GDPR for obtaining (and more importantly processing) your keeper deatils without reasonable cause and that is worth 3500 to you if you fancy it.

What I would do is send CPM a letter saying they should now pay your wasted time costs of say £60 ( it seems to be their favourite number) or you will sue them  for that and the £500 for the breach of the DPA as per VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC Dec 2016. Copy of letter to Galdstones to let them know that their  poor advice andpractices is what really lost their client money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ericsbrother's suggestion has merit, bite the would be biter back.

 


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...