Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is on behalf of my brother in law, a plumber.  He is currently taking his ex employer to tribunal (after they reduced his wages without telling him, and change of contract over hours). As such he left the company and started working privately. His ex-employer found out that he was using the same plumbers merchants as them and somehow persuaded them to provide them with copies of his invoices (that he has made himself since leaving). We assume they were trying to find evidence that he was 'stealing customers'.  He only found this out after the ex-employees solicitors sent a photo of these invoices to him as part of the bundle! (they took a photograph of the invoices on the plumbing merchants desk (the photo itself also had the date and time on it!)I am automatically assuming that the plumbers merchant in question is in breach of the data protection act,  I am also assuming, but would like clarity that the ex-employer is also in breach, not sure if the solicitor is also as they were not aware of how it was obtained, although it has since been pointed out to them.  I should also add that I am not 100% sure if the customers details were on the invoice ( as they would have been delivered to their location).   It should also be noted that he also requested a Subject Access Request (in order help track his time sheets for the last year (they were not given duplicates)| and to find out how/ who  authorised the change to his salary).  The Ex-employer stated he was  unable to supply this in the standard time period and also missed the extended three month period, and I believe a complaint was made under GDPR about this, don't think anything was done though).   Any thoughts on this.  
    • Ok my managers know of my asthma. Though never had an asthma attack at work like that. Asthma has got worse - probably had covid a few days before 1st lockdown. No test centres for 40 plus miles at the time.    I have messaged my union rep - also an employee at the store. She is going to put this as a incident and look at any risk assessments done. Plus asked for colleagues that witnessed/helped me during the attack to get their side of the story. As  I was in shock and not fully understanding what was going on.   The refit has been a bit of a shambles imo. No clear plans so literally some rooms needed to be emptied immediately when contractors were told they are there to do the floor, paint the walls etc.  We were told to empty lockers. Then they were taken away with no replacement. Staff not happy with leaving personal stuff in offices. 
    • The country's inability to export its grain has led to food prices rising around the world.View the full article
    • Lots of uncertainties about whether to contact Horizon for and sar or Tesco.  My suggestion to contact Tesco was after finding out if  the original PCN was non compliant.  Most of the ones I have checked in the past have been for several different reasons. That means that the liability for the alleged debt cannot be transferred to the keeper.   Once it is confirmed that the PCN is non compliant the OP can write to Tesco as the keeper pointing out that as the keeper he has no responsibility for the debt and has been denied the facility of appealing to POPLA because of the NTK not being received  at all. POPLA may well have cancelled on appeal because of no keeper liability.  In addition  the stoppage in the car park was for less than the consideration period. The keeper could then add if it was true, that the driver was an infrequent patron of this particular car park and the keeper will ensure that a similar occurrence does not happen in the future.   One could point out that if the camera operator had thought that they had not observed any children in the car, from the Court's point of view  they would have expected the operator to have attempted to mitigate the situation by explaining to the driver that they should either move the car to avoid a ticket or explain where the children were [ref. Jopson v Homeguard]. Then perhaps it could have  been explained that the wife and children were dropped off at the entrance or the children and their mother were already in the store and the driver was there to collect them. [They should also have issued a windscreen ticket since they were in the vicinity but of course that would have meant that they would have had to wait several weeks longer to be paid. It is a practice frowned upon but overused by greedy  car parking companies].   The above paragraph obviates the need to  admit parking wrongly and suggesting possible  reasons for parking there without admitting that either scenario actually happened.      
    • Hey everyone I rented some rackspace from a company on a month to month contract but the customer support has been quite poor of late, my services went offline a few times and they advised my servers had gone over the allowed power limit on my account and required an upgrade which I agreed to but I had enough of the reply times taking hours, never any answer on the phones when I needed support I requested to cancel my services on the renewal date, they advise in their terms of service that if there is a open invoice this must be paid before they will allow collection of your hardware and if not paid within a set time the hardware becomes theirs and can be sold off, reused by them ect I have noticed in their terms of service that it does not state at any point the amount of time before the due date the new invoice will be created which I feel should be a important part of any contract on a monthly billing they will pre advise you of the amount of time before the payment is due when they will invoice you   I was also meant to receive IPv6 addresses as part of my package but never had these although I had requested these many times they advised they were not available but are mentioned as part of my overall package on my invoices     They are asking for nearly £700 payment before they will even discuss allowing anyone to collect my hardware (worth about £5000 in total) and if I do not pay this within a set time they will take ownership of all my servers and use or sell them   Thanks   Update I had advised them I will be hiring a man and van service to collect my hardware, they have suddenly advised that I cannot do this and must use a certain type of company who specialist in server transport. I do not feel this is fair as it is my hardware, fully owned and paid for my me but start trying to set out new rules that have never been made aware of until today after making my request to cancel.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • 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


harni
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, harni said:

do we think this is two other cases regarding Countrywide parking or just two other cases in general?

could be anything.

 

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

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi all,

this hearing is tomorrow at 11:30 on the phone so I am just revising the whole situation as it’s been going on for over a year now. One thing I have noticed in the claimants pack is a letter to the courts stating pursuant to CPR 27.9 the client will not be in attendance and they will be represented by an advocate. 
 

what impact if any does this have? Am I correct in thinking the advocate has no position to argue the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

makes the WS inadmissible as such, so 1st Q for you to ask is ..

is the person that wrote the claimants witness statement present please?

re right of audience 

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

Thanks DX. I have just re read the 90 page bundle and have remembered a fair few points on this now so feel armed for the call tomorrow. I have never done anything like this before so not really sure what to expect. The case has been allocated 1hr30. I assume like all court cases despite being on the phone it will be a very formal event 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Cpm/BW windscreen pcns - BW PAP LOC Now Claimform - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth

Good luck, don't forget to ask is the WS author present for VCS, as DX says, if not it puts them on back foot straight away.

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

24 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Good luck, don't forget to ask is the WS author present for VCS, as DX says, if not it puts them on back foot straight away.


thanks! I will be sure to do so. I’m assuming as they aren’t present, it leaves them in a position where they can only recite the WS and no more? Wouldn’t be able to answer any questioning from myself or the judge? Sorry if these are stupid questions, my first time in a court situation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly so it should not form any part of the case

 

might find it useful to re focus and read your thread from post 1 again

as all the points are here in posts 

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

Claim Dismissed!

 

The hearing lasted for about 45 minutes on the phone. As expected, the claimant did not attend. The judge was very helpful and considering it was my first time in a court setting, assisted with the process.

 

The case was dismissed on the basis that the claimant had provided no evidence that the signage forbid double parking at the time (even though on multiple occasions she argued it did with no evidence!).

 

The court have also awarded £95 costs.

 

The claimant asked for the case to be appealed on the basis that the signage was correct.

The judge did not allow it for the simple fact that my evidence showed a picture of the sign the day before the final PCN.

 

Also, the judge made a point of mentioning just how clear and precise the WS was so to all of you that have helped me with this case,

 

my sincerest thanks!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No there wasnt.

 

The judge did make a point that my extract from my lease agreement did not cover if a parking space was included however dismissed that point later on based on the fact that the claimant wasn't claiming on the basis of not parking in the correct space but double parking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Cpm/BW windscreen pcns - BW PAP LOC Now Claimform - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth **WON+COSTS**
1 minute ago, harni said:

 

No there wasnt. The judge did make a point that my extract from my lease agreement did not cover if a parking space was included however dismissed that point later on based on the fact that the claimant wasnt claiming on the basis of not parking in the correct space but double parking. 

You had a killer argument that was well supported, so it would make sense to not spend time on other arguments which are more difficult to persuade. The claimant isn't particularly clever really, and was  probably just blinded by what they thought would be an easy £600 (your hard earned cash!).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done on your victory!  👏

 

It must be immensely satisfying to see off these crooks after so long  🍷

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

Great news surely the PPC's must be near getting a bigger kicking by a Judge soon.

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

  • Andyorch changed the title to Cpm/BW windscreen pcns - BW PAP LOC Now Claimform - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth ***Claim Dismissed with Costs***

Hope the take away and bottle of red tasted sweet!

I'm just rereading the thread, and see that CPM are a particularly obnoxious bunch, even coming out with personal insults during the IAS appeal. 

Ho!  Ho!  Ho!  Who is "pathetic" now then?!

As Shamrocker says, they are thickos.  Basically their "case" was built on "I'm right because I say I'm right, and all my mates at the IAS say I'm right too so I must be right".  Tough.  They've now been taught they have to abide by the same laws as the other 59.2 million people in England & Wales.

Once they have coughed up the £95 I would be tempted to write to them and warn them that if they ever trespass on your property again (your car) then they will be back in court sharpish as you'll sue them for trespass, GDPR breach and anything else you can think of (IIRC someone actually did this and sued the PPC for trespass).

This reminds me that 30-odd years ago I went to solicitors and asked them to sort out something legally for me every six months.  Every six months they failed to do so so I eventually told them I would deal with it myself, I wasn't paying their last bill, and I wanted to be taken to court re their bill ASAP.  These were solicitors, not a PPC FFS, people who are supposed to know about laws, procedures, etc.  They could simply have apologised.  It was down in B&W, constantly, that they hadn't done what I had asked as they were too lazy to read the file properly.  But oh no, I got a snooty reply that they were right but they wouldn't bother a court for the debt, however they would never accept instructions from me again.  So in revenge I complained to their professional body on three points, winning on two.  Surreally they appealed, presumably on the basis that they were important people and I was an oik so they were right.  Didn't do them much good, at appeal level they were told by their professional body that the two points in my favour were correct, indeed it should have been three!  Called "Hunt & Hunt", of Ilford, don't know if the arrogant buffoons are still going or not. 

Well done again.  So nice to see off these pompous, puffed-up, self-important so-and-sos.

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

please don't forget to donate

keep us here to help others like you...

 

well done CAG

 

dx

 

  • 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 would be inclined to go after them under GDPR anyway, once they cough up the costs  as they are stupid enough to invoice you again.  Likely another £500 for you and cost to them, and risk of a ICO fine for them.

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

13 hours ago, brassnecked said:

I would be inclined to go after them under GDPR anyway, once they cough up the costs  as they are stupid enough to invoice you again.  Likely another £500 for you and cost to them, and risk of a ICO fine for them.


out of interest, how would they have breached GDPR in my case? The tickets were windscreen tickets and I approached them with my details so they would have no reason to go to DVLA (which I believe they didn’t as the lease company would have charged me as they are the RK of the vehicle)

 

however...in their WS (incorrectly) they did say they contacted DVLA...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be worth looking into exactly who passed the data and when, but might then be best leave it  for now then.

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

  • 8 months later...

Open

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

So who wants a laugh? Following on from my win against CPM in court with costs awarded against 3 tickets issued over a 5 day period, they are now chasing me again. 
 

they originally gave me about 6 tickets for the same thing over a period of about 6 months however only took me to court for the 3 that were close together. I have come home today to a letter from BW legal chasing one of the remaining tickets threatening court action. You can’t make this up!!

 

im not expecting them to take this to court considering the low value but if they do, I intend on having some real fun with this!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you ever think that maybe they were embarrassed at only having to pay you such a small amount despite all the pressure they had put on you? So they are giving you a second bite at the cherrry to recoup your other  claims for time spent on  research etc.  

No neither did I. You just to have to take their supreme idiocy and greed into account.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Actually can’t believe I’m back here doing this again but here we are!

 

in 2018 I started the following thread based on Countrywide Parking Management issuing me multiple tickets in my own parking space in the flats I used to live in.

 

Long story short, it dragged on for a long time and eventually I had a phone hearing at our local court where I won against them and was awarded costs. 
 

fast forward to now and They have found me at my new address and have started chasing me for what I am sure is the final ticket that was issued through this laughable timeline of events.

 

These have been ignored however today I have come home to a letter of claim from BW stating they have been instructed to issue court proceedings should I not respond or pay. 
 

I have no issues taking these clowns to court again but in all honestly, I can’t be bothered nor have I got the time. 
 

I am going to write my response to their LBC however I would like to ask, is it worth bringing their attention to my previous court case with solid evidence of them having to pay me costs?

 

I am assuming they have an automated system for chasing these and there is no joined up thinking so maybe it would be a good idea to bring to their attention that we have done this once before and it didn’t end well for them!

 

Edited by dx100uk
formatting/spacing only - no issue
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to 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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...