Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • As per my old and new posts all correspondences have now ceased from all parties hence me raising issue again.   If defaulted in January 2018, surely I should have been notified?    
    • Hi   I received a NIP for traveling 39mph in a 30 zone (mobile speed camera) in December 2020. As it is my offence, the police sent a letter requesting to know who was driving with three possible outcomes: speed awareness course, 3 points of contest at court. I provided my details and sent the form off.    The police sent me a letter this week asking for confirmation of my insurance... I realised that in October 2020 I removed a private number plate off the vehicle and notified the DVLA and the V5 form but I didn't norify my insurers.    I called the insurance company today and updated my number plate and they said technically I was insured and the vehicle was insured and it depends on how linient the police will be.    I am just concerned as the recent letter states possible prosecution for driving with out insurance with a possible fine and 6 to 8 points.    If they add that to the original 3 I might be given that would be 11 for a first offence.    Has anyone got any experience on this or any advice as I am pretty worried!    Thanks 
    • Tend to agree Hammy, but I think if you have a number of DD's going through every month and the reference/descriptions does not clearly identify what it is for, then many people would not have queried it.   How many people still go through their Bank statements regularly to check every item. ?  I have mobile Banking now and keep an eye on the payments going through, but when I had printed statements sent, i only checked them every few months.   Normally for Insurance refunds in these situation, the Insurers should consider refunds of up to 6 years, if it can be evidenced that the Insurance was of no value.  e.g. the Insurance was for a specific risk which is no longer owned.   The DD was set up over the phone as a variable DD amount and the Insurers should have issued communications about increases to the email or postal address provided for this purpose.  When the DD was set up originally D&G would have had to send confirmation of the DD terms and rights of cancellation etc.  You can try to ask Natwest for a refund under DD scheme, but you may struggle with this.    Ask D&G to look at your refund request again as a complaint and advise that if not settled, you will ask the FOS to review.  D&G would be charged a fee by the FOS if you went that far, so they may try to offer you a refund amount, to avoid this.
    • The state-backed savings giant has been accused of abandoning older customers in its drive to axe prize warrants to save money and paper by only consulting customers with an email about the change. View the full article
    • Savers who put £10,000 in the average tax-free cash Isa ten years ago would now have £9,772, new research shows. This is because inflation has outstripped the interest earned on savings. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 358 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

they don't care ....its a good money making exercise.

99.9% will pay as they wrongly think they are fines and/or legitimate speculative invoices.

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 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

pop up on the MCOL website mentioned on the claimfor,   register as an individual  note the long gateway number given  then log in .  select respond to a claim and select the start A

back to the content of their Particulars of Claim.   they say the claim is for unauthorised parking - now this cant be, it has to be for monies due under a contract for parking or

The BPA and IPC are NOT regulators. They are clubs to which Private Parking Companies belong and pay for the running. They don't have bars to serve drinks, but by pulling the wool over the eyes o

I meant the website Parking Cowboys, not the parking management companies! Sorry for not being clearer. Thanks forcthe advice.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood. That site seems pretty good, so is worth a read. I used some of it for direction on certain aspects of my own WS. The parking Prankster's Blog is also a very good read.

 

Anyway, I wouldn't fret any more over it until such time as there appears to be a claim looming. I don't think you'll have too much to worry about though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the new parking bill isnt going to stop this then seems it is going to be a complete and utter waste of time and our money!

 

I thought it seemed to be informative too, but I didn't reach out directly to seek their help.

 

If they are making a lot of easy money because of peoples ignorance why can't they be happy with that. But no they have to be greedy and chase every penny they can and in the process cause people misery and stress.

 

The thing is,

if they get exposed in the media,

especially if they loose a court case,

they will be shooting themselves in the foot!

Please let this happen.

I firmly believe what goes around, comes around.

 

And if they had just dropped the charge I would have gone away quietly and not parked in the road ever again.

In fact I don't shop at this Tesco's anymore.

Tonight was the first time since January.

 

I think they loose a lot of business because of this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are not interested in what you might do because although that may suit the landlord they want to make money and the only way they can is to invent a reason, whether that reason is legal or not.

 

Now our advise may often say ignore them but that doesnt mean ignore them for ever, we always recommend responding to lba's even if it is to tell them to get lost because that creates a paper trail and knocks on the head the claim that you didnt engage with them.

 

With compaies who are members of the BPA it is often worth using their appeals process because although very limited in its remit you can get somewhere or at least cost them money.

 

With the IPC it is NEVER worth appealing because their process is a kangaroo court (as seen on TV) and never properly considered.

I cant say if MSE differentiates between the 2 but we certainly do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they are making a lot of easy money because of peoples ignorance why can't they be happy with that. But no they have to be greedy and chase every penny they can and in the process cause people misery and stress. The thing is, if they get exposed in the media, especially if they loose a court case, they will be shooting themselves in the foot! Please let this happen. I firmly believe what goes around, comes around.

 

Because word will get out and nobody will pay them a penny - ever. Their whole enterprise would collapse. There's a fair chance most defendants will pay up upon receiving a court claim, so it makes good commercial sense to them. They've also added further fees on top, so it's money for nothing basically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This defendant isn't going to pay unless I am told to do so by a Judge so they are wasting their time and money,

as I have already told them and the debt recovery company.

 

And when I win my case my Father,

who has plenty of time on his hands,

will certainly be spreading the word big time!

 

Just seen the new red fencing and current sign location of this site can be seen on google, so you can all bee how inadequate they are by virtually entering and going around the un-adopted road.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.2413478,-0.8824026,3a,75y,351.58h,89.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0VvjjIu5aBHnAZuvp0Y8uA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

Luckily at the time there were no cars parked alongside the derelict building on the right as you enter the road, although I know google blank out car number plates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

now to me it looks as though the white lines were painted by the council at the same time as the other lane markings.

this brings into play the rather dubious decision of Dawood v Camden so even if private land it is effectively under council control and they dont prohibit parking.

 

In other words the land may be private but the road isnt private land as far as this matter goes.

Bit like me ticketing you for parking outside my house.

 

I own the wall my dodgy sign is stuck to but it doesnt apply to the actual tarmac.

Not necessarily convincing on its own but it is another nail in their coffin

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I would say the lines were painted by the council and this was another part of my despute that the road looks like a normal one when you enter it.

 

Also the guy who told NPM to take him to court and heard nothing from them for 5 months (last time I saw him), stated this would be part of his defence in court.

 

The PCN states unadopted road and the council confirmed this to me.

 

The article on unadopted roads states:

 

The public usually has the right to freely pass along any unadopted road, which differs from private roads, where only the owner and those with permission can use them.

 

It does not say whether or not the owner can charge for parking.

 

My Dad has been doing some bedtime reading tonight.

read the IPC Code of Conduct cover to cover and has noted several NPM breaches and obviously non compliances missed when the IAS have audited them,

so I think ww will lodge an official complaint and see how many points they clock up.

 

A couple are very serious and could lead to their membership being suspended or cancelled IF the IPC deal with these correctly.

 

I wish I had known about this document before I submitted my appeal to NPM.

I dont think they would have wanted this to be escalated as an IAS appeal,

which is of course managed

 

Feeling pleased,

so a good nights sleep ahead.

 

Cannot say anymore here as NPM are probably reading this thread and I don't want them to take any actions before my complaint has even been written.

 

This will also make a great story in the local press and bring shame to those concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The PCN states unadopted road and the council confirmed this to me.

 

As in post 61, the road may now be un-adopted as a highway, but is that part still council property, if so, have they authorised the control of parking on their land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@honeybee

 

I certainly am, but from the IPC code of conduct we can be rest assured by this:

 

Independent Appeals Service (IAS).

The Independent Appeals Service is a service administered by the IPC which allows a person aggrieved by the issue of a Parking Charge Notice to have the matter adjudicated upon by an independent adjudicator. Whilst the IAS is administered by the IPC, the appeals process is provided at ‘arm’s length’. The IPC have no involvement or influence in appeals and are not able to become involved in issues relating to individual parking charges. The Independent Appeals Service is approved by Government under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015.

 

For this reason you have 20% chance of you appeal being successful!!!

 

I thought the experts had spoken.

 

@Raykay

As stated it was when I committed the alleged offence. I dont think it will be adopted by the council until the Demetis Centre is completed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Un-adopted as a highway, but it is who owns the land it that is relevant, does the landowner (still the council?) have a contract with the parking company to control parking.

 

the IPC, the IAS and Gladstone Solicitors are all the same people, so don't expect any result except 'appeal denied, pay up'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no contract between the Council and NPM to control parking.

There is a contract between the site owner and developer and NPM to control the parking.

 

I finally had this confirmed by them.

NPM failed to prove this even to the IAS.

They said they uploaded the Authority letter,

but did not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may have a contract,

but does that contract include the part of the road that you were parked on,

or has that part of the road just been un-adopted as a highway by the council,

but still owned by them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That plan shows the adopted highway, which shows that where you parked is not adopted, you need to establish who is the owner of that the part of the road, and have they a contract with the parking company. Don't accept anything from the IPC, the IAS, Gladstone solicitors, the parking company etc. unless it is confirmed in writing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so who did the paint job on the junction onto Wellingborough Rd?

If the council then they have adopted it using the criteria of Dawood.

 

You are asking questions of people the wrong way about so if you ask someone if they have a contract with x and they say yes it is easy for them, if you say that

 

can they prove the contract they have also applies to the public highway and thus they will be liable for any breach of the GDPR as a result of that contract they will undoubtedly want to deny such an agreement exists.

 

The other thing is that the developer may well not be the landowner,

it is common for companies to buy land and get PP and then sell on to another party at a vast profit because they cant actually develop the place themselves.

 

the handover usually takes place after the building has gone up and the builders arent the landowners either so this menas the parking co often dont have an agreement with anyone who actually has any rights at that stage.

 

You need to look at tehe planning applicationa and permission for the site and the ask council or Valuations agency who actually owns the land.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

The GDPR was adopted on 14 April 2016, and became enforceable beginning 25 May 2018.

My alleged offence was before that.

I have all the planning documents for the site.

I'll see if any mention about ownership of the land.

No reply yet from the Highways.

Edited by dx100uk
quote/spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had the following reply from the Highways, Northampton:

 

The highway status of a road can be checked by using our interactive mapping service (link below);

http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/pages/mapping.aspx

 

To turn on the relevant layer you will need to open the following check boxes;

ADD FEATURE/ PLACE > TRANSPORT AND STREETS > HIGHWAY REGISTER

 

The mapping shows that the road is still unadopted. The developer owns the land and it likely them that have instructed a company to manage the parking.

 

I trust this explains the current position.

 

So the Developer own the road and the Developer has confirmed that they have instructed NPM to control the parking on the site including this road

 

highways.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not the status of the road that you need to establish, it is the actual owner.

 

On the plan in your last post, the boundary of the road appears to be separate from the old hospital site, so the owner of the development site may or not be the owner of the road, you need to establish who actually owns it.

 

As in earlier posts, the sign is a prohibition, and only the landowner themselves can take action for trespass (not a private parking company).

 

It is a completely different situation to a private parking company controlling a car park etc, where they claim for breach of contract for failing to comply with their conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The boundry of the road was highlighted by myself in green to show which road is owned by the developer and is unadopted.

 

the developer can take action for trespass and NPM the car parking, providing they adhere to the IPC code of conduct, which they are not doing so in more ways than one!!!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Andyorch changed the title to NPM PCN claimform - overstay Un-adopted Rd entrance to old St Edmunds Hosp Northampton - *** Claim Struck Out+Costs***
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...