Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

joannes

Britania/BW claimform ANPR PCN - Chelmsford, Essex, Army and Navy Car park CM2 7PU

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 236 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

Morning All,

 

I wonder if you could offer me some help please.

 

As vehicle's registered keeper, I've received a letter of claim from BW Legal and understand from reading previous posts that this does need to be responded to.

I've ignored all previous correspondence from Brittania, DRP and Zenith because my understanding was that the NTK needed to arrives by the 15th day following the alleged contravention (it actually arrived on the 24th day!)

 

i have kept copies of all previous correspondence sent.

 

Any advice on how to respond to them would be really appreciated.

 

1 Date of the infringement 5th April 2016

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 27th April 2016

 

3 Date received 29th April 2016

 

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 registration details with small date/ time stamp at top of image

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] No

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up

 

7 Who is the parking company Brittania

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Chelmsford, Essex, Army and Navy Car park CM2 7PU

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. BPA

 

Thanks, Jo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple but rude letter should be sent so somehting on the line of

" dear sirs, I am in receipt of your threatagram dated the xxth of dec and have laughed at its contents. As I was not the driver at the tiem and the original NTK arrived 10 days too late to create a keeper liability I ask that you tell your clients they can **** off and stop wasting my time. If they know who was driving at the time then you should be bothering them instead. Could you also remind them that thye are in breach of the KADOE contract with the DVLA and are thus breaching the GDPR and I am entitled to seek remedy for the misuse of my personal data. That will happen if they are dumb enough to employ the parking world's second worst solicitors to try their luck in court so tell them I dont expect to hear anything further".

 

Now that might not be the end of the matter so if you cna get soem pictures of the sigange at the place your car was parked including the actual entarnce to the land from the public highway whetehr there are signs or not that would be helpful. When a parking co gets one thing wrong they usually get others wrong as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was this anpr or windscreen ticket?


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was an ANPR capture, with 4 images of vehicle on the rear of original PCN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the send the letter suggested and see what happens. If they dont skulk off them you can use this letter as proof that you tried to deal with the matter before it went to court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick question, as I'm about to send the letter off to BW Legal, shall i sign it ( i've read on a few posts the suggestion that you just print your name) and would you also send a copy to Brittania Parking as well?

 

Thanks for the great advice you give here, it's really appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about the signature, wait for the experts to pop on.

 

Certainly send a copy to Britannia Parking - unscrupulous solicitors love to rip off not only the motorist but also their own clients by egging them on to court even when they'll lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no just type your name


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons for not signing any documents going to these lowlife bandits is that they are not above scanning and manipulating it onto other documents. Yes they are that bad.:-x


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent letters off as per post 3 to both Brittania and Law firm (loose definition i know!) and received a response from BW legal citing Combined Parking Solutions V AJH Films and from Brittania saying they are not in breach of Kadoe as they have not implied keeper liability on the original PCN and are relying on the implied contract with the driver prior to PFA 2012, which means they have until the 35th day to provide notice of this.

 

I have now received a County Court Form to complete.

 

I am now a bit confused on how to respond.

 

A couple of questions, I have photograph taken from the site 4 months after alleged contravention (Aug 16) showing signage detailing that a parking charge of £70 may be charged, whereas the original PCN / NTK says an £85 charge is due, is this an example of them unilaterally moving the gate posts again?

 

Any further advise would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks Jo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name of the Claimant BRITTANIA PARKING

claimants Solicitors: BW LEGAL

 

Date of issue – 13TH FEB 2019

 

Date to acknowledge) = 3RD MARCH

 

date to submit defence = 15TH MARCH

 

 

What is the claim for

 

1.THE CLAIMANTS CLAIM IS FOR THE SUM OF £85.00 BEING MONIES DUE FROM THE CLAIMANT IN RESPECT OF A PCN ISSUED 05/04/2016 AT 2124 AT CHELMSFORD ARMY AND NAVY ANPR. THE PCN RELATES TO vehicle details included.

 

2.THE TERMS OF THE PCN ALLOWED THE DEFENDANT 28 DAYS FROM THE ISSUE DATE TO PAY THE PCN BUT THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO DO SO.

 

3.DESPITE DEMAND HAVING BEEN MADE THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THEIR LIABILITY.

 

THE CLAIM INCLUDES STATUTORY INTEREST PURSUANT TO SECTION 69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM A DAILY RATE OF 0.02 FROM 5/4/16 TO 12/02/19 BEING A TOTAL AMOUNT OF £20.88.

THE CLAIMANT ALSO CLAIMS £60.00 CONTRACTUAL COSTS PURSUANT TO PCN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

 

What is the value of the claim? £240.88

 

Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim ? PRIVATE PARKING COMPANY

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? NO

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by dx100uk
format

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.

.

register as an individual

note the long gateway number given

then log in

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

 

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]

.https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31-14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim)(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

type your name ONLY

 

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court case they refer to is a commercial vehicle so not applicable law and they know it.

 

the change of signs may be because they have been told what maximum to charge by the landowner or it may be a new company has taken over the site. Doesnt change anything for you UNLESS you can show LL had instructed them beforehand to alter things

As for the contractual costs that only applies to the DRIVER and not the keeper so it looks as though they are not claiming any keeper liability via the POFA ( and hence the AJH Films twaddle). this menas that part of the claim is easy to knock back and they do themselves no good by saying it is part of the terms that were only notified to you via the PCN so not a contractual condition as far as the originasl contract goes. as we know it is just a made up unicorn food tax it is easy to see why they arent that clear on the true terms as they really want you to pay up without the matter going to court because they cnat make any money if it gets that far, even if they win as they will just about cover their costs and will have wasted a lot of money and time getting that far.

 

so what you need to do for now is acknowledge the claim within a fortnight of its issue and then you ahve another fortnight to put an outline of your defence in. you should also sned a CPR 31.14 request for documents to BWL to ask for sight of the contract between the landowner and Britannia that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name. Also ask for a copy of the original Notice to Driver ( as they refer to it for their £60 add-on), the Notice to Keeper and for proof of the planning permission granted that allows the siting of their signs and equipment. Give them 14 days to comply.

 

they wont do this so after that time has expired you can use that in your defence and say you dont believe they have the authority as they failed to produce it. this is one of the reasons you need to ack the service of the claim and get the CPR letter out now so you have time to include the rubbishing of them in your defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best way of dealing with this is to use the moneyclaim online portal, easy to do and makes it a good way of watching the progress of the claim as deadlines ahve to be reached before they can continue on to the next bit and you can jump on them if they fail to do it nicely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post 15 details what to do


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as you know, there is no keeper liability and they dont claim to create one so that menas they should state why they are suing you as they dont say in what capacity.

Not at all surprising as BWL are the parking worlds second worst solicitors and tend to copy the shoddy output of the worst ones. now that will be enough to beat their claim if the judge is in a bad mood but best use other points as well but do use this adn try to get a CMO that forces them to say why they are going after you and also answer the questions about their rights to use the civil procedures in the first place ( hence the CPR 31.14 request) many cases crumble because they cnat show they ahve authority and would rather drop a claim than ahve it shown in court they are just crooks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...