Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all   Firstly, thanks for all the helpful threads on here. Whilst there's a lot to read and get through, it's both helpful and reassuring to see so much great advice and support to others in similar situations.   I've received a letter and a Claim Form from Moriarty for an ADCB CC debt. I'm presently in a DMP for existing UK debts and (probably like many others) I truly don't know the best way forward, as time is clearly of the essence - but I don't feel I've 'up to speed' yet on all the other threads, advice, lingo etc. to respond accordingly.   I'm looking at drafting the PAP and getting it of tomorrow, but just want to get into the other threads to see if it's the right thing (and get more info on similar cases).   Please feel free to comment with any advice - all gratefully received of course. Thanks again for anyone that's posted in other threads and great to see so many kind and generous respondents helping others.
    • nothing you can do can product against the very rare judge lottery syndrome.
    • not sure why you added the blue line I've highlighted? that's no in the we gave you.   as for your question... PRAC's roboclaim computer knows when the account was taken out, after all it raised the claim and checked everything carefully first before issuing the request via northants bulk courts equally inept roboclaim computer... 
    • I've been researching in preparation of compiling my particularised defence/WS.    I'm none too happy that some judges still seem to be siding with DCAs and seemingly brushing aside anything that we have assumed to be "necessary" for DCAs to have a winning case.    Reading a recent "summary" from another poster (another thread with case similar to mine - very old, illegible application form, no default notice, reliance on their own software to prove it was ever sent) and the judgment made in favour of the DCA and even suggesting that there was no "agreement with the DCA, they simply owned the debt, not the agreement"  Makes me very nervous.    Especially if cases like this will be judged on "probability" - the probability that if I signed the original application form, then I must have taken out the credit card and racked up the alleged debt as shown in statements enclosed in their WS (and dated some ten years later).   Is it ok to post some "evidence" I've found from elsewhere?    This is in line with my fears that regardless of how hard one tries to rebut the "lack of evidence" produced by DCAs for chasing these very old "alleged" debts, it does appear to come down to the luck of what judge you get on the day and how much they can be swayed by the DCA solicitor.    A quick Google search produced the following - from one case - this related to a credit agreement - which resulted in someone being made bankrupt - that person appealed the bankruptcy order on the grounds of defective credit agreement and default notice and this was the appeal judge's decision:   The necessary formalities for the entry into the regulated consumer credit agreement (which related to the debt in issue) were not complied with; The default notice served in respect of that credit agreement was defective.   The First Ground The Appellant argued that she did not receive the terms and conditions when she entered into the credit agreement and, accordingly, section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”) had not been complied with and the agreement could not be enforced. The agreement had been entered in 1995 and, whilst it had provided a microfiche copy of the front page of the application, the Respondent had been unable to provide a copy of the terms.   Despite the terms not being produced, the District Judge had found that, in the circumstances, it was very likely that such terms existed and would have been provided to the Appellant when she entered into the Agreement. Mr Justice Mann held that this was a finding that the District Judge was entitled to make.   Further, Mr Justice Mann found that it was implicit from the District Judge’s findings that she considered that the terms and conditions not only existed but had been subscribed to by the Appellant’s signature and, consequently, the requirements of section 61 CCA were fulfilled. Mr Justice Mann held that this was also a justifiable finding which should not be interfered with on appeal.   The Second Ground The Appellant also argued that the default notice upon which the Respondent relied did not comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notice) Regulations 1989 because it stated the full balance of the account rather than the total of the missed payments. The Respondent argued that, as a result of the missed payments, it was contractually entitled to the entire balance subject to the service of the appropriate notice, a requirement which was fulfilled by the default notice itself and, consequently, the sum required to remedy the breach was the entire amount.   Mr Justice Mann agreed with the Respondent and the District Judge, holding that: “If by the time the default notice is served circumstances have arisen which entitle the lender to recover not merely sums which might be regarded as arrears, by which I assume is meant accumulated minimum payments, but also the whole of the sum, then they are entitled to claim that sum, and the sum to require to remedy the breach for non-payment of that sum is the payment of the whole sum due. The bank is not confined, at that stage, to claiming merely the amount of arrears if it has an accrued contractual right to have the whole of the sum.”   Do judgments like these not mean that a lot of what you guys do on here (and for which I and many others are VERY grateful) somewhat redundant. What is happening to judges just accepting "well, the terms must have been there if you signed it" -    Feeling quite nervous now.
    • we know it wasn't done to avoid enforcement we understand completely. but that doesn't take from away the fact that it happened   you can't appeal the pcn's on the basis that 'it was not his vehicle to levy upon'. the law clearly states otherwise.          
  • Our picks

deks36

Parking Eye- Mayflower terminal short stay southampton ** PE Folded at POPLA **

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 485 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 Guys Ive made the mistake before of ignoring a PCN so this time I intend to respond properly.

 

I received a notice in the post today received by one of my taxi drivers who failed to mention to me that he went into the car park or that the ticket machine wasn't working

 

on questioning today when i received the PCN he said the person he spoke to had no clue as to what he should do..

 

the car is 140 miles away from my location and its unlikely I will be going that way anytime soon..

 

1 Date of the infringement 28/5/18

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 07/07/18

 

3 Date received 11/07/18

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] no

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

 

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

 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?]

 

7 Who is the parking company?parkingeye

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Mayflower terminal short stay southampton

 

the reverse of the PCN states"

 

" We originally wrote to the registered keeper of the vehicle whose details were held by the DVLA at the time of the event and they informed us that you were responsible at the time of the parking event"

 

I am now and have been since June 2016 the registered keeper and owner of the vehicle.

 

I have not made any representation to them or anyone else about the this event or any other event as to who was the owner or driver of the vehicle at any time

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this car park on the port itself?


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

I believe so. PCN gives no actual address but on the basis Mayflower is the terminal in the port and the drivers comments I would say it is in the port

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they address you by name? Or as the RK?


Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the PCN is addressed to me at my home address

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the PCN is addressed to me at my home address

 

 

Oh dear..... Not good...


Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh

 

does the time lapse from event to letter sent not count?

 

I am the registered keeper and they claim to have already contacted me to be advised I was responsible for the vehicle at the time which is amusing in itself.

its taken 40 days for a letter to be sent to me

 

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, they only know your name as the RK and NOT the driver yes?

 

 

If so then their is no keeper liability as they are out of time, going by the dates you've posted.

 

 

But the experts will advise on your next step.


Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes the letter is address to me a the registered keeper and not as the driver as I wasn't

thanks for your input

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome..... I don't think you'll have any issue with these clowns.... :thumb:


Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on folks...

 

I have a vague recollection of ParkingLie losing a case and being told in no uncertain terms not to bring any further cases for Port Authority land. Can anyone else remember it?

 

 

If I'm right and if this car park is inside the port gates, it will have its own byelaws and will not be relevant land for the purposes of the POFA and therefore there is no keeper liability. Only the Port Authority can take action, it's naff all to do with ParkingLie.


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

Looking at GSV, this is most definitely inside the port :|


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

Found it on Parking Pranksters site... Click here

  • Haha 1

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

Oh wonderful!! :thumb:


Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One to keep under your hat for now. This is a previous POPLOL decision on Town Quay, Southampton. Which is also ABP land and is covered by exactly the same byelaws. The last paragraph is the important one for this case (highlighted).

 

 

POPLA Appeal Allowed 21st May 2015 (POPLA Reference 6060755093)

 

It is the Operator's case that their Terms and Conditions of parking ("the Terms") are clearly displayed throughout the above named site. They submit the Appellant breached the Terms by failing to purchase the appropriate parking time and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge.

 

The Appellant has made several very strong submissions however it is only necessary to consider determine one area of dispute for the purposes of this appeal. This is the submission that the Operator has no authority from the Landowner to issue parking charges on the land.

 

The Operator has not provided a copy of a contract between themselves and the Landowner which authorises them to operate at the site and to issue parking charges on the Landowner's behalf; nor have they provided a signed witness statement confirming the existence of such a contract. Therefore, I cannot find the parking charge to be enforceable by the Operator in this case.

 

I think it is important to add that I also accept the Appellant's submission that the land is not 'relevant land' for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") because this was their main submission. I find that the land is subject to statutory control for the reasons given by the Appellant and therefore, by virtue of paragraph 3(1)© of Schedule 4 of POFA, the Operator has no right to recover under POFA.

 

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

 

Ricky Powell

Assessor


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

thanks guys.. really appreciate the advice.

 

Now to work on my appeal to PE and then no doubt ultimately POPLA

 

I doubt this is relevant but ill mention it

 

on the 18/6/18 I removed the cherished plate from this vehicle to which this letter applies and replaced it with its original registration

 

so from that I can deduce wrongly or rightly that PE must have got the details prior to this date

 

I dont know if this has any relevance or not but worth a mention if it makes my task easier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For ParkingLie. I would go something along the lines of...

 

 

Dear Shysters

 

I write with reference to your Notice to Keeper No: XXXXXXXXXXX.

 

Nice try, but as you are well aware, the Mayflower Terminal (Southampton Docks) is not relevant land for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and as such there is no keeper liability to Parking Eye or anyone else.

 

I now expect a reply to say that you are dropping the matter and an apology for having had the impudence to waste my time, and don't think that I'll accept any baloney about it being a "Gesture of Goodwill" either, or a valid POPLA code.

 

 

Print you name

Recorded Keeper

Do not actually sign it.

 

 

You do not need to be polite to these clowns!

 

 

 

Keep your powder dry on anything else at the moment. All you want is either a withdrawal or a POPLOL code :thumb:


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

agree with DF, if no ticket slapped on vehicle they are trying to misuse the various protocols of the POFA to try and make you think their wording actually is correct when it isnt.

 

they have screwed up and are now telling porkies because they want someone to pay, even if it is not the right person. let them know they have been rumbled (without giving all the details of your next move)

 

they will either have to drop the matter because they know they have been rumbled or waste money on it when they know a decent appeal will beat the claim and cost them more money.

Edited by DragonFly1967
Added spacing/paras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPdate from parking eye

 

as probably expected my appeal to them was unsuccessful so I know have my code for popla

 

I wonder if I might ask how I should word the appeal

 

I am the vehicles registered keeper I was not the driver and nor have I named the driver.

 

the event was on the 28th May it was a payment required car park but driver didn't make payment as machine was broken (I am unable to say if other machines exist on site)

 

notification received 7/7/18 on the reverse of the notification is a lie that says they contacted the registered keeper from records held by DVLA and the registered keeper said I was responsible for vehicle(I am the registered keeper)

 

the way I have read the comments above is I need to make the point of the elapsed timescale, the lie on the reverse, the ticket machine not working according to driver, and possible address the comment above about PE being told to not bring any more cases due to byelaws on the port property though not sure if thats relevant to appeal to popla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you put in your appeal to ParkingLie?

 

 

The grounds for your POPLOL appeal are fairly straightforward. The ticket machine (working or not) and everything else is irrelevant. The port (and any part of it) is not "Relevant land" for the purposes of the POFA 2012. And therefore there is no keeper liability.

 

Point them towards previous POPLOL decisions, one posted above, there are others for the same place, to backup your claim.

 

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what POPLOL say, it's only binding on ParkingLie. So ParkingLie would have to take you to court to get any money out of you, and if they did that, they will lose!


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

in my appeal I stated there would be no admission to who was driving on the date in question. I said the NTK was to late to meet pofa requirements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have gone with my suggestion. Then ParkingLie would be in no doubt as to the fact that they're on to a loser.

 

But, no matter. POPLOL it is then. Just make sure that you hammer home the point about there being no keeper liability. Forget dates etc, they aren't important. Just the fact that it is not "Relevant Land" and quote previous POPLOL cases where they have decided on or agreed with this point.


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 must quote the cases and provide a precis of that determination, not just say Bloggs and CEL for example. the parking co will get to see your evidence but you wont get to see theirs so raise the points clearly and even if they dotn allow your appeal you will have it in writing that PE KNOW that they are barking up the wrong tree if they still wish to pursue the matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what did you put in your appeal to parkinglie?

 

 

The grounds for your poplol appeal are fairly straightforward. The ticket machine (working or not) and everything else is irrelevant. The port (and any part of it) is not "relevant land" for the purposes of the pofa 2012. And therefore there is no keeper liability.

 

Point them towards previous poplol decisions, one posted above, there are others for the same place, to backup your claim.

 

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what poplol say, it's only binding on parkinglie. So parkinglie would have to take you to court to get any money out of you, and if they did that, they will lose!

 

and thank you for your advice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you must quote the cases and provide a precis of that determination, not just say Bloggs and CEL for example. the parking co will get to see your evidence but you wont get to see theirs so raise the points clearly and even if they dotn allow your appeal you will have it in writing that PE KNOW that they are barking up the wrong tree if they still wish to pursue the matter

 

HOW DO i FIND names of cases? the link just says mr X.. what is a precis please?

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...