Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Euro car parks Anpr PCN - *West Street Car Park Newbury


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2150 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

Euro car parks have issued a Notice to keeper.

 

Date of Event: 17/05/18

 

Date issued: 24/05/18

 

After winning a previous case on parking and being very careful (mostly) my wife was issued with a Notice to keeper for parking on land which see assumed was council or public pay and display parking (with a disabled badge.

 

However little did she know it was another badly signed car park by yet another bunch of crooks! Now another battle..

 

So this wasn't a windscreen ticket but anpr that show just the number plates!.

 

What's the correct route to seeing these fools off?

 

Cheers again 😎

Link to post
Share on other sites

please answer the following questions.*

 

1 Date of the infringement 17/05/2018

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 24/05/2018

 

3 Date received*29/05/2018

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?]*Yes

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?*Only pictures (black and white) of number plates

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] No

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

 

7 Who is the parking company?*Euro car parks

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]*West Street Car Park Newbury

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

ECP used to get the wording of their NTK's wrong so what is it they say has been done to cause you to owe the money? Does htis breach or contractual condition actually match a clause on ther signage?

 

Now West St car park is a council car park so exactly where was the car parked as there are several parking spaces by buildings and another smaller car park as well. The one opposite the council car park is run by ECP so is this it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

She was parked right down the far end of this car Park within a marked disabled bay with a badge.

 

As on the NTK..

We are using cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car Park to calculate their length of stay.

 

The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car Park states that this Is private land, the car Park is managed by ucp and sets out the terms and conditions of the car Park by which those who park in the car Park agree to be bound. The parking charge notice &$#@ has been issued as the vehicle was in breach of the following terms and conditions;

No valid pay and display / permit was purchased.

 

The vehicle was parked at West Street Car Park. By remaining at the car Park without authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the parking charge is now payable to Euro car park (as the creditor)

Link to post
Share on other sites

so they dont actually say what the breach was as they go on to say remaining without authorisation which is a matter of trespass and not a contractual matter, not parking or overstaying in a P&D.

 

The preamble makes this contradictory We will need to see the signage and the full text of their NTK. Post it up with personal details redacted, address car reg, any bar codes and reference No's etc. leave dates and place detail on.

 

Pictures of signs please plus pictures of the marking meter and any associated blurb as that is the actual contract rather than the signs.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you read upload

Please

Put all those into one multipage pdf so we can zoom

Else we'll be here all day downloading single unrotated pixs

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

I ,ove these signs at the entrance, they are not contracts but "invitations to treat" so that menas you can take it or leave it. for example, you see a sign in a shop window saying 50% off most items. you go inside and ask about a pair of trousers, the shopkeeper says they are not in the sale so you continue to look around. as the offer of the signage was an invitation to consider futher things, to negotiate and then decide whetehr to buy something or not there is no contract made untill you agree to purchase something at an agreed prie and hand the money over in exchange for the goods. the shopkeeper cat sue you gor not buying the trousers, you cnat demand to have them at half price because of the 50% notice and the shopkeeper cant force you to buy anything just becuse you decided to have a mooch around afer enquiring about said trousers.

 

 

The sign is the same, it INVITES yo to consider an offer amde elsewhere but doesnt force yo to accept any subsequent offer and that means that you can park without agreeing the other terms offered by the signsge. Put money in the meter and you HAVE accepted the terms and so can be bound by them.

 

 

Disabled badge irrelevant and arguing about that will be a bad idea. By not purchasing a ticket she has avoided all of the things that they can penalise you for as they go on about how to park or display said ticket. She didnt have one so they dont apply and they cant demand £85.

 

 

It is clear that they have used ANPR to match ticket and car reg but that isnt in the contract!

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Eb. I will at some point sort the pictures out.. I have plenty more - but as it's early days I'm in no rush.

 

A notable thing regarding this car Park is there are around 2 or 3 small shop unit car parks to the back which are not owned or run by Euro car parks but you have to drive through this car Park to gain access to them.

 

At this stage should I ignore or write to them highlighting their contract is naff?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ECP dont own anything but are engaged by the landowner. Now if the land of the smaller units is owed by them that menas you have a cast iron defence if you parked there and even a good case for a claim fo harassment as well as their breach of the DPA/GDPR for misuing your data

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...