Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Okay, perfect. they did say BS is invoked as soon as i fill in their application form, ill get a pin. i had to press them more on this as they didnt want to discuss BS much. so i should fill in the form and get the pin, then i can initiate BS. What will follow and what should i do after? Thanks again for all the help and patience.
    • Good evening, so not a good weekend reviewing paperwork -- I have lost some proofs of postage.. also, although not provided at CCA, they have now supplied a DN in their WS, please see scan of claimants WS (without statements) Document with tick boxes as signatures doesn't look like an agreement and is split across pages. Documents have been stapled and copied multiple times looking at the top left of them. Aside from that, having read other threads, I suspect they have everything? appreciate your input please Sorry for heavy redactions, I noticed the paperwork was see-through LinkHalifaxCC1.compressed.pdf
    • Received a final demand today Final demand.pdf
    • Here is my final draft: I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in the claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act.   1.        The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date.   2.        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 wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants 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.   3.        The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’.  The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents.   4.        Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018.   5.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020.   6.        Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicotors is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’   7.        I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’.   8.        The claimant relies upon and exhibits a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement.   It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HH Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’.   The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause.   9.        Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not try to mislead the court.   10.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are 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 its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024
    • Only trying to help.  Ain't being nasty.  Some
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

JD Parking Consultants Ltd PCN - 35 Hallgate car park Doncaster DN1 3NL


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 675 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

It can't hurt to contact the DVLA to find out who did access your data. It must have been JD parking as they had the contract for the car park. Where they 'might' fall down on the DPA issue is that this was trespass rather than a parking infringement and the onus for chasing should have been made by the landowner as they are the only ones that can take court action for trespass. They may have given permission to JD to chase all infringements. It gets complicated!

 

 

In any case where the signs say No Parking or Permit holders only, you cannot be bound by any terms on the signage because you are not a permit holder nor a legitimate parker.

 

 

IF any court action is mooted, a counter claim for the DPA breach may just stop them in their tracks however, I don't see them taking action as they can't afford to lose.

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

I understand the arguments and I too believe that JDP requested my details.

 

As I’ve already stated JDP cannot request anyone’s data because they are not registered with the ICO. Furthermore, by processing data without registration they commit a criminal offence pursuant section 17(1) DPA (this changes after the 25th May 2018)

 

Im going to submit an application to the ICO for an assessment pursuant section 42 DPA 1998 on whether JDP are complying fully with the ACT and in particular requesting personal data whilst in criminal breach.

 

The offence is a strict liability offence under section 19 of the Act. There is no defence and the director of the company is prosecuted.

 

Section 13 DPA 1998 provides that if there is a contravention of any requirement of the Act then anyone suffering damage or distress as the right to compensation.

 

Remember there’s lots of ways to skin a cat.

 

But then again I may be talking rubbish.

 

[Please upload your images as a PDF - dx]

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the arguments and I too believe that JDP requested my details.

 

As I’ve already stated JDP cannot request anyone’s data because they are not registered with the ICO.

 

Paul.

 

You seem to be labouring under the very mistaken belief that PPC's operate under the same rules as everyone else. Let me set you straight on that. THEY DO NOT! They make the rules up to suit themselves, and even when they have their own rules, they break them if it suits them. And neither ATA, the DVLA or the ICO do a damn thing about it. You might as well be 'leaking' in to the wind if you catch my drift. :wink:

 

As Ericsbro has already touched on however, anyone can get anyone else's details from the DVLA as long as they fill in the correct form, send in their £5 fee and have a "reasonable cause" for the request. The form is DVLA V888, which should not be confused with V888/2 or V888/3. They do not need to be registered with the ICO to obtain that data.

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

you are jumping the gun, get the actual data from the DVLA before you do anything else and you wont trip yourself up. Theh cat upon what evidence is provided rather than assuming anything. Even if they have broken the law obtaining your keeper details doesnt remove a contractual obligation if one existed (it doesnt in this case) so you might still lose a court claim if you relied on only that for your defence.

 

Aas siad befotre, get all your ducks lined up before letting rip and be in no hurry to do so,let them waste their time and money chasing you in the meanwhile.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll post the letter off to the DVLA and the section 17 DPA request to JD Parking today.

 

A photograph of a vehicle registration is personal data and obtaining, sharing of the same is processing. JDP is a Data controller therefore must be registered with the ICO.

 

Should I appeal this or just let them chase me for payment?

 

As advised earlier on the thread only only a small amount is recoverable for trespass.

 

Parking charges and the penalty rule

 

97. ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying.

 

On the contrary, at least if the £85 is payable, it gains by the unauthorised use, since its revenues are wholly derived from the charges for breach of the terms. The notice at the entrance describes ParkingEye as being engaged to provide a “traffic space maximisation scheme”, which is an exact description of its function.

 

In the agreed Statement of Facts and Issues, the parties state that “the predominant purpose of the parking charge was to deter motorists from overstaying”, and that the landowner’s objectives include the following:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

NOOOOO do not contact JD at this point, have you not taken in any of the advice given?

WAIT until you have the answer form the DVLA before yiou do or say anything to anyone else.

 

 

As for a picure of your reg plate being personal data, sorry mate, not on this planet it isnt. Waht they do with the info is but as you dont know who obtained your keeper details you dont know who to go after. You are not doing yourself any favours with your gung ho determination and may well end up winning a battle that gets you nowhere but lose the war. Let the parking co's have pyrrhic victories, we want all of ours to have some substance.

 

As for wittering about trespass, again you are missing the point.

 

Star to read exactly what people are putting down rather than applying an interpretation to it that isnt supported by evidence. Trespass is down to the LL, not the parking co. That is why any claim for monies for breach of contract when the offer is one of a prohibitive nature will fail.

 

Again this is made clear here and in dozens of other postings.

 

 

So advice YET AGAIN

 

Write to the DVLA and ask who abtained your keeper details and then sit on your hands until yu get a response that answers that request DO NOT do anything else

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that theres no contract and that ONLY the landowner is able to sue for

trespass.

 

In relation to vehicle registration numbers being personal data, Please read para 6.

 

 

https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/consultation-responses/2015/1431796/ico-response-to-dclg-parking-reform-consultation.pdf

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are determined to go ahead and jump the gun and that is up to you, my advice doesnt change and that is you get the info from the DVLA and nothing else unti you have it. You will find out that the DPA has nothing to do with this matter and if it wasnt for their rubbish signage you would be in bother. However, I will warn others reading this thread that it is unwise to follow this path and fire off all your ammunition in one salvo.

 

I still caution people to take it one step at a time, as the parking co has to prove their claim let them put their heads above the parapet.

 

As for para 6 of the ICO consultation document, that is not the law, it is an interpretation for best practice and not a prohibition of capturing images. The guidance refers to "what other information is available" so that depends on what else the company has on you. By applying for your keeper details it clearly comes under the DPA but you dont know yet whether it was them who applied for your details. the law doesnt cover third parties so clearly in this respect. So it is the disclosure that it what makes the ICO interested so again I say wait and see who asked for it in the first place and then consider the next step.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not jumping any gun.

 

I have sent a letter to the DVLA to find out who requested my details and I’ve sent JDP a legal request pursuant section 24 DPA to provide further information as they are not registered with the ICO.

 

Please advise what I’ve done wrong so far!?!

 

Regards

 

Checked again on the ICO register and J D Parking are registered.

 

Ill chill now and wait for the DVLA to get back.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

why on earth have you contacted the bandit co when the advice given quite strongly was not to do this.

you shouldnt have done this as you will give away half of your advantage over them, they will now know that 1) you havent done your research properly so take you for a fool and 2) you have forewarned them of your approach.

 

If you go to the ICO with this you cnat get any money out of them whereas if you use the info you get to take them through the courts for a number of thisng then you can still make a complaint to the ICO and it will have more strength because of the courts decisions in your favour, The ICO may very well order the company to tighten its procedures ( they wont now you have made a boo-boo) and that is the Alternative resolution - you cant then sue them becuse you have had satisfaction of your complaint.

 

I hope that this thread doesnt turn into a textbook demonstration of how not to do it so please, if you want help and advice bear in mind timescales. Some things have to eb done quicly ( acknowledgement of court claim) and others slowly. you have 6 years to get to the bottom of this starting on the date you get a reply from the DVLA. If they contact you in the meanwhile, even better, they may well get something else wrong.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter I sent to JDP was a separate issue to the parking notice and in no way did I refer to the parking charge I've received.

 

I'll post what the DVLA send.

 

Regards

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

DVLA emailed me yesterday, they're sending details of the requester by first class post, so should receive it today or tomorrow.

 

Question for ericsbrother could the charge be contractual in nature??

 

Regards

 

I don't like this judgment!

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27029

 

Para 14, 15 of the judgment below makes sense.

 

http://nebula.wsimg.com/07b493fc1a4ea8623a8fe73dce20287a?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

the Ransomes case is very differetn to almost all of the ones we deal with because it is about a commercial contract and a veryconvoluted way of assignment of the debt. Have you read not only this but the background to it? They arent allowed to get keeper details form the DVLA so rely on using the operator details written on the lorries and ban them from entering the port if they dont pay up. That is unlawful but as yet no-one has got an injunction to stop them as it all takes too long when you have 32 tons of fresh goods going rotten.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If all you intend to do is lambast, please do not post on my thread again. If you'd took notice I stated that par 14, 15 of the stated judgement made sense.

 

Its a parking charge, it is not a big issue to me whether it goes to court or not. I have issued claims against bigger fish than a small parking company and had fun doing so.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all makes sense but I fail to see the point you are trying to make so it is relevance that is the issue. We are 62 posts into a thread and it is still as clear as mud as to what you want from this forum.

 

We know you have won another case but you are still dancing in a minefield so tell us WHY the 2 cases you raise are relevant in your mind and in the second one explain why this differs from hundreds of others. It is always worth citing previous cases as being persuasive but at the moment we havent got anywhwere near that far, you have only just left the starting gate so pace yourself

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know very little at the moment, so I continue to read up and garner knowledge on the matter.

 

For the charge to be contractual the driver must have been issued with a permit which allowed the contractual right to park. If the driver then failed to display the permit I believe the charge would have been enforceable.

 

JD Parking have stated in email exchange that the charge is payable under contract, this is contrary to the second case.

 

I should receive the information from the DVLA today.

 

I do intend to issue a claim under the data protection act, but I need to be confident of all my arguments.

 

In addition to my last post as I read it the contract is formed when the permit has been issued and not when the vehicle enters the land.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are still ahead of yourself, at the moment they arent doing anything and that is what matters. Permits? only applies to those with them so if you dont have one you cant be bound by the conditions of issue.

 

your response from the DVLA will help determine whether you have a good case for claiming damages from one or more of the companies you have named in your post. That is all you shoudl concentrate on for the time being.

 

As for the rest of what they say, it is all wind and water at the moment, they certainly arent suing you so calm down and get everthing lined up before you fire off a volley. that is why we advised you not to engage with them until you know more about them adn what they have actually done.

 

It would suit you best if they did start a claim against you as you could eat them for breakfast and then use that win to get double the amount in damages when you sue them but I really doubt as though they will

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread tidied

23 unnecessary quotes of the full previous post removed

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...