Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You can easily argue your case with no sign on the nearest parking sign
    • Same issue got a fine yesterday for parking in suspended bay which was ending at 6:30 yesterday, next thing I see a fine 15 minutes before it. The sign was obstructed 
    • Hi all, an update on the case as the deadline for filing the WS is tomorrow i.e., 14 days before the hearing date: 7th June. Evri have emailed their WS today to the court and to myself. Attached pdf of their WS - I have redacted personal information and left any redactions/highlights by Evri. In the main: The WS is signed by George Wood. Evri have stated the claim value that I am seeking to recover is £931.79 including £70 court fees, and am putting me to strict proof as to the value of the claim. Evri's have accepted that the parcel is lost but there is no contract between Evri and myself, and that the contract is with myself and Packlink They have provided a copy of the eBay Powered By Packlink Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) to support their argument the contractual relationship is between myself and Packlink, highlighting clause 3a, e, g of these T&Cs. They further highlight clause 14 of the T&Cs which states that Packlink's liability is limited to £25 unless enhanced compensation has been chosen. They have contacted Packlink who informed them that I had been in contact with Packlink and raised a claim with Packlink and the claim had been paid accordingly i.e., £25 in line with the T&Cs and the compensated postage costs of £4.82. They believe this is clear evidence that my contract is with Packlink and should therefore cease the claim against Evri. Evri also cite Clause 23 of the pre-exiting commercial agreement between the Defendant and Packlink, which states:  ‘Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 A person who is not a party to this Agreement shall have no rights under the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999 to rely upon or enforce any term of this Agreement provided that this does not affect any right or remedy of the third party which exists or is available apart from that Act.’ This means that the Claimant cannot enforce third party rights under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and instead should cease this claim and raise a dispute with the correct party.   Having read Evri's WS and considered the main points above, I have made these observations: Evri have not seen/read my WS (sent by post and by email) as they would have recognised the claim value is over £1000 as it includes court fees, trial fees, postage costs and interests, and there is a complete breakdown of the different costs and evidence. Evri accepts the parcel is lost after it entered their delivery network - again, this is in my WS and is not an issue in dispute. Evri mentions the £25 and £4.82 paid by Packlink - Again, had they read the WS, they would have realised this is not an issue in dispute. Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency   This supports the view that once a user (i.e, myself) selects a transport agency (i.e Evri) that best suits the user's needs, the user (i.e, myself) enters into a contract with the chosen transport agency (i.e, myself). Therefore, under the T&Cs, there is a contract between myself and Evri. Evri cites their pre-existing agreement with Packlink and that I cannot enforce 3rd party rights under the 1999 Act. Evri has not provided a copy of this contract, and furthermore, my point above explains that the T&Cs clearly explains I have entered into a contract when i chose Evri to deliver my parcel.  As explained in my WS, i am the non-gratuitous beneficiary as my payment for Evri's delivery service through Packlink is the sole reason for the principal contract coming into existence. Clearly Evri have not read by WS as the above is all clearly explained in there.   I am going to respond to Evri's email by stating that I have already sent my WS to them by post/email and attach the email that sent on the weekend to them containing my WS. However, before i do that, If there is anything additional I should further add to the email, please do let me know. Thanks. Evri Witness Statement Redacted v1 compressed.pdf
    • Thank you. I will get on to the SAR request. I am not sure now who the DCA are - I have a feeling it might be the ACI group but will try to pull back the letter they wrote from her to see and update with that once I have it. She queried it initially with 118 118 when she received the default notice I think. Thanks again - your help and support is much appreciated and I will talk to her about stopping her payments at the weekend.
    • you should email contact OCMC immediately and say you want an in person hearing.   stupid to not
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

VCS ANPR PCN Claimform - St Marys Gate retails park. Sheffield


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1905 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

its interesting to note they don't use their usual poc of even mentioning driver/keeper issue?

 

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

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Particulars of Claim.

Yes no mention that the keeper is being held liable for non disclosure of drivers details.

 

Interestingly the Final Reminder states the Driver is of the vehicle is liable and in the next paragraph it simply infers liability on the Keeper as the PPC did not receive any response from the NTK. "It is too late for you to appeal."

 

In third para the FR states either pay or notify name of driver by stipulated date. Semantics!

 

Is the defence appropriate? please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

let EB decide tomorrow

you've got until 4pm

and even then you are a LiP [Litigant in person so are allowed some leeway .

a day or 2 wont hurt

but EB is normally around mid morning.

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

one final point

 

can I just check there has been NO communication whatsoever from your parents or you toward VCS prior to the sending of the CPR?

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

right, lets be clear about signage and some other things to consider. there is no such thing as disabled parking on private land. landowners only have markings because they are told to by the planners but there is no law other than in Scotland that maske them enforceable and even north of the border it is a discretionary scheme that one is invited to join. Saying there are no signs in the disabled area is a 2 edged sword becuase there is no recognised sign but the reverse of that is how are peope supposed to know there are additioanl terms if there is no sign.

 

 

However, like the other points you raise, that is for the future. For the moment all you are stating is the bare bones of why you dont owe any money so use a simple statement such as " there was no breach of contract so no monies can be owed as a result" The fact that they are pursuing the wrong person shouldnt be the ONLY defence point so i would start by dropping the cut and paste wording you have found, you are not a lawyers so use plain but precise english. Always use the third person so you say "the defendant" rather than "I". This is important because the driver is a separate person as far as the contract goes so you use the terms the driver and the keeper (defendant as that is the capacity they are suing you as despite their attempts to muddy the waters)

 

so how about:

1. The claimant cannot rely upon the POFA 2012 to create a keepr liability and the defendant denies being the driver at the time. this means there is no cause for action by the claimant against the defendant.

2. In any case there was no breach of contract as no applicable contractual condition was offered to the driver at the time.

3. The signage at the site entrance is not a contract but an invitation to treat so the claimant cannot rely upon it to create terms by which the driver would be bound.

 

 

 

 

the last point overlaps with point 2 but allows you to ake separate arguments regarding to content of the signs and counter their claim that you must obey the signs. No you dont in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"1. The claimant cannot rely upon the POFA 2012 to create a keepr liability and the defendant denies being the driver at the time. this means there is no cause for action by the claimant against the defendant.

 

2. In any case there was no breach of contract as no applicable contractual condition was offered to the driver at the time.

 

3. The signage at the site entrance is not a contract but an invitation to read so the claimant cannot rely upon it to create terms by which the driver would be bound."

 

@Erics brother- makes sense. Only one thing, the defence is admitting that the Keeper is not the driver. Wouldn't it raise the issue that the Keeper didn't not disclose this even though the PPC advised this a number of times.

The fact that the NTK was not issued within the stipulated period according to POFA2012, would that be taken up at Witness statement stage? Is that not pertinent to mention at defence stage?

 

@Ericsbrother- Or did you mean just for now the defence should state

" there was no breach of contract so no monies can be owed as a result"

 

and the other three points can be elaborated upon at the time of witness statement?

 

1. The claimant cannot rely upon the POFA 2012 to create a keepr liability and the defendant denies being the driver at the time. this means there is no cause for action by the claimant against the defendant.

 

2. In any case there was no breach of contract as no applicable contractual condition was offered to the driver at the time.

 

3. The signage at the site entrance is not a contract but an invitation to treat so the claimant cannot rely upon it to create terms by which the driver would be bound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The claimant cannot rely upon the POFA 2012 to create a keeper liability and the defendant denies being the driver at the time.

this means there is no cause for action by the claimant against the defendant.

 

2. In any case there was no breach of contract as no applicable contractual condition was offered to the driver at the time.

 

3. The signage at the site entrance is not a contract but an invitation to treat so the claimant cannot rely upon it to create terms by which the driver would be bound.

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

have you ever wondered why the parking co keeps asking who the driver is? Withiout that information they have noone to sue UNLESS they jump through certain hoops in the right order at the right time. Your lot didnt and yet you seem to want to give away this advantage that makes the claim totally void on its own.

 

 

You have to read a lot more threads and I would suggest the parkig pranksters blog for the last 4 years to get your head around what is actually going on.

 

 

Yes, I did intend you to make the defence points as numbered, that is why they have numbers to them and the comment is spaced well below the suggested defence so there is a differentiation..

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @ericsbro.. Ill look into the threads and parking pranksters!

 

Received the info from DVLA on using the forums letter template.

The PPC enquired on the 21/11/17 and the date of event was 08/10/17.

According to DVLA, POFA Sch 4 applies, 14 days etc "however, the company is able to pursue, payment of charge through means open to them prior to POFA and therefore have reasonable cause to receive that data, DVLA is not entitled to impose unlawful restrictions...." explaining their position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so who applied for your details? Was it VCS?

 

so they have no keeper liability and that is why they have to show who was driving at the time and if you deny it was you then they will have a hell of a job to get anywhere as they are barking up the wrong tree. they cant asume that the keeper and the driver are one and the same and you are not obliged to help them.

 

 

The DVLA says all of this because they are upsetting many menbers of parliament and if it wasnt for brexit tiem moight be made to consider legislation that clips the wings of the DVLA and the parking co's.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yes..VCS applied for details.

Enquiring reason: Breach of terms and conditions of a private car park.

 

Have received Notice of Proposed Allocation to small claims Track/questionnaire.

 

Sorry for the late reply.

 

My father was hospitalised for the past week for a heart condition :(

 

Need help with filling out the NoPA to SCT/Directions Questionnaire..

 

1. To be completed by Defendant (name)

A1- Small claims mediation service- YES/NO- (not sure but perhaps yes?)

C1- YES (appropriate allocation)

 

D1- Sheffield County Court ( hopefully there is one)

 

D2- NO (don't think there can be any expert evidence required)

 

D3- ONE-( the defendant is only witness ..as discussed in earlier posts not my father who was with her on the date of event)

 

D4- Not available end Oct- Jan (is that ok to write as they ve asked for dates, can't confirm any further dates either as hospital appointments pop up, but I can try to rearrange dates for hospital visits)

 

She does speak a second language should I act as her interpreter? Speaks english but understanding is a little weak if spoken quickly to or listening to a thick accent.

 

Lastly, the original is sent to the court(sent from), a copy to the claimant and a copy for self..

 

Sorry to all for these ignorant questions. Ive read up posts on various sites its just quite confusing applying it to the case.

Edited by Blind7383
Link to post
Share on other sites

no to mediation

1 wit you

rest is obv

 

3 copies 1 to court

1 to sols [minus email/sig/phone]

1 for your file

 

read other threads get upto speed upon what is next

the more you read the stronger we become

KEEP TO CAG OR Parking Prankster Websites only

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks Ericsbro.

I was wondering about the response from DVLA. Do i have grounds to complain to the commissioner for the info they provided? I found the response a bit silly..that they could still give info of the keeper without POFA... the letter didn't elaborate on the reasons but I've read the circumstances under which they can..still doesn't explain why they gave the info 6 weeks later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DVLA waffle because they dotn have a quality control system in place that is worth anything. All you need is WHO and WHEN

 

 

Complain to the ICO later, get this sorted first as defeating their claim will add weight to the claim that your data was accessed unlawfully adn the DVLA are complicit in this etc.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

OK, you will need to be ready to exchange evidence bundles a fortnight before the hearing. Chances are they wont send their in time unless you send yours to them early so they can copy your homework.

 

Send yourS to them on the last day possible ( earlier to court by a couple of days is fine) and if you have had emails from them in the past block their email addy as they will send stuff at midnight and then tell lies about when it was sent.

 

If they send any stuff late keep it separate and complain to the judge and ask for it to be considered inadmissible.

 

Also they try on stuff in the court waiting room if it does go to the wire, read up on this and upon rights of audience.

 

Ask us before the time if you are unclear on the sort of stuff you should use but anything you can throw at it.

 

The Parking pranksters blog and websites are invaluable goldmines of case law and previous and so persuasive cases. Copy the reports ( screen dump will do) you wnat to use.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

just type no need to hit reply with quote - makes the thread twice as long to scroll through..

13 quotes removed.

 

scan it all up to ONE multipage PDF please

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

That should kill their pig if brought up in court.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

:whoo:

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...