Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.          
    • here is a question for you, is yu house divided up into a retail/business area  and domestic area for business rates purposes? If not why on earth are you paying business water rates? ceertainly not for tax purposes as you can claim any legit expense without having to reclassify your home as a business premises. i would be stopping this nonsense and goping back to whatever water supplier is the domestic one for your area. there is stuff all they can do to get the £40 from you whan you do that.
  • 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

ok so Ive copied and pasted a few bits from the links posted. I expect I ve got it all wrong but this is what Ive written(not yet sent)

 

The land is not 'relevant land' for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") T, by virtue of paragraph 3(1)© of Schedule 4 of POFA, the Operator has no right to recover under POFA. There are previous cases where Popla have decided on this and agreed there is no right to recover from the registered keeper.Therefore there is no keeper liability.

 

 

 

the signs as unclear/ not enough of them/acres of small text/ mounted so high you can't read without a telescope - fail to meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice Para 18.3Require that they produce photos of the signs as visible under the lighting conditions at the time

 

 

Signs do not state that ANPR is used to calculate the period of parking and that it includes the time before finding a parking space and leaving afterward.

Even if a contract existed, this is a unilateral and retrospective variation of its terms.

 

 

I require proof that their contract grants them the authority to pursue charges to court in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Para 7.2

 

 

A witness statement must be signed by the landowner in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice 22.16b.

There is no evidence to show the vehicle was parked for the time claimed to be in the car park.

 

 

The date of event is recorded as 28/5/18 the date the letter to me as the registered keeper was issued 7/7/18 and in it Parking eye claim to have originally written to the registered keeper who informed them I was liable..

 

 

 

FACT I am the registered keeper of this vehicle and have been since 27/6/16 though I was not the driver on the date in question. so their statement is a Lie and they have made no attempt to address the registered keeper before 7/7/18. So apart from the POFA 2012 RULING and the recent case where a judge upheld that

Edited by honeybee13
Paras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have written a slippery slope argument that may undo your appeal. In demanding sight of a contract you are undermining the point of it not being relevant land and covered by its own byeleays. Anyone can enter a contract as PE has but they fail in law on "performance"

 

The usual example of perfprmance of a contract si I offer to sell you London Bridge. You agree to buy it but dont hand over the money because i dont own it. I sue you for breach of contract and win. Why? becuase having agrred terms you have to pay up and then sue me to get your money back becuae I am not in a position to offer you London Bridge in the first place. They will do the same to you, better off letting them know that (as it is a unilateral contract so there is no offer and counter offer) then the performance aspect comes into play beofre it can be said the contract is formed. So, they cant offer you a contract and that means you cant break one end of.

Again this means you need to change the wording of your first stateemnt as this has nothing to do with keeper liability, there is no liability created at all. lay that on with a trowel.

 

 

All your other points are likewise very secondary to the main point of "they have no right to offer" so change things around so it is clear that the other bits are there to show their claim is doomed anyways but POPLA must rule on the former. They wont like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the reply,

sadly too late for me as I already submitted the appeal.

 

I dont fully understand how to argue points in a legal manner.

However my time is precious as I am currently in the middle of selling my business and and in the middle of starting a new one elsewhere along with moving..

 

If push comes to shove I'll name the idiot driver who chose to stop in a car park he had no reason to be in and even worse take on face value the person their telling him its ok as the machine was broken..

 

What I dont understand is how its OK for them to lie about evidence but not OK for me to highlight this. t

 

If I am reading comments correctly around the internet are they even allowed o get data from DVLA for such a car park?

 

its all very confusing to me

Edited by dx100uk
Quote spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that confusing honestly.

 

Think £ and add 0's and you'll soon work out why most (not quite all) PPC's would try to prove that night was day if it would make them more of it. And the DVLA are complicit because they just take the word of the PPC's because they're a member of an AOS (night is day remember) that they really do have 'reasonable cause' to obtain the keeper details.... Honest :whistle:

 

For the PPC's, it's all a numbers game. They won't give a single fig whether or not they get any money from you, not really at least. You aren't important because there's a queue of other mugs behind you that they have managed to convince all waiting to give them money.

 

The whole business model stinks, but, it's what we're stuck with for now.


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

They can do this because if they claim they have an honest belief then that is all right. It is not fraud to be incompetent and stupid so that is what they will always claim if they are caught out.

Also, as they often do get caught out at a small caims court then they go on to repeat the same lies because no-one will know about the first occasion. Unless you can get trading Standards breathing down their necks you arent going to get a change of behaviour. TS have prosecuted one parking co but they got procedures wrong and the buggers got off on appealing the technicalities ( that is what the law is, after all, not what peopel think it is)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not that confusing honestly.

 

Think £ and add 0's and you'll soon work out why most (not quite all) PPC's would try to prove that night was day if it would make them more of it. And the DVLA are complicit because they just take the word of the PPC's because they're a member of an AOS (night is day remember) that they really do have 'reasonable cause' to obtain the keeper details.... Honest :whistle:

 

For the PPC's, it's all a numbers game. They won't give a single fig whether or not they get any money from you, not really at least. You aren't important because there's a queue of other mugs behind you that they have managed to convince all waiting to give them money.

 

The whole business model stinks, but, it's what we're stuck with for now.

 

thank you. Yes i recognise there are plenty of people who just pay up.. I had a previous issue courtesy of my daughter on that occasion I chose to brave it out and ignore the letter(s) though I did get advised this wasn't a good course of action so took that on board this time and responded to it. They were different companies and I was lucky with the other one who didn't pursue it though it does look as PE will take them as far as they can and hope to win the day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can do this because if they claim they have an honest belief then that is all right. It is not fraud to be incompetent and stupid so that is what they will always claim if they are caught out.

Also, as they often do get caught out at a small caims court then they go on to repeat the same lies because no-one will know about the first occasion. Unless you can get trading Standards breathing down their necks you arent going to get a change of behaviour. TS have prosecuted one parking co but they got procedures wrong and the buggers got off on appealing the technicalities ( that is what the law is, after all, not what peopel think it is)

 

 

thank you.. it looks as if I have messed up my appeal due to my impatience so it looks like I'll end up in court over it. Where I expect I will need to be much better prepared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about it decks. Whatever ParkingLie and/or POPLOL say, it isn't binding on you.

 

If ParkingLie are silly enough to chance their arm on a byelaws case in court, there's a 99.9% chance they'll lose with a strong defence. Just wait for advice (and take it) next time. This ain't our first rodeo :lol:


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
Don't worry about it decks. Whatever ParkingLie and/or POPLOL say, it isn't binding on you.

 

If ParkingLie are silly enough to chance their arm on a byelaws case in court, there's a 99.9% chance they'll lose with a strong defence. Just wait for advice (and take it) next time. This ain't our first rodeo :lol:

 

thank you and noted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to update to advise that parking eye do not wish to contest my appeal no reason given back popla

Would like to thank the people on this forum for their help and advice

To any one searching for the first time my advice is don’t ignore a letter but read the forum on how best to respond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't want to contest it because they realised that you were better informed than they'd hoped.

 

Well done :first: I'll update your thread title.


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...