Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;     I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.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

Parking Eye PCN trespass? - Cedar Court Hotel, Bradford


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2147 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

any company can sign up with a CRA and eget baisc information to confirm an address they have a name for. they pay to do this and the search is a soft search so no-one else other than the person whose record it is will know it has been done. They wont be able to see any information regarding your financial accounts etc.

Surely a CRA cannot give out information to a PC for an unpaid invoice?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I not write to Parking Eye at all to inform them of the situation?

 

Is the general advice to wait for them to take me to court?

 

Honestly, I would prefer not to go to court. I would prefer to let them know that this is a trespass issue and then for them to leave me alone.

 

After letting them know, that this issue has nothing to do with them or the keeper, but rather it is between the landowner and the driver, then I would instruct them to remove my data from their records, in accordance with GDPR.

 

After that, my intention would be to send them a SAR. If they still hold details relating to me, then I can take further action.

 

Or, if they claim they no longer hold any details about me, but 5 years down the road take me to small claims, then I have a GDPR breach as ammo as well.

 

I want them to delete all the records they hold about me. This is the reason I want to inform them that it is a trespass issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no don't kick the hornet nest yet

save you arrows

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

do this and they wont leave you alone.

You dont wait until they take you to court

but you dont invite letter tennis or respond to any of their silly letters or those from dca's.

 

When it comes to the letter before action you then respond and in no uncertain terms so they know that you are no fool and their actions can then be seen as an abuse of process should they actually go as far as a claim.

 

The GDPR is not some magic bullet, same as the Beavis case doesnt apply in most circumstances so when the parking co's quote it they are taking it out of context

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi ericsbrother and dx100uk

 

I have received a Letter Before County Court Claim from Parking Eye today. This is what it says:

 

LETTER BEFFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM

 

On the 24May 2018 we notified you, as the registered keeper of this vehickle, that you had become liable for the above parking charge notice, which concerned a breach of the parking terms and conditions at Cedar Court Hotel on 16 April 2018. This parking charge notice was levied for breach of contract and the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 012 (POFA) have been satisfied.

 

We now require full payment of the outstanding parking charge in the sum of £100.00. Payment details can be found at the top of this letter.

 

If you wish to contact ParkingEye then you must do so within 30 days of the top of this Letter Before Claim using the enclosed Reply Form. Please refer to the enclosed Information Sheet for more details. If further action is required to recover the outstanding amount and court proceedings are issued, further costs will be incurred. These costs will include, but are not limited to, £50 solicitior's costs and £25 court claim issue fee. Please note that no interest has accrued on the outstanding balance detailed above and that no additional recovery charges have been added at this stage.

 

We would further draw your attention to the Supreme Court decision detailed at paragraph 7 overleaf. The appeal concerned the value of ParkingEye's Parking Charges and the judgment, granted in ParkingEye's favour, delivers a binding precedent in respect of the sum sought as the Supreme Court found that the Parking Charge was set at a reasonable amount.

 

So, do I now need to tell them that the driver was a trespasser? What other info should I include?

 

They have attached forms where they want me to list my income and expenditure and send it to them...cheeky beggars!!

 

The back of ParkingEye's letter includes details of the Beavis case. They also include this paragraph:

As court proceedings have not yet begun and as no defence has yet been filed, it is impossible for ParkingEye to state exactly the document that will be relied upon. However, the essential documents will be; all Parking Charge notices that have been sent, any defence submitted by you, any reply to defence submitted by us, any document proving ParkingEye's authorisation to operate on site, and any signage plan or images of signage from the site in question.

 

Thank you for any help and advice you might be able to give.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the PAP letter of claim The new pre action protocol pack, it doesnt apply to speculative invoice s but PE use it to frighten people

 

So you now do as EB said and send that letter

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

Am I okay to send this letter:

 

To Whom It May Concern at ParkingEye Ltd

 

I have received several speculative invoices (parking charge) from yourselves regarding a trespass issue which occurred in the car park of Cedar Court Hotel.

 

Today I received a Letter Before County Court Claim, dated 8th June 2018 relating to this matter.

 

The signage in the car park states that it is a "Patron Only Car Park". The main condition of parking states that "hotel patrons must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details...in reception".

 

The driver of the vehicle did not use the hotel at all therefore was not a patron and therefore, there was no contract between the driver and ParkingEye.

 

Since the driver was not a hotel patron, and since the parking conditions only apply to hotel patrons, there is/was no contract.

 

The driver was a trespasser. The trespass issue is a matter between the driver and the landowner. It, therefore, has absolutely nothing to do with ParkingEye. There is absolutely no need for the driver (or for that matter keeper) to make any arrangements whatsoever to pay ParkingEye anything no matter how many letters wanting payment are sent out.

 

Do not contact me again regarding this matter again.

 

In accordance with the new GDPR regulations, you must now remove ALL data you hold regarding me, as it has been made clear to you that the trespass issue has absolutely nothing to do with you, ParkingEye at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should also say

 

"Do not contact me again regarding this matter unless it is to request to see the evidence of the trespass, the cost of which is £100 payable in advance." :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

post29

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

making demands for money to show them evidence you will have to produce as a civil procedure protocol is not the best way of approaching this. You need to be able to show that you have done things properly regardless of what they do or have done. Please dont be tempted to send it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have revised some of the wording in the letter. Feedback would be appreciated. Is it okay to send now?

To Whom It May Concern at parkingeye Ltd

 

I have received several speculative invoices (parking charge ) from yourselves regarding a parking incident which occurred in the car park of Cedar Court Hotel.

 

I have received a letter Before county court Claim from you, dated 8th June 2018 relating to this matter.

 

The signage in the car park states that it is a "Patron Only Car Park". The main condition of parking states that "hotel patrons must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details...in reception".

 

The signage is prohibitive to anyone who is not a hotel patron. The driver was not a hotel patron. So, the signage is a deterrent rather than a genuine offer of terms and therefore there is/was no contract between the driver and ParkingEye Ltd. The payment you are demanding is an unlawful penalty and not a proper consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

await dragon or eric's advice before sending anything...

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

Poke 'em with a stick :evil:

 

Mine and ericsbrothers approach tends to differ in matters like this, even though we're both working towards the same goal. I'd send that and see what happens. You know you're in the right, we know that you're in the right. But I'll almost guarantee that ParkingLie won't agree :lol:

 

 

You'll probably get the same barrage of threatening letters et al, in the hope that you'll get scared and pay up. But deep down they'll know that they don't really have a chance at court. Whilst they might think that their pet "Beavis Judgement" is some sort of magical panacea, in reality, it's far from it.

 

The Beavis judgement refers to a very particular set of circumstances, and this case most certainly doesn't fit 95% of them.

 

 

Get it sent :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

That is more like it.

 

My opbjection to your first draft was the daft demand for a billion quid for sending documents you would have to hand over anyways.

 

Anyone reading that would know that you had overreached yourself and thus be tempted to take you on.

 

A factual letter and a statement that you will be robust in your defence if they do try court is much better.

 

I have revised some of the wording in the letter. Feedback would be appreciated. Is it okay to send now?

 

To Whom It May Concern at parkingeye Ltd

 

I have received several speculative invoices (parking charge ) from yourselves regarding a parking incident which occurred in the car park of Cedar Court Hotel.

 

I have received a letter Before county court Claim from you, dated 8th June 2018 relating to this matter.

 

The signage in the car park states that it is a "Patron Only Car Park". The main condition of parking states that "hotel patrons must enter their full, correct vehicle registration details...in reception".

 

The signage is prohibitive to anyone who is not a hotel patron. The driver was not a hotel patron. So, the signage is a deterrent rather than a genuine offer of terms and therefore there is/was no contract between the driver and ParkingEye Ltd. The payment you are demanding is an unlawful penalty and not a proper consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Parking Eye PCN trespass? - Cedar Court Hotel, Bradford
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...