Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ok looks like that's what you need to do. but keep it bare bones for now as post 5  
    • stuff and all if there no signed agreement in the return   dx  
    • 1st again why do you keep changing things before you send them   you've added counterclaim in to our std CPR 31:14 you sent? why? this opens you up to additional costs and I hope you didnt tick counterclaim when you did AOS on mcol too?   also I notice you've  played with our std OD defence above too...   pers I would refrain from continuing to change things as they are written in the frain they are for specific reasons.   your defence is due by 4pm Monday [day 33]   here are 2 versions you will ofcourse need to adapt them to lowells para no's and remove the NOA stuff as your docs show Lowell have complied with those. but don't forget to mention other documents provided to date notably statements contain no proof they came from Lloyds but rather Lowells own internal data system    dx   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the [insert original creditor] . .  2. The defendant denies that the account exceeded the agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds but is as a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. .  3. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety. .  4. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon. .  5. The claimant is denied from added section 69 interest within the total claimed that as yet to be decided at the courts discretion. .  6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. .  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-. .  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.  (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.  (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. .  7. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated [xxxxxxx] namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. .  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .  .............. or  Particulars of Claim  1.The claim is for the sum of 2470.56 in respect of monies owing pursuant to an overdraft facility under account number XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.  2.The debt was legally assigned by Santander UK Plc to the claimant and notice has been served.   3.The Defendant has failed to repay overdrawn sums owing under the terms and conditions of the bank account.   The Claimant claims:  The sum of 2470.56 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county courticon Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 7/04/2015 to the date hereof 14 days is the sum of 7.58Daily interest at the rate of .54  Costs Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant once having had banking facilities with the original creditor Santander Bank. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Original Creditor has never served notice pursuant to 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974  Any alleged amount claimed could only consist in the main of default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.  4. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.  (a) Provide a copy agreement/overdraft facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of all excessive charging/fees and show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.   (d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (e) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  5. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated April 2015 namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  Regards  Andy    
    • Hi   Just read your thread and looked at the Docs posted in your PDF.   1. from AST to rent a Car Parking space you need to have signed a Car Parking Agreement for a Space and for visitors you should have asked permission for another space in advance with a fee to pay. (i also assume renting a parking space would be at a cost)   2. You have no signed Car Parking Agreement nor visitor space agreement.   Did you not fully read that AST before you signed it and pick up what is stated about parking and ask them about this Car Parking Agreement and if you need one to park in the car park?   You could formally complain to them about what was verbally said to you but unless you have evidence of this it may be hard to prove.   You should also contact them and ask how you go about renting a Car Parking space/costs and about the Car Parking Agreement also what the process is for a visitor car parking space/costs.   You need to be aware that they could class you and your visitor as illegally parking in there car park without consent nor a signed car parking agreement which they could use as a Breach of your Tenancy Agreement so you need to be careful in how you are approaching this and where you are parking.   Just for info on checking Manchester Life website they have numerous buildings/apartments/car parks but you may be in a building where some of the apartments are leasehold and as part of there leasehold they may have purchased a car parking space in that building. (so how do you know you are not parking in a space that someone in the building has legally purchased?)
  • Our picks

JoeyJoeC

F1RST Parking windscreen PCN - Royal Holloway University **WON AT POPLA**

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 220 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

Hi,

 

It's been a while since I've been on these forums, I used to give advice but I don't know how much has changed in the last few years.

 

My girlfriend today got a "Parking Charge Notice". "Reason(s) for issue: Restricted Area". She parked over yellow crosshatches (aka graffiti). She has a permit but there were no spaces. University website advises people to follow the instructions on the "Parking Charge Notice".

 

 

"Amount due: GBP 60.00". (30.00 if within 14 days).

 

 

I know she should do nothing and wait for the NTD comes through, which they have 28 days to send.

 

How enforceable is this? Have they ever taken anyone to court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions....

 

1 The date of infringement? 03/10/2018

 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] NO

 

 

Have not appealed and havn't got a NTK (only happened today)

 

 

5 Who is the parking company? F1rst Parking LLP

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Royal Holloway University - Car Park 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scan up the ntk to one multipage pdf please

 

read upload


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's the PCN you indicated she has received a letter today..the NTK?


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only NTD, I didn't indicate she received a letter.

 

I know she should do nothing and wait for the NTD comes through, which they have 28 days to send.
(I did mean NTK not NTD)

 

Have not appealed and havn't got a NTK (only happened today)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah I understand your comment only happened today now.

 

ok you await the NTK as per that link states. 29-56 days

do NOTHING other than p'haps take photos of signs all over

and viewable from entrance before you enter and location of each on a plan at somepoint.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meanwhile get her to take some pictures of the signage at the site to see if the so called breach of contract actually has a clause that matches the breach. You woudl be surprised how many parking co's cant even get this right and accuse peopel of doing things that arent mentioned by any contract.

 

 

Also the wording should make it clear what is a contractual condition and what is a breach of the terms. They oftne confuse the 2

Edited by honeybee13
Paras, typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signs attached.

 

Unsure if the driver parked on double reds or the cross hatched area. Sign doesn't mention anything about double red lines.

 

The car park is always full and cars always parked at the end of rows in the 'restricted' areas. Nice money earner for them! Plenty of space for cars to get around even with cars doubled up like that. Nice little earner for them.

sign1 close.jpg

sign1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is she a permit holder? If not them the signs dont apply to her so she cant be in breach of the conditions as they only apply to permit holders and not trespassers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is she a permit holder? If not them the signs dont apply to her so she cant be in breach of the conditions as they only apply to permit holders and not trespassers.

 

That's a good point, however she is a permit holder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now universities have strange laws governing what they can and cant do with their land. This is especially important as they dotn own it and usually the charter states that the uni or college must do only things that are fore the promotion of learning or for that benefit. this menas thta hiving off the car park to a third party is in breach of the charter. In my day if you got a parking ticket 400 people would stand under the Rectors office window and chant slogans until it was cancelled as he disruption was costing far more than a piffling £50 or so.

 

 

 

A Student and campus unions dont do this sort of thing any more though, the SU are more interested in snowflakes and the AUT and other staff unions can no longer motivate people to stop the excesses of the college adminlink3.gif.

 

 

So she read the colleg charter and then tries to get the SU president interested in making sure that the college obeys it and gets the adminlink3.gif to cancel the charge or risk a challenge to the presence of the parking co.

 

We still have the lack of planning permission to go with if thsi fails plus anything else that the siting of the signs can yield.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll see what comes through the post (if anything at all). She was awarded a scholarship to the university and so doesn't want to **** them off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a PRIVATE company, any argument she ahs with them is nothing to do with the college BUT she can get the college to order the parking co to cancel.

 

A scholarship? that means her bills are paid by a dead person or alumnus group and still nothing to do with the college admin.

 

 

What you are saying to us is that you want us to cure your ills but arent prepared to do anything for yourself other than moan. We area self help group and offer advice, we cant force you or anyone else to act upon it but would prefer it that you say she is just going to pay up if that is the case and we can put our efforts in elsewhere.

 

 

I once had our rector banging his fist on the table whilst turning bright red in front of a room of people that included Generals and the leaders of some fo the biggest Uk businesses because I had chucked a spanner in the works of a development scheme by using knowedge of the law and the university charter. Get support from the SU or department and the admin people will be told where to go if they try and put pressure on elsewhere so peeing off the paper shufflers should be a badge of honour if they have employed a bunch of bandits when they shouldnt have.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I understand fully what you're saying.

 

I will have to speak with her to see what she wants to do. I know they have nothing to do with it but she may see it differently. Shes away so I haven't discussed it yet.

 

Will update shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NTK arrived today (09/11/2018) and is attached.

 

 

1 The date of infringement? 03/10/2018

 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] No

 

If you haven't appealed yet - ,.........

 

have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days]

what date is on it 06/11/2018

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? No

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?] Yes

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK, No

 

5 Who is the parking company? F1rst Parking LLP

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Driver parked in Royal Holloway University - Car Park 4.

 

 

 

Looking at the NTK, we've noticed:

  • 40% discount was not offered - should be offering her to pay £24 within 14 days?
  • They list 3 reasons for the charge in the first paragraph - "Restricted Area" and then "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.."
  • No evidence of what what the charge is for
  • Doesn't actually say which car park the charge is for, there are multiple car parks with different restrictions

NTK.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, they got 2 things wrong with the NTK,

they have said money is owed because of not purchasing the correct time or overstaying. You did neither.

 

Secondly they say they have the right to charge you futher costs for passing the matter on to their tame dca - no they dont, the POFA and the Consumer Rights Act are both very clear about this but as all of their friends say the same they do it as well.

 

they dont have to offer a discount period but if they do it has to be clearly made in the NTD and NTK

 

You can chuck a spanner in the works by sending a FOI request to Royal Holloway asking for sight of the contract they agreed with FP.

 

they wont give it to you but get a copy of the college charter as I bet old Thomas Holloway didnt give them carte blanche to allow private companies to charge students for going there.

 

usually it will say something like anything done will have to be beneficial to the education of students and this will fall outside that necessity.

 

Clobbering staff for parking is one thing but this may be a cause celebre if the Student Union want to do something

Edited by dx100uk
merge /spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, will get on with the FOI request.

 

You mentioned the discount has to be clear in both the NTD and NTK, there was a discount notice in the NTD but not in the NTK, should it be on both? (NTD was uploaded on the first page).

 

Does it matter about the location since there are multiple car parks with different signage and restrictions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the location is entirely irrelevant, this is about contracts and nothing else.

However, you should get piccies of all of the different signage in the different car parks as it will show that the signage itself is confusing and probably contradictory.

 

Also if the signage is specific to clearly marked areas then it doesnt apply to areas such as access roads and even double yellow line as they fall outside both the marked areas and also the terms of the contract (ie prohibition rather than an offer of terms to park)

 

Discount only needs to be mentioned when they offer one.

No law forces the to offer a discount period to anyone but usually for a screen ticket it is offered to the driver. The POFA is vague on this point so the parking co's abuse the point.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FOI sent today, asking who is the land owner, a copy of the parking contract and the charter.

 

Will update when I hear back.

 

 

I mentioned about the location as they don't say which car park, and indeed, there are several with different restrictions. We will get pictures of all the signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good, the vaguer their wording is the better for you as it can then be argued that the sigange doesnt apply to where car was parked/confusing as to which conditions might apply when no location is mentioned.

force them onto the back foot

 

so probably contracts apply to parking areas and as car went in one nowt to do with the signs guv so no contract offered to breach

Edited by dx100uk
spell/space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So because the car wasn't in a space, the signs don't apply?

 

Also found another FOI request that breaks down all the charges: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_fines_at_royal_holloway#incoming-660846

 

They confirm they don't make profit or a loss, and the previous FOI requet shows they issue around 4250 a year. First parking make a killing on charges here!

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...