Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all! I've now had a "final notification letter" through from ECP. I assume I should continue to ignore this, but is there likely any action I need to take? Do you need to see a copy of the letter? Thanks
    • Please will you upload the defence in a PDF format document
    • Afternoon All - after 3 weeks of silence, this morning I received an email from HMCTS advising that P2G have rejected my claim. Decide whether to proceed Parcel2Go.com has rejected your claim. You need to decide whether to proceed with the claim. You need to respond before 4pm on 25 June 2024. Your claim won’t continue if you don’t respond by then. This is their ‘defence’ Their defence Why they disagree with the claim When choosing a service on the Defendants website, the Claimant chose to book their order with Evri and selected to take out £20 parcel protection which comes with the service. On the first page of the booking process, the Claimant entered the value of £265 for the contents and was offered parcel protection for loss or damages against their goods for £13.99 + VAT. The Claimant selected no, which then produced a pop up which explained 'We strongly recommend that you protect the full value of your item(s).' however, the Claimant still did not take this protection out and instead continued with the booking process. At the end of the booking process, the Claimant was offered this again which was refused and the Claimant continued with the booking by accepting the terms and conditions which re-iterates the information provided in the booking process. The parcel was sent, however, seems to be delayed in transit. The parcel finally started to track again, however, when delivered the parcel was empty with no contents. As such, the claim was re-opened and attempted to be settled for the £20 protection taken out in the booking process. This was refused by the Claimant as they felt they should be paid the full amount of the value entered when booking. Unfortunately, due to the refusal of the parcel protection in the booking process the Defendant is not liable to settle the claim to the value and only to the parcel protection taken out. The Defendant shall rely on the Terms and Conditions of carriage in particular section 9. The Defendant understands that the contents have not be handled with due care and attention, which is not being disputed, however, they are disputing the amount they are liable to. They have requested mediation, I’m sure not least to drag the case out even longer, but I can see no benefit to me in this and so shall reject it. As ever, I’d welcome your thoughts guys. g59   
    • I doubt HMCTS holds any data on whether arrests by AEAs required police assistance.  They couldn't or wouldn't provide data on how many of warrants issued were successfully executed - just the number issued!  In my experience, arrest warrants whether with or without bail are [surprisingly] carried out with little or no fuss.  I think it's about how you treat people - a little respect and courtesy goes a long way. If you treat people badly they will react the same way. Occasions when police are called to assist are not common and, having undertaken or managed many thousands of these over the years, I can only recall a handful of occasions when police assistance was necessary. On one occasion, many years ago, I arrested and transported a man from Hampshire to Bristol prison on a committal warrant. It was just me and he was no problem. I didn't know the Bristol area (pre Sat Nav) and he was kind enough to provide directions - seems he knew the prison.  One young chap on another committal warrant jumped out of his back window and I had to chase him across several garden fences.  When he gave up (we were both knackered) I agreed to drive by his girlfriend's house to say farewell for a while.  I gave them a few moments and he was fine. The most difficult are breach warrants but mainly in locating the defendant as they don't want to go back to prison - can't blame them.  These were always dealt with by the police until the Access to Justice Act transferred responsibility from them to the magistrates' courts. The fact was the police did not actively pursue them and generally only executed them when they arrested someone for something else and found they had a breach warrant outstanding.  Hence the transfer of responsibility.
    • thats down to mcol making that option available for you to select, you cant force it. typically if there are known processing delays at northants bulk it will be atleast 14 days later if not more.
  • 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

Cpm/BW windscreen pcns - BW PAP LOC Now Claimform - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth ***Claim Dismissed with Costs** now another PAPLOC for another same place ticket ***Dismissed again with costs***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 525 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

thank you Eric for the advice.

 

Yours sounds much better and to the point!

 

I will be submitting defence this evening and see how we get on from there.

They have still been hassling with persistent calls and letters!

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing you might want to consider is the claimant's reason for the charge, as mentioned in your appeal - being that parking was not allowed in the area your vehicle was parked. This is prohibitive, this not an offer of contract at all. You could also argue that the signage did not apply to the side of the carpark where you were parked, thus no terms of parking applied.

 

It's always as well to have  as many angles of defence as you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

my main two reasons here as I see it are the fact that all PCNs were issued for the reason of double parking where their terms and conditions do not prohibit this and they have sent a letter stating this is acceptable in the undercroft spaces (which mine is) and also the map they supplied during an appeal does not cover my space. 
 

Im not sure if I could use this as well in a way but someone who parks opposite me has always parked a motorbike and car in their space and has never had a ticket for double parking so in my eyes, they are just trying to push their luck. Obviously I would struggle to evidence this though. 
 

since all of this kicked off, they have altered the signage to include no double parking and whilst I have an argument with the building management over this, I have stopped parking there since then. I do however expect them to try and use their updated signage in the case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regards the signage - you have a copy of the original signage posted on here, so use that against them. A judge won't take kindly to them trying to mislead in that way.

 

Ultimately, if it states on the ticket that the reason was double parking, then that's what you are defending against. Is that what it explicitly states on the tickets?

Link to post
Share on other sites

so double parking not a conditionon the sign= no contract to breach.

You can expand on this (point 2) but be careful not to be too specific in case they try and dig up another excuse that you havent got covered.

 

the other thing is if the claim doesnt specify what it is you have done to breach the contract you can state this and ask that the court use its powers under CPR 3.4. Add this after the other defence points as it isnt part of your defence or send it as a separate letter. It may well get filed with the other paperwork unread until much later but that wont hurt you any, just drag things out a bit more

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, shamrocker said:

Ultimately, if it states on the ticket that the reason was double parking, then that's what you are defending against. Is that what it explicitly states on the tickets?

 

Correct. Every ticket states double parking and there is no mention whatsoever about blocking the road way however in their replies to my appeals, they always avoided the point of the double parking and made it about overhanging onto the road way (which i wasnt anyway). As far as i can see, they really do not have a leg to stand on!

 

3 hours ago, ericsbrother said:

the other thing is if the claim doesnt specify what it is you have done to breach the contract you can state this and ask that the court use its powers under CPR 3.4. Add this after the other defence points as it isnt part of your defence or send it as a separate letter. It may well get filed with the other paperwork unread until much later but that wont hurt you any, just drag things out a bit more

 

Their claim form just references contraventions. Nothing to say I've parked inconsiderately or double parked so again, i really cant see them having a leg to stand on!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Exactly as i thought. I just need to convince the judge this is the case (unless they pull out before this stage)

 

Received a letter a few days ago from the courts acknowledging receipt of my defence and that it's being served to the claimant giving them 28 days if they wish to continue. Other than preparing and gathering evidence for my WS, i assume at this point its a case of sit back and wait for the next communication?

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this something I can track on MCOL?

Will it show in the status when they pay?

 

I’ve just had a letter from BW legal stating CPM are proceeding and they have been really kind and offered for me to pay the full balance and the best bit? I can even pay in instalments if I’m hard up!

How kind

 

am I just waiting for their directions now they have told me they are proceeding?

Link to post
Share on other sites

mcol ended at allocation to CC.

begging letter.

 

ring the day after the fee is due

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

Might even get a suggestion to proceed on the papers, if they copy Gladdy's busted MO.  On The Papers is always a desperate bid to stop their dodgy POC, and WS being challenged at a hearing.

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

That won’t be happening. I have full intention to see these clowns in court.

 

Am I correct in thinking they have 28 days from the last day of submitting defence to pay up otherwise I can request it’s struck out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no read the letter that came from the court acking the receipt of your defence

 

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

today i have received from Northampton the N180 form.

 

From my research on here, im aware of what i need to do with filling the form out and returning it to the court, claimant and a copy for myself

 

however as i have not yet received BW legals copy, do i wait before submitting mine?

 

Reason i say this is that i am sort of expecting them to request a hearing on the papers, something which i'm not having.

If they request this and ive already sent in my N180, can i write to the court separately to decline this?

 

Also, just an odd thought here which id like some views on.

Their signage on the site has always said (and still does even modified to not allow double parking) that a valid permit must be displayed. Permits have never ever been issued to anyone on this site.

 

Now the reason i say this is i know its completely unrelated to my case in that they aren't chasing me for that but what it says to me is they're T&C's don't really apply to this site and that it just evidences more and more that they seem to be making rules up as they go along.

 

Am i barking up the wrong tree here with an additional line of defence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

do the n180

makes no odds 

 

await the n157

 

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

There is a space for comment on the N180 where you can state that you wish to object to any request by the Claimant for an "on the papers" hearing.

I wouldn't worry about the permits term, as the non-display of a permit is not the apparent cause for action against you. Have you sent them a CPR request for documentation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi All,

Seems to have gone a little quiet since returning the N180 to the court and Claimant. How long do people expect roughly before they receive an allocation?

 

Also, i'm aware that by now the claimant should have paid their fees for this claim. Would this show up on the status on MCOL if they had paid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...