Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks DX 100   haha i totally  agree with your comment about the page 20    Yes I am awake and been all night w my WS   BUT can I point this very very very impt point please, which I am not sure if it has come to your attention   1. The payment machine and 6 hours and the free parking after 4.30 pm on a Saturday etc....all taken on board.   HOWEVER, and I cant stop myself laughing, this pay machine  he eludes to is based at The Market Shopping Centre Car park , after googling it is in CREWE.  It is not even relevant. They have put in a signage that is not even at the Merry Hill Centre which is in the West Midlands.    The Merry Hill Centre is the one I went to in Dudley, west midlands. All the signages , apart from the one you elude to have the intu Merry Hill logo     The one you refer to is in Crewe. I have never been to Crewe in my life lol so that signage is totally irrelevant    we can play this either way:   1. can take up your line of argument regarding the 6 hours etc. and pretned we are also using the pay machine    OR     2. totally dismiss it as being irrelevant, misleading , wasting the time of everyone by providing irrelevant info. Thats what I have argued in my WS so far. That signage does not belong to inTu Merry Hill            This is akin to someone being on annual leave from work between say 1.10 .2020 and 1.11.2020, and then finding out one of his/her collogues saying,  I saw you leaving work early last week , the 15th of October 2020.   hello !!!, I wasnt even in the country on the 15th of October 2020 !!   essentially thats what the claimant has done . The signage on page 20 doesnt even belong to the shopping centre I went to   I will log out and carry on with th WS     Thanks again       .   
    • Thank you FTMDave. As you can see from the time now I have had a nightmare getting questionnaire answered due to scanner problems, it is up there now though. I do not have proof of breakdown as the alternator was bought from a breakers yard near Chelmsford. I remember it well as they sold me the wrong one on the Saturday and I had to go back in my mechanic friends vehicle on Sunday as I had broken the original alternator getting it off.
    • 1 The date of infringement? 19/12/2019   2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] No. I did, unfortunately use the MyParkingCharge.co.uk portal to deny liability as the keeper and deny any contract. I mistakenly thought this was where I made a SAR. (I now see looking at the site again that it is actually. https://excel.zatappeal.com ) This was replied to as if it were an appeal.   if you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it, suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide]   has there been a response? yes please AS A PDFFILE  ONLY ..post it up as well, suitably redacted. - follow the upload guide]   If you haven't appealed yet - ,.........DONT ! seek advice on your topic first.   have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] Yes. Issue date indicates that if "contravention" date is day 1 then NTK was issued on day 15 so arrived well before day 29. Document received was PCN/NTK in one. (see pdf)   what date is on it Issue date is 02/01/2020   Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? Yes   [scan up BOTHSIDES to ONE PDF of the PCN and your NTK - follow the upload guide]   3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?] NO   4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK, did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process? [it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances] Suggested appeals could be made via IAS   5 Who is the parking company? VCS   6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Broke down on service road of Southend Airport, Southend-On-Sea   please do not put JPG Picture files into your post   .............................   For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]  (must be received within 14 days from the Incident)   please answer the following questions.   1 Date of the infringement 19/12/2019     2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 02/01/2020.   I recall noting, when it arrived on Saturday 16th Jan 2020 that this was more than 14 days from "offence" date.   [scan up BOTHSIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please do not put JPG Picture files into your post   3 Date received 16/01/20   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] No   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes   6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Not as such. See this entry for PCN above.   Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up As above.   7 Who is the parking company? VCS   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Broke down on service road of Southend Airport, Southend-On-Sea   For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Initial appeal to be via www.myparkingcharge.co.uk then via IAS   There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, please check HERE   If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here I have subsequently received a Demand for Payment dated 28/02/2020.  outstanding balance £160 Final Demand posted on 16/03/2020         outstanding balance £160 LBC dated 27/03/2020.                                 outstanding balance £160 with estimate of court fees £25 2nd LBC from ELMS legal dated 30/10/2020 listing estimated fees of   Principal debt £160                                                                                                                        Estimated interest £12                                                                                                   Estimated court / hearing fees £50                                                                                                          Estimated solicitors' costs £50                                                                                                                              Estimated total £272   windscreen or ANPR section to your thread and answer the questions... …….... in either case scan up bothsides of any letters/tickets in or appeals made out to ONE MULTIPAGE PDF ONLY please do not put JPG Picture files into your post   NTK plus .pdf
    • Have done the email address thing. The order specifically states just the applicant ?
    • you are not the applicant but you must: • You must confirm your preferred email address for the invites to be sent too  
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 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 349 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

Reading that article, it states that part of the road is adopted and it is requiring, unless agreed otherwise, that a Traffic Regulation Order be obtained for double yellow lines etc. It may also explain the boundary marking of the road in your earlier plans, from the main road just up to the island and the two short 'spurs' - it certainly looks adopted in your earlier pictures.

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

We may have had some temporary success.

 

The NPM Cowboys, their floodlighting and flash cameras were not present last night when it was dark

they maybe lying low at the moment unless they were all at a staff Bonfire Party that Mt Gearly was holding!

I know who I would have liked to have seen as the guy on top of the bonfire :)

Sorry if that last sentence is breaking group rules.

 

i have continued to push Tesco's into taking action.

They have tried to fob me off and pull the wool over my eyes, but they apologised in the end for doing so and have stated this will be passed onto the area manager.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so a question about which part will be the adoptable hightway when completed.

The layout suggests all of the access road that is currently the part that is causing the problem.

 

Now the next para that you can hardly see in your post makes it clear as to where this does end and to my mind the actual tarmac already there is covered by this so probably adopted by the default position of planning being granted.

 

appears as though 2 departments at NDC arent singing from the same hymnsheet as they say in managementspeak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt think it was a done deal that the road will be adopted at all.

I would think like you that all of the part causing issues will be adopted.

 

Yes the tarmac and normal line marking are part of the problem.

It looks like a finished adopted road and as there are no signs stating otherwise obviously shopper are none the wiser until that PCN drops through the letter box!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wont be adopted until the store opens for business but you can stuill rely on Dawood v Camden and the overriding fact that there is no contract to breach. Do not forget this last point as it is the only sure fire winner, the rest rely onpeople being convinced that a contract is void because... rather than no contract to start with

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there has been a Stopping order by the council, Market Street is an adopted road already, it was a through road from Wellingborough Rd to Kettering Rd. The construction site access road is a seperate spur and will likely belong to the developer.

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry, I thought this was a construction site.

Anyways, who is the landowner as it isnt Tesco Knowing this may be helpful re contracts and planning for signs

 

The document is a pdf from the Council website. The quality is poor. As they say you cannot polish the s word. Tesco property manager phoned me this afternoon. I am sending him all the complaint details and he is going to speak to the Landlord. If he gets a response it will be that the Parking Management Company is a member of the IPC and signs at the site approved by the IPC and Trading Standards. I have told him why to dismiss these statements.

 

He confirmed who I know to be the Landlord and owner of the land.

Edited by dx100uk
quote/merge
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Just a quick note that I'm also being hassled by these people for payment of a parking charge.... just ignoring everything so far. But I did check their assertion that the signage at this location had been 'approved by Trading Standards'. I checked with Northampton County Council Trading Standards, since this seemed a bold claim. I received an email reply saying that this was not the case.

PJM

Link to post
Share on other sites

signs or their approval are nothing to do with TS, they are not ADVERTS

might be best to start a new thread

you don't ignore EVERYTHING

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'm not sure what your point is?

The parking company in question have asserted that trading standards had 'approved' of the signage at this location.

I am simply pointing out that this is not the case.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes they are talking twaddle I was agreeing...:lol:

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...

If it helps anybody, I recently found out from the Tesco employees that NPM lost the contract from the landowner for this un-adopted road around a month ago due to numerous amounts of complaints

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Thanks for the info...

Hi everyone.

 

I have not been on here for sometime as I was waiting for the LBC, which has finally arrived. I will upload it later with personal details covered.

 

Whilst waiting for the LBC my Father contacted Tesco Head Office about the issue of shoppers receiving PCN's in this road because the signage is poor (e.g. none at the entrance of the road, these refer to Land/Site, not Road & most do not face the driver) and consequently they park unaware that the road is Private/Un-adopted with no parking allowed.

 

Also NPM have been breaking IPC Codes of Conduct, like alluring drivers to park where it is forbidden by parking their own vehicles there & using portable floodlights and flash to take PCN photos at night because their signs or not illuminated.

 

As a result of this Tesco complained to their Landlord, who is the Landowner of the road and hence the NPM contract was suspended whilst investigations took place.

 

Management and staff at the store have assumed that the NPM contract has been cancelled because no one has been seen there for a few months now and one member of the NPM staff, who previously worked here, told staff that the company no longer manage the parking in this road anymore.

 

The NPM signs are still there except the one nearest the front of the store, which someone has removed.

 

However the Manager who was my Fathers contact at Tesco told us that the Landlord have completed their investigations and that the NPM contract is going to be reinstated after road repairs have been completed.

 

We cannot see that any repairs are required, & have not seen a copy of the investigation report.

 

The last 3 emails to this Tesco Manager have not received a reply, so he contacted Head Office, who have also been unable to contact this Manager.

 

instead they contacted the store and who confirmed their belief that the NPM contract has been cancelled & consequently they have made the following statement to my Father "I hope we have reassured you that this type of charge will not be incurred on our Customers any more and you can freely parkin the road when using this facility".

 

If this is definitely true we don't know why the other Tesco Manager misinformed us and then went silent on us. Something is not right, but my Father will get to the bottom of this.

 

My Father wrote a complaint letter about NPM to our MP, but she messed up and forgot to include enclosures with her first letter.

 

A second letter had to be sent which included these and a detailed reply was received, which sounded very good and believable, but a lot was untrue and are an attempt to wriggle out of the points of our complaint, so a third letter was required. This has not been responded to, other than receiving the LBC.

 

A complaint to the IPC about NPM breaking their code of conduct was hard work getting a response and turned out to be a waste of time as they just made up excuses for their member for each code that they had broken!

 

Parking Signs being approved by Trading Standards may be nothing to do with them.

However, over 4.5 years ago Gary Gearey, the MD of NPM was quote in the Northampton Chronicle & Echo newspaper that Trading Standards had approved the signs at this site, so if this was untrue I would love to have a copy of the email that supports this.

 

As promised here is the Letter Before Claim from NPM.

 

Does it legally comply?

It is interesting to see they have issued this themselves and not used a Solicitor.

I did have two QDR Solicitor letters before this and I saw that Gladstones messed up on one of their LBC's that caused issues with the court proceedings.

 

Any advice please on how to respond would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your continued support.

 

I have read Daewood V Camden (newspaper report). Camden Council won the case against the Dr Daewood parking on his own land so how does that support my case?

NPM LBC.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

it shows that the council has rights over the land and that in return menas the parking co's authority is trumped as you would naturally consider that the road surface is council property or at least maintained by them so signage doesnt apply.

As for responding to the lba I would do so but keep it short.

 

Dear sirs,

 

I deny that any monies are owed as no contrcat was created so there can be nothing owed for a breach of somehting that doesnt exist. If yu do take the matter to court I shall be seeking a full costs recovery orer under CPR 27.14.2(g) for your unreasonable conduct as you know there is no cause for action and you have no authority to make such a claim.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras, typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response.

Was worried that there were no views yesterday.

Obviously everyone was busy!!

 

I have read that whilst the road is unadopted and is private it is the Landowners responsibility to maintain it.

 

NPM have also stated in their response to my MP's complaint letter:

 

"St Edmunds is an un-adopted road.

An un-adopted road is a private road.

It is a road that is privately owned property and is limited to the use of the owners who share the use and maintain the road without help from a government agency.

 

Even though the road is un-adopted most regulations will still apply.

As this road is private the landowner does not wish to mark the road with any type of linage, which they are well within their rights to do so".

 

With regards to there not being a contract they wrote:

 

"Drivers are allowed and given time to read NPM signage to determine if they wish to park on Private land or not.

If a driver chooses to park on the private land, then they agree to abide by the terms and conditions of parking.

If drivers park and leave their vehicle a PCN will then be issued".

 

In another part of the letter they wrote

"The NPM contract is entered once the vehicle is stationary, unattended or stopped"

 

I cannot see how you can read the signage without parking and leaving your vehicle!!!!

 

Should I respond to the LBC with just a letter or also complete the relevant sections of the Annex 1.

(i.e. My details at the top of page 10, Tick Box D I dispute the debt (using reasons you have given?),

Tick Box I and ask for more information like the Landowner Authority,

and sign and date Page 12 below Box I)?

Edited by dx100uk
quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

no!!

 

you do as advised ONLY

 

PRINT your name. do not sign it.

 

don't forget to use their PCN No. as a header.

 

that is all you need to do.

 

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

Yes ignore their tick box malarkey, and send them the response in ericsbrother's post#126 exactly as is, that shows them you know that they know there is no debt but they would like to bamboozle you into paying.

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

in short they have told lies to your MP because they know that it wont be looked into again by them.

 

the other thing you need to do is change your mindset from being defensive and seeing their point of view to looking agressively for why they are wrong.

 

You have been given loads of examples and reasons yet want to look for reasons to fail.

Believing you are right and it becomes easier to fight the chisellers becuase your worries disappear

Edited by dx100uk
quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree with as to why they told lies to my MP,

but she did not accept the these and has written to the MD again to challenge them.

 

It is unlikely they will respond.

I am not looking for reasons to fail and do not intend to do so.

 

I most definitely believe that I am right, otherwise like many I would have already thrown in the towel.

As Margaret Thatcher once said "The lady's not for turning"

 

I worked out a few typos in your message but one I was unable to do so which is the word "orer" in the the sentence

"I will be seeking full costs recovery orer under.........."

Edited by dx100uk
merge
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...