Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors 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 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.
  • 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

NCP ANPR PCN - Crawley Kingsgate - paid but ticket thrown - NTK out of time away since


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1774 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

Surely both can be done?

 

Send them the insulting letter which also takes the wee wee out of them about the £60 charge? 😀 

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

that part is for NCP, not their dogs, NCP added it not their minions..?

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

Do you have a link to this 'insulting' letter from EB (who is EB? Ericsbrother?). I've tried to search on this forum but haven't found any 'insulting' letter yet.

 

 

Edited by Summersea
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something like this, but doubtless ericsbrother will look in and indicate something better:

 

Dear BWL  NCP, As you are speculating chancers, and know as I know there is no Keeper  liability in this matter as your Notice To Keeper is out of time, so is not POFA Compliant therefore not actionable, you have also added a £60 Unicorn Food tax which is not applicable mthe Keeper cannot be made responsible for this spurious unlawful charge. .  As there is no cause for action I will be contacting the ICO  for breach of GDPR for your unlawful processing of my data.

 

You get the idea? let them know that you know they have no cause of action and their Roboclaim POC will be robustly challenged.

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

I would be happy to send that, you could also let them know that it is a 2 way street:

 

Dear BWL,

as you are the private parking world's second best solicitors you will know all about keeper liability because you have been copying Will and John's homework and thus know that none exists in this case and they have no cause for action.

 

You will therefore also know that your client has unlawfully processed my data and that you are obliged to dob them in to the ICO for the same.

 

If you do manage to persuade your client to waste money on a spurious claim that is doomed to fail I will be minded to take civil action against them and seek damages as per VCS v Phillip (Liverpool CC dec 2016).

 

If you want to save them some money and act in their best interests just send me a cheque for £250 now and I will call it quits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this addition:

 

NCP and BW Legal should know the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 and they should have known that there is no Keepers Liability in this case, that the Parking Charge Notice to Keeper was not in accordance with the POFA and hence that there is no cause for action. Given this your client had no rights to process my data (see GDPR Art 6 Lawfulness of processing) and you should have reported this breach to the ICO.

 

BW Legal has been in breach of this before, see VCS v Phillip, Claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016

 

I demand, in accordance with the GDPR, that all data relating to myself (the data subject) held by your client and BW Legal be provided to me (Art 14) and that such data is to be erased (Art. 17 1 (d)).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 factual but too polite.

Dont forget, they are lawyers and know what they are doing even if they look incompetent.

Dont show them all your cards at this time, if they do sue you it will be a certainly that their story will have changed to fit in with the new situation so for the moment stick with the insult rather than detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you referring to the addition or the complete text?

 

I am not interested in fighting a holy war with them here.

 

The information provided (e.g. about the dates) will not change.

 

I think if I just send an insulting letter it is more likely to go to court. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to the addition.

 

 you do what you think best for you but experience shows that being right is less likely to stop them in their tracks than being right and insulting them.

 

reason is if they go to court you can use your letter as evidence that you did correspond to try and avoid a civil suit but they are clearly unreasonable because you have made it clear they have no cause for action and the judges will be well aware of the reputation of the solicitors sent boils down to whether the client wants to look like they have employed idiots to prosecute their case.

 

. It is their client who pays so a short rebuff copied to the client will have more of an effect than a treatise on say planning law or the GDPR because we they think that they can bluff their way through court and will persuade the client to try their luck as they know what you have got to say or that you aren't serious about a counterclaim because it is clear you are a decent person etc.

 

Sometimes being irrational and unreasonable ( careful how though) gets you results beyond what being measured will ever do.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ericsbrother's method is better in this type of situation, short insulting dismissal of their claim; less is more here.

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

How about this:

 

NCP and BW Legal should know the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 and they should have known that there is no Keepers Liability in this case, that the Parking Charge Notice to Keeper was not in accordance with the POFA and hence that there is no cause for action. Given this, your client had no rights to process my data and you should have reported this breach to the ICO.

 

Has anyone from NCP or BW Legal actually checked this case yet or is this still an autogenerated ‘threatogram’? 

 

Should you managed to convince your client to waste their money on a spurious claim that is doomed to fail - then please go ahead. It wouldn’t be the first time BW Legal ends up on the losing side (you might want to check VCS v Phillip, Claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016 - interesting reading).

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Summersea said:

I think if I just send an insulting letter it is more likely to go to court. 

 

But why do you think that?

 

By insulting them you are showing that you know their "case" is complete pants, that they'd lose in court, that you're not scared of them, that you hold them in contempt and that you'd have no problem doing court.  

 

It's people who treat them with respect who they think are the mugs and they're more likely to take to court, hoping the person will be scared of court or think their carp case actually holds water.

 

No guarantees of course, but EB's classics have shut these fleecers up many a time.

  • Like 2

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

18 hours ago, Summersea said:

How about this:

 

NCP and BW Legal should know the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 and they should have known that there is no Keepers Liability in this case, that the Parking Charge Notice to Keeper was not in accordance with the POFA and hence that there is no cause for action. Given this, your client had no rights to process my data and you should have reported this breach to the ICO.

 

Has anyone from NCP or BW Legal actually checked this case yet or is this still an autogenerated ‘threatogram’? 

 

Should you managed to convince your client to waste their money on a spurious claim that is doomed to fail - then please go ahead. It wouldn’t be the first time BW Legal ends up on the losing side (you might want to check VCS v Phillip, Claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016 - interesting reading).

So is this insulting enough?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you send what you are comfortable with but bear in mind they already know what you are telling them, they are hoping that you dont.

My view is they dont deserve any respect because they are not honest brokers and if the MoJ had any gumption there would be more solicitors in jail.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I would like to thank everyone for the advice given. About 1 or 2 weeks after I have sent my letter I got a letter from BW Legal saying that the issue is on hold while they get further instructions from their client and that they would reply as soon as they know more. This was now over a month ago and I haven't heard anything from them since. I guess any reply from them would be an acknowledgement that they were wrong and had no right to process my data. 

 

Should I send them a nice letter now requesting that they send me all the data they hold on me and request them to delete the data? Or should they be reported to the ICO for unlawful processing of my data?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

you NEVER sned them a nice letter and you dont  do anything that isnt a response to somwething they have done.

They will either drop this or sue you and writing nice letters make the latter more likely because they will see that you wnat to respove this quickly and the only way they want to end the mater is with money in their pocket.

What they will never do is write to you and say they and their client are wrong and to think they might do so is going off into the world of fantasy.

I suggest that you keep all of your paperwork safe and stop thinking you need to dance to their tune. If yu want to sue them for breach of the GDPR then  do so but do that as a separate action

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...