Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • 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 
        • 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

Cabot/mortimer ClaimForms - 2 sep Next Account Cat Debts


Recommended Posts

Name of the Claimant ? Cabot Financial (UK) Limited (This is same for both debts)

 

Date of issue – 30 MAY 2019  (Am I correct in calculated that I have until 17 June to acknowledge and until 01 July to submit a defence?)

 

Particulars of Claim

 

What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?

1.By an agreement between Next Directory and the Defendant dated 14/06/2011 ("the Agreement") Next Directory agreed to issue the Defendant with a credit account.

 

2.The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments Due & the Agreement was terminated.

 

3.The Agreement was assigned to the Claimant. 

 

THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS

1. 1574.00

2. Costs"

 

My wife's is exactly the same with the exception of the date for agreement being 16/05/2011 and the claim being for 1730.00 and costs.

 

What is the total value of the claim?  - mine is £1759, wife's is £1915

 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) ? -  Yes

 

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? - Yes

 

Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? - The original company were informed of address changes.


Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? - CAT debts

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ?  - After on both debts.

 

Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ?  - Possibly online

 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/ Equifax /Etc...) ?  - Yes to both debts.

 

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. - Both debts assigned.

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? - I do not think so.

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? - Possibly.

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? - No to both debts.

 

Why did you cease payments? - Financial difficulties, increased housing costs due to relocation of work.

 

What was the date of your last payment? - Late 2017.

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? - No.

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? - No.

 

Hello, this is my first post and I would be grateful for guidance. 

I have had a few days away with work this week and arrived home today to discover that both myself and my wife have received Claim Forms for one individual debt each. 

 

The details are as follows:

 

I think I have covered all the points but please let me know if there is anything else that is required to get started.

 

I would be very grateful for support and guidance.

 

Many thanks

Kj

Link to post
Share on other sites

is the account number in the poc for each N1 the same?

 

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 are no account numbers listed on either POC.  

I have tryped verbatim from the first and the only difference in the second is the agreement date and the value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so just to be clear

you each DID have separate next accounts?

but yes as you say the 'process' will be the same for each N1

so anything suggested here 

you must always do for EACH CLAIMFORM...

 

though this answer puzzles me..

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? - Yes to both debts. :lol:

 

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 CCA Request running to the claimant
https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332502-cca-request-consumer-credit-act-1974-updated-january-2015/
 leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed
.
 get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]
https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/
.
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]
 

 

  • Thanks 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

Yes, we each had a separate account.  

 

Sorry for the confusion caused by my reply, they were both catalogue accounts.

 

Thanks for the guidance.  I shall complete the online actions in the morning and prepare the letters to go in the post on Monday. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

who are the sols?

restons or mortimer

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Cabot/mortimer ClaimForms - 2 sep Next Account CAt Debts

Quick question:

 

When submitting the CPR 31.14 Request do I only ask for the agreement, or am I asking for this as well as the other documents? 

 

In the POC it clearly refers to "the agreement" and then makes reference to the fact that the agreement was terminated and the agreement was then assigned to the claimant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

CCA gets the agreement 

and they must comply

 

CPR is a request and they don't have to comply.

 

leave it as is

request all in its list

 

 

 

  • Thanks 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

Update.

 

I have this morning completed the AOS online and also sent letters, recorded, to both Cabot and Mortimer in relation to CCA and CPR respectively.  

 

Thanks dx for your guidance. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Cabot/mortimer ClaimForms - 2 sep Next Account Cat Debts
  • 2 weeks later...

Good evening,

 

I am posting an update as I have received a response on Saturday from both Cabot & Mortimer in relation to the account in my name and one from Cabot in relation to the account in the name of my wife.  I see from exploration that these are standard holding responses.

 

I have attached these letters, redacted, to this post.

 

Am I correct in preparing to submit a defence to each claim now? 

 

Many thanks.

CCA-CPR Reply.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

by 1st july 4pm

  • Thanks 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

Good morning,

 

I have received the attached letter from Cabot (one for each account), any thoughts on this?  It says that they "are not permitted to obtain a judgement or decree against" me in court.  Does this mean they will withdraw? Do I still need to complete and submit the defence online?

 

Many thanks.

Cabot Update to CCA.pdf

Edited by kjw327
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still need to submit a defence by the required date.Its simply a standard template response to your CCA request.

 

Interesting that they state " and while we cannot bring legal action against your account " whilst in default and yet they have already  :???:  :becky:

  • Thanks 1

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received the outstanding response from Mortimer regarding the CPR request for the second account.  This is dated 21 June, the day after the Cabot reply. They kindly offer an additional 28 days to file the defence on this claim. 

 

Surely this is unethical, telling me that their client will agree to an extension when the day before their client informed us that they are not permitted to obtain a judgement nor can they bring legal action.  Is there anything I can do with this?  Or is it fruitless? 

 

CPR Reply No.2.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fruitless ......The claimant is allowed to offer this see CPR 15.5 

 

Agreement extending the period for filing a defence

15.5

(1) The defendant and the claimant may agree that the period for filing a defence specified in rule 15.4 shall be extended by up to 28 days.

(2) Where the defendant and the claimant agree to extend the period for filing a defence, the defendant must notify the court in writing.

Of course you dont have to accept...only allows them more time to source/conjure the documents up.

 

 

image.png

  • Thanks 1

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, kjw327 said:

It's not my intention to accept the 28 days and I am working towards submitting a defence within the original 33 days.

 

 

So what's the problem and why do you wish to complain ? :roll:

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just irked by the fact that Cabot have acknowledged that they cannot enforce and are not permitted to obtain judgement as well as informing me that they cannot bring legal action against me. 

 

Yet they are still attempting to do just this and the letter from Mortimer today just highlights how they work. 

 

I accept that I probably have no right to feel aggrieved but there is a part of me that does.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the way they play the game...dont take it personal....they  dont understand half the legal process anyway.:becky:

  • Thanks 1

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could some additional guidance be offered with this?  The POC are not listed as I have seen others, they're not numbered.  There is no account or agreement number, no dates to do with default, termination of assignment to the claimant.  How do I refer to all of this in my defence? 

Claim Form POC.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

look at post 1 we space it.

 

if you pick say para 2 

 

what I usually do is copy and paste that into our custom google search box

which results in

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:3134625398&q=The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments Due %26 the Agreement was terminated. &oq=The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments Due %26 the Agreement was terminated. &gs_l=partner-generic.12...176530.176530.0.177833.1.1.0.0.0.0.146.146.0j1.1.0.gsnos%2Cn%3D13...0.0...2.34.partner-generic..1.0.0.Kw6xclzY6CE

 

numerous examples of the holding/no paperwork defence above to base yours on

 

post it here 1st mind

 

dx

 

  • Thanks 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

Particulars are already split and numbered in your post #1 as for lack of agreement number and dates...all the better for your defence.

 

Andy

  • Thanks 1

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...