Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, 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 credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
  • 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

NPM PCN claimform - overstay Un-adopted Rd entrance to old St Edmunds Hosp Northampton - *** Claim Struck Out+Costs***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1543 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

I completed my directions questionnaire & sent a copy to the Claimant as instructed. The Claimant presumably completed the same, but I did not receive a copy of theirs. Wasn't I supposed to? I have now received the Notice of Transfer of Proceedings and await the Judges's directions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they donht get a say in the matter as you are an individual and they are a company so it will always be your choice.

 

they dont bother wasting their ink at this stage but will try and hoodwink you later by asking for the case to be heard "on the papers" because they know they are stuffed if the matter is heard in open court esp in front of the same judge that spat out their last attempt to rook people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that exactly, what it means is that all the dodgy evidence, rubbish POC etc can't be challenged.  Its an own goal that gives them an automatic easy win, and their evidence goes through without any rigorous investigation.

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

and it costs them nothing as well. If there is a hearing they have to spend another £50-100 on a local solicitor to attend so when they lose that bumps up the bill their client gets for their incompetent handling of the case and thus puts the client off from trying their luck again.

 

You need to look up the term "you've been Gladstoned"

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they don't waste money on Gladstone's or other Solicitors now.

They represent themselves and did so when they recently lost the case for this same location.

 

In fact Gladstones's did do that case up to the LBC, then NPM represented themselves in court. 

My LBC was direct from NPM, although you could see it was a clone of the Gladstones version. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if they thought they could try the Gladstone method without gladstones, they will lose.

  • Like 1

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

  • 5 months later...

Just to update you. NPM are continuing with their court claim and the date is the 13th January 2020. I submitted my defence, witness statement and evidence all on time. However, tomorrow NPM will be 5 weeks late with their WS and evidence!

 

I have now seen proof that NPM lost their contract for the parking management in this road. The Landowner refused to confirm this, but NPM were not seen for months, including on the busiest day of the year, Easter Sunday.

 

The NPM signs have been removed and CPM have put up their signs in the road and someone has painted double yellow lines all the way round the road.

 

NPM refused requests to improve signage or paint yellow lines on the road as they stated that the Landowner did not want to do this.

 

CPM have not improved the signage and they are still in the dark outside of daylight hours. CPM, like NPM are members of the IPC and are breaching the same Codes of Practice in this respect and there are still no signs at the entrance of the road stating it is a Private, un-adopted road with T & C's for parking. 

 

So 13th January is D day. Even if I loose I can take pleasure in knowing NPM lost hundreds of pounds in lost PCN revenue in this road after their contract was suspended and they did loose their contract completely.

 

It took 4 1/2 years to get justice and this only happened because they would not cancel my PCN.

 

Oh and by the way, they made big errors on their court claim. They stated that I was the keeper of the vehicle and they had the wrong location,  road name and post code!     

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would phone the court to see what is going on if they are that late with WS, might be worthasking for the claim to be struck out.  I'm sure others will be along soon also with an opinion and advice.

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

My Father already phoned the court to confirm they had not received the Claimant's WS/evidence, which they did.

 

They said it will be up to the DJ if he will accept these items late, but not that they would strike out the claim.

 

If they are also late paying the court free on time then that will probably be a strike out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the n157 did not it gives the claimant orders by date?

if they've not met those is should be struck out by the court

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 N157 states the Claimant has to pay the court trial fee or file a properly completed application for help with fees by a date which has not yet expired, then the claim will be struck out with effect from that date.

 

The DJ ordered that each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court copies of all documents on which he intends to rely at the hearing by 4 pm on the 21st October 2019.

 

It was noted that the judge may decide not to take into account a document or evidence of a witness if no copy of that document or no copy of a statement or report by that witness has been supplied to the other parties.

 

It is added that failure to comply with these directions may result in the case being adjourned and in the party at fault having to pay any wasted costs. It does not state the case will be struck out, only if they fail to pay the court trial fee, which they still has time to do so.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

good nice and clear now.

  • 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

I will try, but I have seen many examples on forums of operators or their Solicitors deliberately filing their documents at the last minute to avoid thorough scruitiny of these.

 

What is worse is that some have still been successful with their claims.

 

Where is the justice in that?

 

Any deadline given by the DJ should be honoured otherwise this is contempt and the case should be struck out as you say.

 

NPM also went ahead with their claim without following the Pre Action Protocol, so another black mark against them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

the failure to use the correct protocols costs them 25% of any claim if they are successful but is no punishment for those who lose and abuse the court process.

 

You can make an unreasonable behaviours costs request without actually having a hearing.

CPR 27.14.2(g) is the thing to quote, claim for litigant in person researcha nd preparation time of 5 hours @£19.50/hr and your postage and printing costs.

 

You can also send NPM  a bill directly for their breach of the GDPR/DPA and let them know that you will take them to court for the same. VCS v  Phillip  is the persuasive case when it comes to parking so £250 will be at the lower end of damages but clearly accepted.

 

It has been known for a parking co to just send the cheque upon receipt of a lba for the same but only once as far as I know

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, parkingbill2018 said:

I have seen many examples on forums of operators or their Solicitors deliberately filing their documents at the last minute to avoid thorough scruitiny of these.

 

which is why it is so important never to give/use EMAIL>

 

if you get an email from any of the players in a court case you must immediately reply to the email stating email is not to be used regarding anything to do with claim xxxx and relevant addresses have now been blocked and bounced.

  • 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

On 25/11/2019 at 10:55, ericsbrother said:

the failure to use the correct protocols costs them 25% of any claim if they are successful but is no punishment for those who lose and abuse the court process.

 

You can make an unreasonable behaviours costs request without actually having a hearing.

CPR 27.14.2(g) is the thing to quote, claim for litigant in person researcha nd preparation time of 5 hours @£19.50/hr and your postage and printing costs.

 

You can also send NPM  a bill directly for their breach of the GDPR/DPA and let them know that you will take them to court for the same. VCS v  Phillip  is the persuasive case when it comes to parking so £250 will be at the lower end of damages but clearly accepted.

 

It has been known for a parking co to just send the cheque upon receipt of a lba for the same but only once as far as I know

 

Thanks.

At what stage can I claim unreasonable behavior costs?

 

I was told I need to give written notice to the court of what costs/expenses I am going to claim about 7 days before the hearing.

Do you agree?

 

Also at the same time I was going to send a Skeleton.

Some say these are not required for Small Claims, but others recommend their use and say they have helped win cases.

What is your view please? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/11/2019 at 23:35, parkingbill2018 said:

The N157 states the Claimant has to pay the court trial fee or file a properly completed application for help with fees by a date which has not yet expired, then the claim will be struck out with effect from that date.

 

I would suggest before this date.

 

no need for a skeleton no.

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

  • 1 month later...

The Claimant paid their trial fee on time but had not submitted a WS and the evidence they wished to rely upon.

I notified the court who checked their own records and confirmed this.

 

Annoyingly the assistant DJ gave them an extension to 3rd January 2020 4pm, stating if they missed this order the claim would be struck out.

 

I received their documents on the 4th, 1 day late, and if they sent the court their copy by the same 1st class post they would received them late. 

 

Their WS was dated the 2nd, as was the post mark, normal first class, which is not guaranteed next day.

I notified the court and requested the claim should be dismissed as they had missed two order dates, the first which was 21st October 2019, 11 weeks ago. So far no response or notification to say the claim has been struck out.

 

I have not submitted a Schedule of Costs yet.

Should I send this now or take to court on Monday.

 

I want to claim travel, loss of earnings to attend court, stationary, postage and printing cost and a modest 4.5 hours for research, preperation and drafting of documents @ £19 per hour litigant person rate for the Claimant's unreasonable behaviour.

 

Does this sound OK?

Also copy to Claimant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First find out from the court if the claim has indeed been dismissed.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

their WS will be accepted.

a day make little diff.

 

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

If it has wouldn't I have received a letter stating it has been?

They haven't replied to my email either, so either no news is good news or the claim will be heard as planned on Monday.

To give 2 working days I had to post the Schedule of Costs today, I sent it to the court and copy to the claimant. 

 

1 hour ago, dx100uk said:

their WS will be accepted.

a day make little diff.

 

dx

 

But 11 weeks late from the original order date!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...