Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • or PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH        For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes      This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system. The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see. The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system. I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.    Below is CE  evidence to POPLA and  2 photos of my evidence. I have omitted other CE evidence as it includes personal and private details. I will upload POPLAS decision soon    CE to POPLA   ce to popla.pdf ce to popla 2.pdf ce to popla 3.pdf ce to popla 4.pdf ce to popla 5.pdf view approaching car park.pdf view from my parking bay.pdf   My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   18. We refer to the Appellant’s submissions that the signage was turned and difficult to see, however, we have attached an image plan dated 27/03/2019 which demonstrates there are many signs on the site which are readable and easy to see. The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured. Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.    19. The grace period was taken into consideration before issuing the Notice, and we have deemed this incident to have exceeded the allowed grace period.  Please note that whilst we do not advertise the grace period on signage, it is compliant with the guidance provided by the British Parking Association in their Code of Practice, which states that motorists should be allowed 10 minutes in which to decide if they are going to park or not.    20. Whilst we appreciate the Appellant’s submissions, we are unable to take into account mitigating circumstances; the terms and conditions of parking were clear. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.    21. We refer you to paragraph 3-8 of our response (above) as well as the following statement made by the British Parking Association, which advises all motorists:    “Regardless of whether they park in private car parks, Council car parks or on-street, motorists should always park properly and always check any signage displayed to make sure they know and understand the rules that apply. This is especially so if they are visiting for the first time - in order to acquaint themselves with the prevailing Terms & Conditions for parking.”    Drivers have an obligation to check for signage when parking on private land – the signs do not need to be placed directly in the position where they parked, they      Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool L2 3PF Tel: 0115 822 5020  Registered Office as above. Company Registered in England. Company Registration Number 05645677  Pa ge 7  simply must be placed throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them (BPA Code of Practice, 18.3).    22. This Parking Charge Notice was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.    23. The Appellant’s details were obtained from the DVLA on 10/07/2019 and the PCN was sent on 12/07/2019.  Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.            POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes. Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located. Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”. Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.” The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list. The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms. The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019. It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms. The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit. I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.  
    • Hi MIE   I have prepared for the fact that I might not win, although I would very much like to but has been factored into my plans to deal with my current debt and helping to reduce it.    In in regards to documentation....I have been asking for specific information, which they have refused to provide me with since 2013 and not just since I received the claim.    I’ve not received any documents or a response to my SAR.    Particulars of claim in #5.    Defence below (I know it’s not the best, but it’s all I could come up with).   DEFENCE   1. The Defendant received the claim xxxxxxxx from the Northampton County Court Business Centre on 10/08/2019.   2. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.   3. This claim relates to an alleged salary overpayment.   4. It is admitted that the Defendant was employed by the Claimant from 02/02/2009 until 31/08/2011.   5. It is admitted that the Defendant has made a payment of £465 to the Claimant.   6. It is denied that the Defendant owes this whole amount as the Claimant has not provided the information and documents requested.   8. The Defendant is unable identify through financial records that amounts were received as alleged.   9. The Claimant has failed to provide bank account details of where payments were made despite being requested to provide this information.   7. The Claimants particulars of the claim fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.   8. The Defendant contends that the Claimant is a public body that is requesting interest on a debt that is alleged to have been incurred as a result of a salary overpayment and not a credit agreement.   9. The Defendant contends that the Claimant is requesting interest from a date that is Statute Barred.   10. On the 12/08/2019 the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Claimant’s Solicitor].   11. Claimant’s Solicitor has not sent any of these documents to the Defendant.   12. The Defendant has asked the Claimant Solicitor if we may agree to extend the time period allowed for filing of the defence pending receipt of documents (as allowed under CPR 15.5), but no response has been received.   13. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.   14. The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead her case else the Claim should stand struck out.   15. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend her defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.   16. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.   Statement of Truth The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
    • Thread moved to Debt Collection Agencies Forum.   Andy
    • We will also need a copy of the defence you submitted.I would advocate sending a CCA Request also...unless you legally request it they cant be in default.   Andy
  • Our picks

DraxDomax

Need advice about an injury-at-work case that is going south

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 187 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

My partner is a carer. She has been sent to work for a lady who wasn't equipped with the correct device to keep her upright. She fell on my partner and my partner suffered a back injury leading to incontinence, pain and time off work.

 

We took the case with xxx LLP, who wrote a letter to the employer and got a response, offering 4000 pounds as final settlement.

xxx advised us to reject that offer, saying, over the phone, that we can always fall back on the 4000, but they believe we can get much more.

 

Since then, my partner has been to Royal Berkshire Hospital, where the doctor said he doesn't see any injury and any pain she might have is a result of earlier injury. Her incontinence might be an infection (totally rubbish).

 

Now it feels like the case might fall through, as the doctors do not want to confirm her injury and we see the 4000 pounds as a better-than-nothing solution.

However, when we WROTE to xxx, they said the offer is off the table and we can't fall back to those 4000 pounds.

 

1. She will be seeing a doctor from xxx privately to assess her but I reckon a judge might be more interested in an NHS doctor rather than a doctor from an interested party?

 

2. What can we do in regards to xxx making us think we could get at least 4000 pounds and now they are implying we can come out empty handed?

 

3. Any other advice regarding the situation in general will be appreciated

 

I will just add that the reason my partner was injured is that she grabbed the falling lady and saved her from rolling down the stairs.

And that my partner is truly injured. It took her 2 weeks to admit that she's incontinent because of the shame.

Edited by honeybee13
Name of law firm removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does your contract with xxx say? Are you able to withdraw from it and what happens if you do?

Edited by honeybee13
Law firm name removed

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've removed the name of the law firm from previous posts as CAG doesn't advertise.

 

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I was actually encouraged, on a different issue, to actually name the companies I am dealing with. I will make sure to avoid name dropping unless instructed so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can withdraw from the case at any time without fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok. So, currently no medical evidence

 

 

What training did she get?

 

 

What risk assessment was in place?

 

 

Did she get sick pay?

 

 

Is she back at work?


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My partner is a carer. She has been sent to work for a lady who wasn't equipped with the correct device to keep her upright. She fell on my partner and my partner suffered a back injury leading to incontinence, pain and time off work.

 

We took the case with xxx LLP, who wrote a letter to the employer and got a response, offering 4000 pounds as final settlement.

xxx advised us to reject that offer, saying, over the phone, that we can always fall back on the 4000, but they believe we can get much more.

 

Since then, my partner has been to Royal Berkshire Hospital, where the doctor said he doesn't see any injury and any pain she might have is a result of earlier injury. Her incontinence might be an infection (totally rubbish).

 

Now it feels like the case might fall through, as the doctors do not want to confirm her injury and we see the 4000 pounds as a better-than-nothing solution.

However, when we WROTE to xxx, they said the offer is off the table and we can't fall back to those 4000 pounds.

 

1. She will be seeing a doctor from xxx privately to assess her but I reckon a judge might be more interested in an NHS doctor rather than a doctor from an interested party?

 

2. What can we do in regards to xxx making us think we could get at least 4000 pounds and now they are implying we can come out empty handed?

 

3. Any other advice regarding the situation in general will be appreciated

 

I will just add that the reason my partner was injured is that she grabbed the falling lady and saved her from rolling down the stairs.

And that my partner is truly injured. It took her 2 weeks to admit that she's incontinent because of the shame.

 

 

1) The Court will place more weight on a medico-legal report from a medical expert instructed by your solicitor.

 

2) Was the off made by way of "Part 36"? As for the advice given, we'd need to see the advice you got from your solicitor.

 

3) Call your solicitor and ask them everything you've asked here. They're you're solicitors and I imagine you're paying them at least 25% of your settlement so use the qualified legal professionals you're paying for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. She's a senior carer with all the qualifications and certificates. She is trained to operate all moving and handling equipment

 

2. She has actually proactively assessed the risk and informed: the care company, occupation therapist, the head nurse and the family - in writing, that the woman is not equipped to walk on her own in the current setting. She has a written statement from other carers who said they will not work for that lady because she's at risk of collapsing any moment.

I believe there may be some form of agreement from the official people (OT, care company...) that the equipment is not suitable but I am not sure of this documentation.

 

3. She did not receive statutory sick pay. As a matter of fact, the care company were very quick to deduct 200 pounds for uniform, which we got back by threatening with ACAS

 

4. She is only able to do light work such as baby-sitting. And she does that 2 days per week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. She has actually proactively assessed the risk and informed: the care company, occupation therapist, the head nurse and the family - in writing, that the woman is not equipped to walk on her own in the current setting. She has a written statement from other carers who said they will not work for that lady because she's at risk of collapsing any moment.

I believe there may be some form of agreement from the official people (OT, care company...) that the equipment is not suitable but I am not sure of this documentation.

 

 

Your difficuty is that despite being fully trained, and having undertaken the risk assessment herself, she has then proceeded to do the work. This puts her on very shaky ground.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point. I hope our legal help can get this covered somehow.

 

Speaking of that legal help, any way to get some traction regarding their earlier verbal promise that we can get those 4000 guaranteed, or more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see your point. I hope our legal help can get this covered somehow.

 

Speaking of that legal help, any way to get some traction regarding their earlier verbal promise that we can get those 4000 guaranteed, or more?

 

 

It was a verbal promise, did you record it?

 

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see your point. I hope our legal help can get this covered somehow.

 

Speaking of that legal help, any way to get some traction regarding their earlier verbal promise that we can get those 4000 guaranteed, or more?

 

I very much doubt it was a "promise."

 

Did you not get anything in writing from your solicitor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok maybe they didn't say "we promise" but, while my partner isn't seasoned in legal practice, I believe that she understood correctly some form of explicit verbal assurance that the "4000" offer is live, not off the table.

 

We got a lot in writing but not that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing about offers, they can be time limited or withdrawn.

 

You really need to discuss this with your solicitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see a strong case; so I woud probably go along with the solicitor's doctor, and see if they can make a case. I wouldn't count on much coming from it, though.


Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was prob a offer to settle as cheaper than cost of defending or involving insurance.

They prob feel they are not at fault but was cheapest way out.

Now, after refusing offer, they have likely informed insurance company and insurance company will fight it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was prob a offer to settle as cheaper than cost of defending or involving insurance.

They prob feel they are not at fault but was cheapest way out.

Now, after refusing offer, they have likely informed insurance company and insurance company will fight it now.

 

I would agree. They may come back at a later stage, but the offer could go up - or down. There is never any way of predicting this.

 

On the issue of the NHS doctor - all medical opinion would receive equal weight in a court, assuming it came from someone qualified to deliver it. But what you would not be able to do, if the solicitor now got their own medical advice, would be to hide the opinion of the NHS medical practitioners. That would always form part of the evidence; and, in fact, depending on circumstances, the opposing side may already have copies, as litigation requires disclosure of such things.

 

But on a very basic point, an offer is an offer. Not a guarantee. And the lawyers advice is advice - you make the decision. The chances of demonstrating that this is the fault of the lawyer is negligible- and that is assuming that you had evidence, and that it was ironclad. I'd lay bets that it wasn't the latter, as lawyers seldom speak in certainties. They'll have said something conditional in the conversation - you just won't have heard it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again, there's some progress: The other doctor that the lawyers told her to visit actually agrees that the injury is significant for a claim.

The lawyers still said it's still not favourable, if we have a 50/50 distribution about this.

 

The lawyers have given us some advice that I find weird and I think only you could help me understand (lawyers did not elaborate for us).

Basically, they said that we should now make a "interim claim" of 1000 pounds from the insurer. This means we claim 1000 pounds now but reserve the right to claim more once we get more evidence.

 

My question is (I am trying to understand the motives of each party): why would an insurer agree to an interim claim? If the the insured party is in the right, then the insurer is not motivated to accept any claim. If the insurer feels the claim has a chance, they would look to settle.

But why would anyone agree to pay some money now, without settling the claim finally?

 

Perhaps paying an interim claim makes the insured party appear more favourably at the court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you just confirm if liability for the accident is admitted by the other side's insurer?

 

The interim payment request could for for a couple of reasons. Either the Claimant needs further medical investigations or examinations etc and the money is to tide them over for now.

 

Or it's a tactic from the solicitors to get more costs if the interim payment is contested or paid late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, the insurer admitted liability.

I will re-check with the solicitors about their costs. I am pretty sure we agreed on a fixed percentage (25%) of the total settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, the insurer admitted liability.

I will re-check with the solicitors about their costs. I am pretty sure we agreed on a fixed percentage (25%) of the total settlement.

 

 

No, I meant the costs they get from the other side. Not the costs from their client.

 

It's not an unusual course of action to be honest. Pretty standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should open the topic


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...