Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Y daughter just told me she’s been paying off a fine for £600    a bailiff called at her next doors ,  whist there they clocked her car in the drive way , not scorn not taxed off the raid ... I know i know  broken waiting money spending on it [ Ford]  turns out the DVKA took her to court in Bristol long waynaways because she hadn’t told the DVLA she’d moved and BENETTS  bought the debt , and chased her up at the new address to collect the payments ... how horrid is that? 
    • Hi BankFodder,        Thank you for your quick reply,  we feel a bit vulnerable living here with our two very little girls,   your reply is very much appreciated.   The Letting agent is Space4Living,  they say they wont do anything about it,   they only say it is a civil matter.   The landlord's name is on the Tenancy Agreement,   with the letting agent as a 'Care of' Address.   I have just sent an email to the local Environmental Health about everything,     and we will see what they say about it all.   Because the landlord seems not to be bothered about it,    if he does nothing or very little about it,    would he be in breach of our tenancy agreement ?   Cheers,    KFC  
    • Please advise if the following is ok to use?   I will say as follows:   It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxxxxxx With recent dismissed claims such as claim no. Xxxxxxx it has come to light that the contract with the landowner stipulates 2 hours free parking at the Berkeley Centre car park and thus this case should also be dismissed not wasting valuable court time as the vehicle in question was parked for less than 2 hours.  The claimant in this case is not the proper claimant. As can be seen in their "contract". If there is a valid claimant at all it should be Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services.   Therefore, if any contract exists at all, the Landowner gave Excel Parking Services that contract. That contract is highly unlikely (although it cannot be proven as the claimant has not produced it) to give Excel Parking Services the right to assume the rights of the landowner and assign rights to another party.   While both Vehicle Control Services (Company number 02498820) and Excel Parking Services (Company number 02878122) have the same 'controlling minds',  & they are run as completely separate companies and cannot assign rights to one another on a whim and/or without the express permission of the landowner and even then, those rights can only be rightfully assigned by the landowner themselves and as that has not been produced as part of their witness statement one can only draw the conclusion that this is because that right (by way of contract of assignment) does not exist.   Further, while dealing with the so called "contract", it is not valid now and was not valid on the day that the event that brings us here today took place. As can be seen clearly on the contract, the contract was made for a FIXED PERIOD of 36 months from 25th November 2010. This means that this contract expired on or around 25th November 2010. As no renewed "contract" has been provided, again one can only assume that on the balance of probability, it does not exist.   In either case, as has been shown, Vehicle Control Services are not the proper claimant therefore there can be no cause of action as Vehicle Control Services has no Locus Standi to make or bring a claim and waste the valuable time of this court. If a contract existed at all (and there was a subsequent breach) it would either be between myself/driver and Excel Parking Services or myself/driver and the landowner. Vehicle Control Services are merely a third party and do not (as they have shown themselves in their own evidence) have a valid contract in place to manage the car park.   There is nothing said in the evidence to assert that Vehicle Control Services are acting as an agency on behalf of the actual contract holder therefore Vehicle Control Services cannot (and indeed do not claim to) have privity of contract. Dunlop Tyre Co v Selfridge [1915] AC 847, in which the action failed because although there was a contract, the plaintiffs were not a party to it and "only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it," (per Lord Haldane).     This position (Vehicle Control Services being the wrong claimant) is backed up by their own evidence bundle. I refer you to photograph 28, 29 and 30 in the claimant’s bundle which clearly shows a 'Car Park' sign. The logo in the bottom and top right of the signs is for Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services who are making the claim in this case.   Vehicle Control Services know this to be the case as there have been many dismissed cases and discontinued claims.   Vehicle Control Services -v- Ms A. C6DP7P37 at Birmingham County Court. Dismissed. Wrong Claimant. Vehicle Control Services -v- Unknown. C1DP3H5V at Birmingham County Court. Discontinued. Wrong claimant.   As well as all of the following Discontinued claims. A8QZ6666, 3QZ53955, C8DP9D8C, C2DP0H7C, C1DP3H5V and C8DP37CH et al, all discontinued when it was pointed out to BW Legal that VCS had no right to pursue the matter as they were not the rightful claimant.   It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; see paragraph 5.1a (enclosed). The car park signs are owned by Excel Parking, see claimants bundle 28, 29, 30 photographs and I have not entered into a contract with VCS. Following receipt of parking charge notices and letter before claim, I wrote to the Claimant stating that the Berkeley Centre pay and display car park is not managed by the Claimant but rather another party and invited the Claimant to drop their claim. Upon receipt of County court claim form Under CPR 31.14 on 14th August 2019 I requested evidence of the Claimant’s contract between VCS and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name, and proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.  The Claimant refused to comply with this request and have provided no evidence of their connection to Excel Parking. I have yet to receive any evidence of myself the Defendant entering into a contract with the Claimant (Vehicle Control Services) nor any evidence of planning permission granted for signage. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. ‘VCS had no right to claim damages in trespass against motorists…and that the penalty charges did not constitute, in VCS’s hands, such damages (and) that there was no contract between VCS and the motorist.’ The Claimant did not evidence any contract 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 carpark 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. The proper Claimant is the landowner. 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.   Thanks  
    • Latest info      Creditor Claims Of £535,636,017  This is the extent of the damage Wonga has caused... I hope this serves as a lesson to everyone. Please steer clear of PDLs.
    • Bad News - Is about 4%    
  • Our picks

steve806

CPM ANPR PCN - car park full claim... Brighton MET College

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 513 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

Hi All

 

In May I visited Brighton and went to park at the MET College as I had done many time before.

 

However, instead of the college managing the car park it was now managed by CPM.

 

The essential difference being that you used to pay in cash but now you have to pay over the phone to Just Park (not that you could tell how much as no signs showed the tarrif).

 

After parking in the half full car park I saw a number of people in discussion in the middle of the car park.

 

I approached and asked what was going on and they advised that they were all trying to call Just Park to pay for parking and kept being told the car park was full .

 

After much discussion everyone agreed we would park and leave a note on our cars advising we had tried to pay and would be happy to pay if contacted.

 

A week later I received a PCN for not buying a ticket.

I had wrongly assumed the site would have a parking warden but of course the ticket was issued based on photographing my car on entry and exit so my note was never seen.

 

I appealed the PCN based on the message saying the car park was full and requested they review their tickets for the afternoon as there would be an above average number of tickets issued due to the other people who also left messages.

 

Today I have received a letter rejecting my appeal on the basis that the car park was full as other people had paid in advance for the spaces so by parking I was obstructing other drivers from using their designated areas.

 

It says I should have refrained from parking and contacted CPM for advice.

 

I repeat the car park was half full when I arrived and almost empty when I returned to my car.

 

The recorded message did not explain why the car park would be full and I dont recall adequate signage explaining this in the car park.

 

Can anyone give any advice on how I might appeal to the IAS?

 

thanks

 

Steve

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you dont appeal to the IAS, it is a waste of time for reasons given in many places.

 

We need to see the signage in the car park but i suspect that the difference between their system and reality means that they arent actually offering you terms that can be properly read and considered at the time so therefore not a contract that is enforceable under the 2015 Consumer Rights Act.

 

Do not take these people too seriously, they arent honest brokers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

For personal reasons I have not been able to deal with this earlier.

 

this is the original letter from CPM and response to my appeal. In the text of this post is my appeal. I will be posting photos of signage later today.

 

Any advice appreciated.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

I write to appeal PCN XXXXX for Vehicle Registration XXXXX on Saturday XX April 2018.

On the 21st April 2018 I entered the car park at XXXX.

After parking I attempted to pay using your telephone number but your system stated the car park was full and would not allow me to make a payment.

The car park was not full and there were many empty spaces.

 

A number of other people were gathered in the car park attempting to pay when I arrived.

 

I and a number of other drivers left notes in our windscreens explaining that we had attempted to purchase a parking ticket but had been unable to do so.

 

I would request that you review both your system for the date concerned and the above average number of PCN’s that will have been issued as a result of your system failure which will support my statement.

 

I would hope that given the circumstances I have outlined UK Car Park Management will recognise that my failure to purchase a ticket is as a consequence of a failure in your payment system and cancel this PCN.

 

I look forward to your response.

CPM Appeal.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame you identified yourself as the driver!

Shot yourself in the foot there

 

Link in post 2 please


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so now you do nothing and wait for them to do their worst.

 

You don't say why you were there, if invited by anyone at Brighton MET then you have a solid reason as to why none of their silly demands apply to you anyway and that is called superiority of contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]

 

please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement 21st April 2018

 

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

 

3 Date received 7th May 2018

 

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

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Y

 

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

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

 

7 Who is the parking company? UK Car Park Management

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Brighton Met College, Brighton

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

 

Signage photos below:

sign 1.JPG

sign 2.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that this was ever appealed at all. It arrived out of time to create keeper liability. CPM had already stuffed themselves :sad:


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Can anyone offer advice on my next steps?

 

I have until Thursday to appeal to the IAS.

 

thanks

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't bother.

read post 7.


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

today I have received a 'Formal Demand' which says payment is overdue and that if I do not pay within 28 days of the date of this notice the fee will rise from £100 to £149.

 

Of course the notice is dated 5th July and didn't arrive until 11th July so 6 days lost already.

 

Continue to ignore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to read like threads steve

cag is self help too

cant see you've read any other threads related to your issue...

 

who's that from?


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve806, give me your address and I'll send you a "demand" for £50 million. :lol:

 

Whoever they are, they can demand what they want, it doesn't make it lawful or mean that they're going to be getting any of it.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you havent lost anything because you arent going to pay them,

ask yourself what consumer credit agreement you signed that allows them to add this extra unicorn food tax?

 

Once you start to understand what is going on the sooner you will relax and take it all in your stride.

yes, these companies do sue people but they lose when you point out all of the defiencies of their actions and claims.

 

This being a prime example of just making it up as they go along to scare you into paying them a higher sum than they can ever lawfully ask for because you may think it will go up again.

 

was it £100 in the first place?

they made that up as well becuase the decision of PE v Beavis said that £80 want an "unconscionable amount"

so they have shoved it along to £100 because at that level people still pay rather than lynching the parking attendant.

 

 

today I have received a 'Formal Demand' which says payment is overdue and that if I do not pay within 28 days of the date of this notice the fee will rise from £100 to £149.

 

Of course the notice is dated 5th July and didn't arrive until 11th July so 6 days lost already.

 

Continue to ignore?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Following research on the site and kind advice given I wrote to Brighton Met College who own the car park and sent a copy to UK Car Park Management.

 

In my letter I advised the college I did not accept the charge was fair and reasonable. I asked if they had given authority to take legal action on their behalf and asked how the charge of £100 was made up.

 

To date the college have not responded but this morning I received a letter from CPM.

 

In paragraph 1 they reassert their position that I was illegally parked.

 

In paragraph 2 they advise that although they do not own the land they have a legal contract with the landowner that entitles them to issue PCN's.

 

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 provide a lengthy explanation of how the the charge has been set in accordance with Parking Eye v Beavis, has then been ratified by the Supreme Court and as a consequence has ended the debate regarding the genuine pre-estimate of loss. They advise that if my claim is for disproportionate fee it cannot be used as a reason for appeal. They encourage me to read a copy of the judgement which provides clarity for the Parking Industry and warning that in court they will refer to this judgement in evidence. I guess this is probably a standard set of paragraphs to all disputes? Am I correct?

 

Paragraph 6 states that a decision has been made and I should now pay the debt owed. They advise as I have not engaged with the IAS Standard Appeal within 21 days I can now only appeal through the Non Standard Appeal Service. They commit to engaging with the service if I submit an appeal within 21 days.

 

Last paragraph states how I should pay and warns of extra charges if I don't.

 

Should I respond to them? Should I chase the landowners for a response to my letter?

 

Advice welcomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doublt if they used the word illegal its not a criminal matter

 

always better to scan letters up to PDF read upload

rather than typing out what you think the letters says.


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our advice is dont write to them and have a silly argument with a fool, they will beat you hands down by experience.

Now yoy are back on their radar so they think that having given you a wonderful answer you are now honour bound to believe them and pay up

So, you have thrown away your protection under the POFA and now want to play letter tennis. Is there any advice we can give you that you will take not of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric, I am a bit confused by your response. I was encouraged to read other threads and followed advice from keywords which suggested I should write to the landowner and copy in the Car Parking Company to:

 

1. Refute the debt

2. Ask if they had given legal authority to the Car Parking Company

3. ask how the figure of £100 was calculated

 

Are you saying this was the wrong thing to do?

 

best

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one has ever said copy to the car park management company, we want the landowner to sort out the mess without just passing the buck so that is the opposite of our advice.

 

It is also the reason we say never email these matters or they just forward the email. By writing you can at least have reason for complaint if they just pass it on as it will be a breach of the GDPR if you dont specifically say that they can. We expect them to say cancel the charge number XXXX and not use your details.

So what you have now is the worse of both worlds, the landowbner is ignoring you and the parking co have you on their mugs list and know what your defence will be based on if they try it on in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric

 

The advice under heading 'ignore' in post 12 says to send a copy of my letter to the landowner to the parking company so that is what I did.

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...