Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • Hi everyone, Apologies for bringing up the same topic regarding these individuals. I wish I had found this forum earlier, as I've seen very similar cases. However, I need your help in figuring out what to do next because we've involved our partners/resellers. I work as an IT Manager in a company outside of the UK. We acquired a license from a certified reseller (along with a support agreement) and also obtained training sessions from them. The issue arose when we needed to register two people for the training sessions, so we used an external laptop for the second user to keep up with the sessions for only a month. During this period, the laptop was solely used for the training sessions. After two weeks, my boss forwarded an email to me from Ms Vinces, stating that we are using illicit software from SolidWorks. Since this has never happened to me or anyone we know, I went into panic mode and had a meeting with her. During the meeting, we explained that we were using an external laptop solely for the training sessions and that the laptop had not been used within the company since her email. She informed us that for such cases, there are demos and special licenses (though our reseller did not mention these types of licenses when we made our initial purchase). She then mentioned that we had utilized products worth approximately €25k and presented us with two options: either pay the agreed value or acquire SolidWorks products. We expressed that the cost was too high, and our business couldn't support such expenses. I assured her that we would discuss the matter with the company board and get back to her. After the meeting, we contacted the company reseller from whom we purchased the license, explained the situation, and mentioned the use of an external laptop. They said they would speak to Maria and help mediate the situation. We hoped to significantly reduce the cost, perhaps to that of a 1-year professional license. Unfortunately, we were mistaken. The reseller mediated a value €2k less than what Maria had suggested (essentially, we would need to acquire two professional lifetime licenses and two years of support for a total of €23k). This amount is still beyond our means, but they insisted that the price was non-negotiable and wouldn't be reduced any further. The entire situation feels odd because she never provided us with addresses or other evidence (which I should have requested), and she's pressuring us to resolve the matter by the end of the month, with payment to be made through the reseller. This makes me feel as though the reseller is taking advantage of the situation to profit from it. Currently, we're trying to buy some time. We plan to meet with the reseller next week but are uncertain about how to proceed with them or whether we should respond to the mediator.
    • Thanks London  if I’ve read correctly the questionaire wants me to post his actual name on a public forum… is that correct.  I’ve only had a quick read so far
    • Plenty of success stories, also bear in mind not everyone updates the forum.  Overdale's want you to roll over and pay, without using your enshrined legal right to defend. make you wet yourself in fear that a solicitor will Take you to court, so you will pay up without question. Most people do just that,  but you are lucky that you have found this place and can help you put together a good defence. You should get reading on some other Capital One and Overdale's cases on the forum to get an idea of how it works.  
    • In both versions the three references to "your clients" near the end need to be changed to "you" or "your" as Alliance are not using solicitors, they have sent the LoC themselves. Personally I'd change "Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept" to "Dear Kev".  It would show you'd done your homework, looked up the company, and seen it's a pathetic one-man band rather than having any departments.  The PPCs love to pretend they have some official power and so you should be scared of them - showing you've sussed their sordid games and you're confident about fighting them undermines all this.  In fact that's the whole point of a snotty letter - to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did do court so better to drop you like a hot potato and go and pursue mugs who just give in instead. In the very, very, very, very unlikely case of Kev doing court, it'd be better that he didn't know in advance all the legal arguments you'd be using, so I'd heavily reduce the number of cards being played.
  • 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

GXS/gladstones Windscreen PCN claimform - shoreham port basin rd southwick HN41 1WF ***Claim Discontinued***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1648 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

Also, if you send an SAR, that's only info they hold about you, not GXS, the landowner or the planning department, so it wouldn't uncover the info either.

 

One wonders why they wouldn't just send you a copy of the agreements/permission if they would prove their legitimacy to operate....... it's almost as if they don't have them........ no, wait.......

You tell the judge you have asked for proof, they have refused/failed to provide it = they do not have it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi MrsFrog....cool name thanks for your response....very kind regards....just need to submit my defence now.

I am currently doing alot of reading on sites the newbies thread and I can see the POPLA appeals that apply to me like the NTK arriving outside of the 56 days but does this apply as a defence in court?

For example as the NTK arrived outside of the 56 days there can be no keeper liability ...but does this apply at the court stage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

better to stick to parking prankster and this site.....

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

ive removed a short sentence from your post 2 back.

you'll see why.

 

anyone can driver you car if they have 3rd party themselves that covers them to drive any car.

 

 

 

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

please don't post images directly to a post 

use PDF

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

So can someone help me with my defence, to get the ball rolling....starting to get a bit worried now...only a week left to submit.

 

 

Do I put in my defence that I will be claiming my airflight back home and is the claimant likely even going to bothet reading my claim. 

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

due by 4pm friday

will be the std 2 or 3 line defence in about every PCN claimform thread already here

pop it up here 1st

don't file early

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 didn't post a link

 

YOU need to read other PCN claimform threads in this forum.

 

use the custom google search after hitting our top left logo

 

dx

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

Hi Dx 

I dont mean to sound like a broken record but if the defence is a simple 2 to 3 lines would you be so kind just to tell me what those lines are.

Im reading tons of example defences here which are paragraphs and paragraphs online and you're saying is just a simple two to three lines.

..therefore would you explicitly state what that is, seeing as you already know the particulars of this case ie the ntk arriving outside of the allotted 56 days etc....im getting more and more confused by the hour

Link to post
Share on other sites

no because you must understand why you are filing what you are filing as a defence

 

have you found the custom google search bar box after clicking our top left squares logo?

 

 

 

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

The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant and unenforceable
The Notice to Keeper failed to meet the obligations of IPC’s Code of Practice and Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012.

The IPC Code of Practice reads:
“3.1 (q) [The notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR cases) must] be given to the Keeper so that it is served upon between day 29 and day 57 after the day that the Notice to Driver is given (which is counted as day 1).”

The Notice to Keeper states that the contravention date was 21/04/2018 and the issue date of the Notice to Keeper was 26/06/2018, i.e. more than 57 days after the contravention date and therefore a breach of the Code.

The IPC Code of Practice states that if an IPC member breaches the Code of Practice they are “liable to our disciplinary procedures as set out in schedule 2.”

You will be aware that a late NTK renders a charge unrecoverable against a keeper so I cannot be pursued for payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so how does the above

note, accept or deny each claim statement in their POC?

 

1.The driver of the vehicle with registration xxxx xxx ('the vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage ('the contract') at Basin Road Southwick BN41 1WR on 21/04/2018 thus incurring the parking charge ('the PCN').

 

2.The driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days off issue yet failed to do so.


3.The claimant claims the unpaid PCN and from the defendant as the driver / Keeper of the vehicle.

 

4.Despite demands being made if the defendant has failed to settle that outstanding liability.

 

5.THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN.

£60 contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN and terms and conditions,

together with statutory interest of £13.58 pursuant to S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum continu8ng at £0.04 per day.

 

please note ...I am not being obstructive to YOU..1000's of people read each thread here every week..its to teach later readers..

 

so I cant see any of those points above in either version of our 2 or 3 line defence which I pointed you to find on cag using the custom google search..typing in..

 

pcn claimform.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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

As the ex registered keeper of vehicle xxx and not the driver this is denied.

No contact has been formed as signage is insufficient to create an agreement.

The contract has not been agreed to by myself as the registered keeper. 

The contract between GXS and the Landowner which gives GXS the right to enter in to contracts with the public has been requested and has failed to be supplied.

Quote

 

2.The driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days off issue yet failed to do so.

This is denied.

The driver of the vehicle did not agree to pay the PCN as it was never seen and furthermore GXS state in their NTK that the driver has 21 days to appeal the PCN further contradicting themselves as in law 28 days are given.

Quote


3.The claimant claims the unpaid PCN and from the defendant as the driver / Keeper of the vehicle.

This is denied. 

The claimant GLADSTONES acting on behalf of their client GXS are not the creditor so have no legal standing to make a claim.

Furthermore keeper liability can never arise under POFA 2012 as the NTK was received 66 days after the alleged breach was made, outside of the limited time of 56 days allowed by POFA 2012.

Quote

 

4.Despite demands being made if the defendant has failed to settle that outstanding liability.

*The defendent* (ie the named driver) cannot be identified and registered keeper is not liable under POFA 2012 as previously mentioned in point 3.

Quote

5.THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN.

£60 contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN and terms and conditions,

together with statutory interest of £13.58 pursuant to S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum continu8ng at £0.04 per day.

The claimant GLADSTONES are not the creditor (GXS)  and have no legal standing to claim the PCN plus extortionate costs. 

This claim is has no legal standing and the case is requested to be dismissed under CPR 3.4

Sincerely 

Xxx

Ex registered keeper vehicle reg xxx

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok great now you are getting there..

1.dont give a reason wny its denied, let them work it out. 
how do you know the signage is insufficent?

2. forget that. there is no 28 days in law.

3. ditch the 1st line gladstones are not the claimant neither did they issue the claim.

4. not needed

5. same as 3.

  • Thanks 1

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

as an aside you use the new signage images later on to show that their original signs were either inadequate (or they wouldnt replace them) or that if they use the same as the image you have they are miseading the court with their fake evidence.

 

a couple of other things,

the postcode you have put in your header is wrong so watch out for typos in your defence and

 

secondly as it is a port have you thought about the land being subject to its own byelaws so not "relevant land" and therefore only the byelaws ( and their fines if applicable( can apply, not some shoddy demand from a nobody?

 

A google search give you the byelaws but the link is broken so you need to dig deeper.

but as a belt and braces I would suggest that you deny any contract as the land isnt "relevant land" under the POFA and is covered by its own byelaws so no lawful contract can be offered by the claimant and no liability created for breach of the same.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.

As the ex registered keeper of vehicle xxx xxx and not the driver, the breach of terms is denied. No contact has been formed.

The contract has not been agreed to by myself as the registerd keeper. 

The contract between GXS and the Landowner which gives GXS the right to enter into.contracts with the public has been requested and has failed to be supplied.

 

2.

It is denied that the driver of the vehicle xxxx xxx agreed to pay the PCN as the PCN was never seen and furthermore the registered keeper denies agreeing to pay the PCN.

 

3. 

The claimants claim to the unpaid PCN is without grounds as keeper liability can never arise under POFA 2012 as the NTK was received 66 days after the alleged breach was made, outside of the limited time of 56 days allowed by POFA 2012.

 

4.

no comment

 

5.

The claimants claim to the unpaid PCN is without grounds as keeper liability can never arise under POFA 2012 as the NTK was received 66 days after the alleged breach was made, outside of the limited time of 56 days allowed by POFA 2012.

 

This claim is has no legal standing and the case is requested to be dismissed under CPR 3.4

 

Quick question once my defence is sunmitted will gladstone/gxs be privy to my defence...ie will they have access will it be sent to them.

 

Thus should I include as a conclusion that I am away on holiday and as this claim has no legal standing and therefore vexacious I will be claiming my travel expenses should I have to return to attend court.

 

K regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

eb answered the holiday bit earlier..thats for later

 

don't forget what eb said in about mentioning the byelaws

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

you don't have too

MCOL does that for you.

 

assuming you filed by mcol?

what was your defence please

exactly what you filed..

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

well until you get yours from the court 

we don't need that

though I bet they are asking for a paperwork only hearing?

  • Like 1

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...