Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Shelley and hope you're ok 🙋‍♂️   Is the respondant an individual, a business, a Ltd Co, etc ? This info may help others advise on how best to enforce the Tribunal award.   Interest  -  it's the award amount of 2,500 times 8% divided by 365 which gives you the daily interest amount, times the number of days.   Or 2,500 x 0.08/365 = interest per day = 55p per day   Or use the factor of 0.00022 to give the same result for the daily rate of interest to add. 2,500 x 0.00022 = 55p per day.
    • receipt converted to PDF and added to last post      
    • Well I really don't know where to begin with this. I've spent hours trying to figure out what to put but it seems that every witness statement is different depending on the exact circumstances. I know that I shouldn't put all my cards on the table but I don't know which ones to hold back and which ones to get rid of altogether.   This is what I have so far...   I, XXX of XXX am the Defendant in this case. I make this statement in support of my defence again the Claimant, Civil Enforcement Ltd.   1.       CEL make it impossible for defendants to discuss PCNs with them or their representatives:              A.       On the 26th Nov 2018 I received an unexpected PCN from CEL. I immediately went onto their “Contact Us” page, which stated that operators are available to speak to during normal working hours (see appendix 1 - THIS IS JUST A COPY OF THEIR CONTACT US PAGE). I tried calling numerous times to discuss the matter but regardless of what time of day I called there was no option to speak to an operator, only an automated system to pay.              B.       When I received a debt collection notice from ZZPS (see appendix 2 - COPY OF LETTER) the letter instructed me to call them on 01932918916.                      14th Mar 2019 - I tried calling several times and have a call recording I can play for the court to show that it was impossible to speak to anyone. Instead I was played the following automated message: “The party’s call minder belonging to 01473478289 is full and can’t accept any more messages. Please try again later. Goodbye.” The call then hangs up.                     19th Mar 2019 - I tried again at several times throughout the day and this time a message played thanking me for calling ZZPS and asked me to hold. It then rang for 2 minutes before repeating the same message. This happened over and over again. I have two recording that I can play for the court showing this to be true, one that lasted 9 minutes and the other for 10 minutes before each time giving up.            It appears that there is some unreliable call routing in place meaning that I had no way of contacting CEL or ZZPS as they both advise.   2.       CEL failed to produce any of the documentation I requested in writing, which obstructed me from making a decision on how to proceed with this case:             A.       On the 3rd Dec 2018 I completed CEL’s online Appeals Form (see appendix 3 for a saved copy of the submitted form - ATTACHED TO THIS POST). CEL responded (see appendix 4) but failed to answer any question, stating that GDPR prevented them from doing so.             B.       On the 14th Aug 2019 I sent them a CPR 31.14 Request letter (see appendix 5). CEL did not respond.   3.       According to Schedule 3, Part 1, Class 13 of The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, only signage older than 10 years is deemed as having consent granted.   CEL has changed its signage 3 times within the last 10 years, which can be clearly seen from Google Street mapping images:            A.       2018 – Present: Signage stating 1hr free parking (appendix 6a)            B.       2012 – 2017: Signage stating 3hr free parking (appendix 6b)            C.       2008 – 2012: Signage stating 2hr free parking (appendix 6c)   CEL’s current signage was installed at some point during 2018 but according to Stockport Council’s online planning applications search system no planning permission was granted. I believe the signage has therefore been erected illegally, which makes it impossible to enter into a contract with them.   4.       CEL has also added legal costs to their claim, which is not recoverable within the Small Claims Court.   I believe that the following facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.   Have I made a complete balls-up of this or am I going in the right direction? I thought it might work in my favour if I try to show the judge that I made every reasonable effort to resolve this without going to court but CEL purposely make appeals as difficult as possible. Perhaps none of that matters. Not sure. 🤔 Appeal Text.pdf
    • This will be ok for you to offer the final 1 month's fee you should have paid :-   Dear Harlands,   I refer to my membership at [town/city] gym.   The DD mandate was cancelled after the June 2019 payment was made and this was notice of my intent to cancel the gym membership.   I now realise I should have left the DD Mandate open to pay a final month's fee for the notice period.   Please confirm your bank payment details and a reference so I can pay you the £xx.xx to end this matter. I will not pay any admin fees added by Harlands. I will only deal with this matter in writing, not by phone.   My offer is valid for 14 days only and will be withdrawn if you demand any higher amount.   Yours sincerely,
    • seems like your payment issue is not just your error      
  • 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 470 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...