Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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

Link Parking/Gladstones claimform - windscreen PCN - 11 mins overstay - Elder mews is in Derwen Road Bridgend,CF31 1LH


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2102 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,

 

I have untill 24th July to send my defence to county court and serve copies to Gladstones,

 

on entrance to car park there is a sign which states £1 per hour parking,

it shows on my pay n display ticket that i paid £5

( I still have original ticket),which i thought would give me 5 hours parking as needed just over 4 hours to and fro from car park,

 

there are no other signs around car park except next to ticket machine,

which shows £1 for 1 hour parking

,£2 for 2 hours parking,

£3 for 3 hours parking and

£4 for 4 hours parking,

 

then jumps to £6 to park all day,

but I didn't need all day parking as I said, just over 4 hours

I paid £5,the ticket machine took my £5 but only allocated me 4 hours of parking,

no money returned to me either,

I didn't realise at that time that machine had only given me 4 hours parking,

 

I returned to car prk to find a pcn had been put on my window for 11 minute overstay of 4 hours,

the pcn says it is for breaching the terms of the contract,

 

if I had returned by the 4 hours and paid another £1 it still would of been to the value of £5, to which I had already paid at time of parking

 

any help would be gratefully accepted

5019761_b75b3e82.jpg

ticket 001 - Copy.jpg

Edited by DragonFly1967
Redacted ticket
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is typical of Gladrags and their shoddy work as well as IPC members Link Parking.

 

There's no way on earth that they're going to win a defended court claim, so please do make sure you acknowledge and then defend it.

 

The IPC Code of Conduct for AOS Members, of which Link is one, says quite clearly (at 15.2 of the code)

 

Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired
(my bold)

 

So, a claim for an 11 minute overstay is likely de minimis and would not be looked at very kindly by a Judge. In fact, I dare say the Judge would be far more likely to tear them a new one before throwing their representative out of the court with a Judge shaped boot print on their backside.

 

The problem is that Gladrags don't care about that, they get paid win or lose. Either you pay them (if you lose) or Link Parking foots the bill (if you win) so the only real 'winners' are Will & John. Nice work if you can get it I suppose.

 

Anyway, fill in the link that HB posted in post #2 and we'll see where we are and what can be done. :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

you don't have to send gladrags a copy of your defence

the mcol process does that for you

 

but you did send them a CPR 31:14 didn't you?

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

Name of the Claimant ?Link Parking

 

claimants Solicitors:Gladstones

Date of issue – 02/05/18

Date to acknowledge - 20/05/18

 

 

date to submit defence = 03/06/18

 

What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?

 

1.The driver of the vehicle registration xxxxxxx(the vehicle) incurred the parking charge(s) on the 21/08/17for breaching the terms of parking on the land at elder mews

 

2.The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle/

 

And the claimant claims

£160 for parking charges/damages and indemnity cost if applicable,

together with interest of£7.65 pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at 8%pa continueing to judgement at £0.04 per day

 

 

What is the value of the claim? £242.65

 

claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned

 

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned

did you receive a Notice of Assignment? yes to a small claims track

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by dx100uk
format
Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it that you now have a hearing date then? What date?

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

where is the mews please google link or postcode please

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 Did email Glastones requesting a copy of the contract, but no reply

 

No surprises there then :lol:

 

 

Oh dear... Looking at that location and the entrance to the car park, Gladrags are going to have a hell of a time winning this one.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5066227,-3.5768367,3a,15.1y,233.84h,87.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snQZeNp_MPDiZGlhGSoCKCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Is that same sign still there?

 

Can you please tell us exactly what's written in small letters under where it says "£1 per hour", I can't make it out on your picture or GSV.

 

 

But. At first look, my take on it is...

 

That sign is quite plain. So, no matter what any other signage says "£1 per hour" is the offer made to you as you enter the car park, it says so, in nice big letters. So, if you want to park for 5 hours, the cost is £5 (that nice big sign says so). That's the offer they made you, and that's the offer that you accepted, and it's pretty much as simple as that.

 

There'll be plenty of other things to tear in to them about of course,

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

underneath the large £1 per hour it says up to 4 hours in brackets,but is barely visible as I didn't notice it., yes, the car park is exactly the same, signs are the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's a nice try, but for that to be a valid 'key term', they'd have to make it the same size as the wording for £1 per hour. Or at least, big enough to be read from a moving vehicle, bearing in mind the driver would be sitting further away from the sign as they entered.

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

as I said,i have till 24th July to submit my defence to county court, i have started my defence but I am not to sure how things are to be worded for my defence,

 

if I hadn't of paid for the parking upfront then I prob wouldn't of fought this, but I did pay upfront and really cant see how the can charge me £242.65.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cant see how the can charge me £242.65.

 

Now, there's a thing. They probably can't.

 

 

 

Have you, at any point, either named to the driver, admitted being the driver, or worded anything in such a way as they could reasonably assume you were the driver?

 

Things like... "I parked", "I paid for parking", "I bought a ticket" etc. It could be something that looks quite innocuous, a mere slip of the keyboard to any normal person, but you've emailed "the worlds greatest parking b̶a̶n̶d̶i̶t̶s̶ solicitors", so it is kind of important.

 

 

As things stand at the moment, they are probably suing you as keeper of the vehicle. So, if you raise the correct points in your defence WS, they've already got a bit of a problem.

 

Their figure of £160 for "parking charges" is wrong in law. As Keeper, you are only responsible for the principle amount. The signs can say whatever they like, but most cover it by saying "blah, blah, blah, debt collection charges for which the driver will be liable". They a) hardly ever specify an amount (mainly because that would limit what they try to get away with/mug you for) and b) never say that the "keeper" would be liable for these extra charges because the POFA makes no provision for these charges to be passed on to the keeper.

 

So. Whilst the POFA (unfortunately) does mean that they can go after you as keeper, it only allows the principle amount.

 

Therefore, if they are suing you purely as keeper, make sure that you mention in your defence that they have unlawfully (make sure you use "unlawfully" and not illegally) added an extra £60 to the parking charge and have thereby inflated the entire claim.

 

As I said in my original post. #3. A claim for an 11 minute overstay is likely to be de minimis. So you should ask in your WS that the Judge treat it as such. Provide the evidence of why you think the Judge should rule that way by including a print out of the relevant section (in context, so, the whole page) of the IPC CoP for it's AOS members

 

 

What other things, letters, notices etc have you had from Gladrags or the PPC? Have you still got them? If so, can you scan, redact and upload them please.

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

yes, I said I was the driver, I have an email from gladstones,when I asked what the pcn was for and they replied

 

We direct you to the attached as this should answer your queries.

 

You have a further 30 days from the date of this email to make payment in full failing which further legal proceedings will be issued against you without further notice. Payment can be made online or by calling 03330230049.

 

Kind Regards

 

Phoebe

Litigation Assisant

FAQ's[186].pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

usual twaddle in the FAQ!!

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

DId you send cpr 31:14 letter to gladdy's??

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

block their emails at once and set it so any sent bounce back.

You use proper post and make them do the same or they will be sending you documents at midnight on the day of the hearing and tell the judge that they were served correctly beforehand (just one of their tricks)

 

Now as you have identified yourself as the driver they can legally add the charges to your bill but they still have to win.

 

that is one of the reasons it is a shame you admit being the driver,

the other is their client wont have got the wording of their NTK right and thus would have shot themselves in the foot when trying to claim from the keeper.

 

However, if you still have the NTK then post it up here,

it may yet be so poorly written as to not be a legal demand anyways as the POFA insist that certain phrases and information is contained in the letter.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

had to hide your upload

you left the barcodes and an ref no showing.

 

please upload as PDF too not JPG so we can zoom read upload

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...