Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • 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.
      • 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

Liverpool Airport 'Stopping' Charge


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2068 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

- as per thread title, either my better half (car owner) or I stopped at LJA whilst dropping someone off.

 

Didn't stop on a road edge, instead turned into a side road/parking area, spun around, and let them out.

 

Reason for this - never been to LJA before and didn't have a clue what was going on parking wise!

 

Looking around I think this is what I'm supposed to add in here

 

1 Date of the infringement 26/4/18

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 1/5/18

3 Date received 8/5/18

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] Doesn't appear to?

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

 

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

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up No

 

7 Who is the parking company? VCS

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Liverpool John Lennon Airport

 

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

 

I've added a copy of the letter.

 

Suffice to say it was utterly unclear that there was a contract being entered into, and that dropping someone off, whilst lost in a confusing car park, would somehow result in a harge

 

Also suffice to say no money is being sent their way!

 

What is best course of action?

 

Thanks in advance for any help

LJM p1.jpg

LJM p2.jpg

Edited by dx100uk
Fine to charge, swearing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

The short answer is that nobody will suggest that you pay this. Someone will give you the long answer later. Have a read around this forum and you'll see lots of threads about JLA and the no stopping problem.

 

Would it be possible to resave and upload your docs as pdf files please? It makes it easier for us to zoom.

 

Best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey HB - thanks for the quick reply!

 

Yes have read around a bit, but got lost among the different stages/problems people are having. Also the 'recentness' of cases - can't find anyone recently saying its all gone away!

 

I've saved as PDF, attached here. Will edit original post too if I can

LJM.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are several things to consider here,

 

firstly it is covered by its own byelaws and so not " relevant land" under the POFA and that menas VCS are stuffed

 

. Secondly no stopping isnt a genuine offer of a contract to park, it is prohibitive so no contract. You cant agree to break the law as a form of creating a contract!

 

They know this and lose court claims where these points are used but until someone prosecutes them for fraud they will continue to rip people off where they can.

 

Basically the claim has no legal legs but expect them to behave in a way that is designed to harass and coerce you into paying.

 

I hope you are strong enough to resist all of this otherwise just pay up and save yourself the bother.

 

We recommend that you do fight it as because the more people take this on the less the return for their effort and eventually they might actually start considering the job they were employed to do.

 

So advice- do nothing at present.

 

In your case they are claiming keeper liability under the POFA but as already said, that doesnt apply so another lie

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ericsbrother.

 

So literally just hold my breath for now?

 

Not even send a "I'm not gong to pay this for x,y,z reasons"?

 

As for resisting harassment I've kept Parking Eye at bay over a typo on a ticket I bought, so I'm fairly stoic, lol!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

I agree wholeheartedly with ericsbrother here. The most that could be claimed is trespass as the signs are prohibitive in nature. It's just as easy to hop over a fence and cross private land without permission and get charged for trespass.

 

VCS are members of the IPC who rarely support the driver or keeper in any appeal to them so it is just not worth spending time appealing.

 

What has happened in the past is that VCS, via their pet lawyers (Gladstones, BW Legal) issue court papers in a last chance of them getting a pay day.

 

This does scare some people into paying, thinking that they will lose at court. In reality and has been mentioned in various cases I have come across, VCS will still chase right up to a day or so before court then abandon it, probably because they know that they won't win at court.

 

It's purely a numbers game to VCS. Resist and with help from the experts, you should do well.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing

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 are supposed to use the pre action protocols of civil procedure and send you a letter before action stating what they are claiming and why.

 

As they also add amounts to the claim that arent allowable they get this wrong as well BUT you should respond to this last letter (before court action) firmly stating that there is no contract for the reasons cited and therefore they have no basis for a claim and thus no cause for action.

 

This essentially point out that they are being unreasonable by continuing to a court claim and will get you a full costs recovery order if you ask for one. as this can include research time you can stick it to them quite hard.

 

Howevr, what you should hope to achieve at that point is to show that you are no mug and they will then hopefully just go quiet and slink off back under their stone.

Winning at court is only second best to not having to go there.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately it is set at £19.50ph and you get 5 hours allowed for this type of action.

 

Self employed people get punished by the system as it is assumed that you can manage your time to avoid losing money when the reality is you are more likely to suffer a financial loss.

 

Still having to pay £190 plus travel hurts them more than just paying their rentamouth £50 for turning up so all in all a loss by the parking co sets them back a fair bit, what with sols costs and hiring a DCA to send out letters

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A DCA is not a BAILIFF

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 parking worlds favourite mouthpiece.

 

Yes, ignore them, you will get a couple more yet though, the last one will beg you to pay up before they recommend that their paymasters get nasty.

If you dont then they wont earn a dishonest crust

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hey Eric - sorry bud, thought I replied to this??

 

Yes have had first nastyish one through the other week, now they've stepped up to a "Notice of intention to commence legal proceedings" - though still offering me 'half price', lol!

 

Still ignore? Still doesn't appear to be a proper LBA, just a threat of one?

 

]

Notice of intent.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely ignore that one. Zenith (DR+ in disguise) cannot take any action and those big bold words are intended to worry you. Either Gladstones or BG Legal are the ones that usually take on these cases so don't ignore them when they (if) they arrive

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

VCS would try to invoice a pushbike or one of those 15 mph pedal assisted scooters if they could trace the rider if they stopped to read the signs. they are that greedy and stupid.

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 OTHERS

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely ignore that one. Zenith (DR+ in disguise) cannot take any action and those big bold words are intended to worry you. Either Gladstones or BG Legal are the ones that usually take on these cases so don't ignore them when they (if) they arrive

 

Great, thanks, thought as much!

 

VCS would try to invoice a pushbike or one of those 15 mph pedal assisted scooters if they could trace the rider if they stopped to read the signs. they are that greedy and stupid.

 

lmao!!!

 

Cheers guys!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...