Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • best to be sure it is a N279. not that they pull any underhand stunts of course   but we have seen it. your bal is now £0 but we'll still attend court as you'll probably not as we've said we've closed the account and we'll get a judgement by default. dx  
    • Sorry, last bit They had ticked that they wanted the application dealt with without a hearing, so is there any relevance that a date and time to attend said hearing has been sent out ?
    • I've not seen it personally but I think that's the letter Dad has had from Overdales. I'll see it tomorrow. It states balance: zero
    • Agreed as you clearly have little faith in your star runners, mind you - I have less - conditional on the welcher clause I defined being part, and that we are talking about the three defined candidates: Tice Farage and Anderson - not anyone anywhere as reform might (outside chance) get someone decent to run somewhere. If any of the three dont run - they count as a loss.   welcher clause. "If either of us loses and doesn't pay - we agree the site admin will change the welchers avatar permanently to a cows ass - specific cows ass avatar chosen by the winner - with veto by site on any too offensive - requiring another to be chosen  (or of course, DP likely allows you can delete your account and all your worthless posts to cheapskate chicken out and we'll just laugh) "
    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
  • 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

Gemini Parking Windscreen PCN - Feel Good Leisure Centre, 170 Chingford Rd, Walthamstow, London E17 5AA.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1983 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

Hi,

I would like some advice please and wanted to find out what my options are as I feel this parking charge is unfair and from other threads I feel these enforcers are petty criminals preying on the venerable!

 

I’ve been parking at the leisure centre for a couple of years

I buy a book of parking tickets that my partner and me use when visiting.

 

On this occasion I was in a rush and filled in the correct registration, correct date, but rubbed out the 10pm, not the 10am as I had meant to.

Obviously, the car park is closed at 10pm, its an obvious mistake, but they have issued a ticket for invalid permit.

 

After reading your advice I waited until the NTK arrived, which it did on time.

 

There is no code associated with the offence.

They also said that they recently contacted me, which is untrue.

The only thing I have had is a fine on the windscreen.

 

I am hoping that someone can advise on the best cause of action from here?

 

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

 

1 The date of infringement? 14th October 2018

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? No

 

have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] what date is on it. 16th November 2018

 

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? No

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Yes.

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK, I have not appealed yet.

 

5 Who is the parking company?Gemini Parking Solutions

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Feel Good Leisure Centre, 170 Chingford Rd, Walthamstow, London E17 5AA.

IMG_2873.jpg

IMG_3546.JPG

IMG_3547.JPG

IMG_2874.jpg

IMG_3549.JPG

Edited by dx100uk
format
Link to post
Share on other sites

we will need to see the permit you used or at least a blank one to see if the use of that permits clashes with any of the wording on the signage and thus breaches the conditions.

 

also a picture of the entrance to thwe car park from the public highway would be useful along with any signs that are there.

No warning about being offered parking terms and the parking co is on shaky ground.

 

Dont appeal until you have all of the info posted up and considered.

We may suggest you dont appeal depending on what the permit says

(or other conditions given when you got them)

and the clarity of the entrance sign (if there is one)

Edited by dx100uk
space/spell
Link to post
Share on other sites

also can you please clarify where on their paperwork they use the word FINE as you have in you initial post?

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

Hi, im hoping this works as its not very clear on attaching pictures.

 

Here is the entrance with the sign as you come in and a different view of the car park.

 

I will update and see if the photos work and then update the permit photo.

 

Sorry, i didnt mean to say the letter had said "fine", it says charge.

 

Thanks again.

IMG_2892.jpg

IMG_2893.jpg

IMG_2894.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Youve left pers info

Hidden thw above

Why not put everything of recent in one multipage pdf

There we'd not have keep downloading single pages all night...

 

Read upload

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

O love the sign about individual terms and conditions. That in essence means that the bloke with the camera and ticket machine can never know what was actually agreed so cant claim you ahve breached the terms.

So to slap a ticket on yoru car they must show a reason to believe that yu have done someting wrong but indicating the wrong time on your scratch and sniff permit isnt listed on that sign so it isnt a term or breach of terms.

In short, signage not a contract so no breach

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i've made it a bit easier to read so all one one PDF!

 

What do you think is the best course of action from here? Do i make contact and plead the 5th amendment or challenge as you mentioned about the individual terms and conditions?

 

Many thanks,

Feel good centre1 - parking fine..pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

5th amendment???

 

yo do nothing until or unless you get a letter of claim from their fake/tame paperonly solicitor

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

  • 5 weeks later...

attachment removed

next time PDF only please

read upload.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

advice already given in post 10 as homer67 says...too

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

What a bunch of crooks they all are!

You have prepaid for permission to park, you got the day, month and year right and obviously the time is wrong since going by the ticket

- it was issued before the car was in the car park.

 

Then you have those DRIPs trying to charge an additional £60 for sending out a letter.

The OFT many years ago in Debt Guidance stated that debt collectors cannot charge for debt collection as they do not have a contract with the debtor.

And even in situations where it was written into the contract, the amount charged had to be proportionate.

 

Increasing a debt by 60% is nowhere near proportionate and there is no debt anyway.

The parking was paid so no loss.

 

There is no point writing to Drips- their combined mental ages do not reach double figures so any letters that arrive that aren't done with coloured crayons are turned into paper aeroplanes.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

the Notice to keeper doesnt create any liability as it fails to contain key phrases or informations such as who is the creditor They need to state this and give a proper service address, not a PO box number. This menas NO-ONE is liable for the charge, let alone the keeper.

 

also they say the reason for charging you is invalid permit. According to their sign there isnt such a breach, it state all cars must shw a valid ticket and as the sign at the entrance refer to individual contracts then this sign clearly does nt apply to permit holders. some of the other terms are too vague to make any sense and so render the contract void.

 

Now the driver can enter into a contract that allows them to charge you a further fee but as they havent identified the driver they cant charge the keeper this as the POFA makes it clear that only the amount first invoiced is payable.

 

A for what to do- keep ignoring them for the moment and let us know when they waste some more money on threatograms. If you get a solicitors letter post it up here and we will suggest a suitable response.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I add my 2p

 

The parking signs dotted around he site are (in my opinion) useless in that they don't make the 'charge' as prominent as the other terms (not that they are any good in the first place.)

 

The sign at the entrance just states Pay and Display with nothing mentioned about terms and conditions.

 

The fact that you did have a permit and scratched off the wrong time is neither here nor there as it was still paid for.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...