Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Now some at this stage might think I'm leading to doggerland as the site of Atlantis   https://www.winterwatch.net/2019/01/did-the-inspiration-for-atlantis-flood-and-ark-legends-stem-from-paleo-doggerland/           but for a number of reasons, I'm not ... although I think it is a part of the larger story,   Its a little late. I believe the final inundation of doggerland is part of the later Biblical flood and related myths. (Black Sea, Arabian Gulf, West coast of India etc) ... but worthy of mention is that it could effectively make up one of three 'larger' islands as detailed in the legends far better than the Azores does. ... and mammoths/elephants crossed that bridge - although carefully check the dates of those mammoth/elephant migration evidence. They seem to end 11000bp.           http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150722-lost-beasts-of-the-ice-age   http://www.canada.com/technology/Massive+Canadian+melt+have+triggered+flood+biblical+proportions/3954124/story.html   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outburst_flood   http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Sproul    
    • Hi.   Someone reported that your pg1 still had the reg number showing, so I've removed it and left pg2.   HB
    • Yes because you have not entered into an agreement with the claimant...nor do they state you ever did.   2.The loan was funded by Ferratum Uk Ltd.
    • Hi DX   Thank you for that.   No house move    Doh ... I know what a PAP LOC is now (apologies for being slow !)   I have had a tinker and found another defence example which I have taken account of.    How does the following now look ?  (bit lengthy apologies in advance !) **********************************                                                                           Particulars Of Claim 1.The claimant claims this amount in respect of an unpaid loan, regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The loan was funded by Ferratum UK Ltd.   2.The Defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the credit agreement. The credit agreement was assigned to the Claimant upon which a Notice of Assignment was sent to the Defendant.    3.The Defendant has either failed to respond to the Claimant or has failed to maintain regular payments.   4.The Claimant has issued a Letter of Claim, providing the Defendant with a further opportunity to arrange repayment of the outstanding balance to no avail.    5.The Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 11/02/2019 to 23/07/2019 on  £417.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.09."    " Defence    1.            The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5(3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC   2.           Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of what alleged debt the claimant refers to having failed to adequately particularise its claim.  And it is denied the claimant has served any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law & Property Act 1925    3    Paragraph 3 of the particulars is not admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim for an amount of £431.81. It is denied the defendant failed to abide by the terms of contract.   4.       Paragraph 4 is noted although I have no record of ever receiving a Default Notice or Notice of intention to serve a Default Notice in this matter.    5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   6. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 77/78 for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my section 77/78 request and remain in default and with regards to my CPR 31.14 request.   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement ; and (b) show and evidence the nature and service of a default notice pursuant to sec87.1CCA1974 © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   7 .As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9.By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any   ******************** end of defence ************
  • Our picks


CPP/PE ANPR PCN - University Hospital Car Park Coventry **CANC'D After MP Got involved**

Recommended Posts

Just got home far later than expected and very grateful for the further advice and more that has been added.


I will form a focusing response and have it in the post tomorrow, possibly also some further approach given some of what I have just quickly read here.


Brassnecked and Lookinforinfo - the PE/PCC reassurance is most appreciated, thanks! Won't waste any time on them.


Manxman - Thanks for the further words, and for troubling to check. I am very familiar with that link from frequent use on the way to various Hosp and Trust pages at different times. It drills down - amongst other things - to the hospital's address and ultimately contact info for PALS there with whom I am already dealing (!) of course. Also, Re admin. -  already explored, there's a parking-office in the building .. have visited, manned by two jobsworths in rotation: "You'll need to take it up with Senior Admin." I already did of course, and have been ignored from the outset thereby generating all this kerfuffle

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - looks like you've done what I'd have done re the hospital.  I'd keep at them though.


You'll have to rely on advice from others regarding Parking Eye as I know nothing about private parking charges.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

hospitals always have a well paid "Estates manager" responsible for all of the buildings, contractors, making dodgy deals over bacon sandwiches or on the golf course etc. they will be above the  parking office/security etc so worth finding out their name and phoning them.


You must not let this slide or they will just decide to do nothing as it is too late in their eyes, ie PE will moan about spending money on threatograms they wouldnt have sent out if they got a bo**ocking earlier.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for dropping back on to this, ericsbrother. All noted, plus I'll be chasing up the Estate Mgr for sure. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



A couple of weeks further along, and the charge has now been cancelled. In that regard alone the outcome is acceptable.


In the interim ... 

There have been additional demands from CPP/PE in the most glorious and laughable obfuscated prose/legalese

I have pressured PALS

I have chased past correspondence

I have contacted other Execs

I have involved my MP who has now acted

I had primed the local newspaper who was planning a piece this week


However ...


- PALS didn't respond until I complained in person after almost 2 silent weeks; then promised to help and a couple of days after that advised that the Hosp had said thye had no authority over the Parking Co. I told them the hosp had told them wrong, explained why and pressed them to go back ... since when I have heard nothing despite chasing them.

- UHCW Trust Estates & Facilities Dir. is yet to respond, though contact was *only* a week ago.

- UHCW CEO/Chief Administrator has never acknowledged/replied-to any of my letters/chases.

- UHCW CEO/Chief Admin reacted immediately to MP letter however by passing it and my correspondence to Estates and Facilities Dir to deal with, who in turn replied to MP with cancellation, who yesterday copied that to me for confirmation received this morning.


Passing thoughts ...


- People who could/should have been dealing with it for the injured party elected not to.

- PALS has good intentions but is useless if they don't have a leaflet on it - will follow the Hosp line on everything else without questioning their words.

- The Trust's Administration is not approach-friendly, in this instance stating "... car parking managed by a Private Finance Initiative Service Provider"  and that therefore  ".. Trust has no power ...  in the processes applied by CPP .." Oh, really?! 

- Trust accepted CPP's word that the equip't was not faulty as claimed, not the rather more reliable word of a visitor having been put to considerable inconvenience at 5 a.m.and who went to some length with staff to deal with it instead of buggering off home.

- CPP "have agreed (to cancel) as a gesture of good will." WHAT?! THEIR good will? THEY are willing to let MY failings pass and kindly make allowances? Couldn't be more self-delusionarily wrong!


Sadly, I can guarantee that what is actually important in all of this will not get any attention


- providing an alternative payment method for patients/visitors for when the equipment malfunctions ... at any time not just the wee-hours ...  and tell staff ...  and put notices up.

- UHCW taking any notice of their culpability in CPP's unlawful breaching of GDPR in accessing keeper details now that it has been brought to their attention. Head In Sand.




All of this comes of course from pulling-up the drawbridge and deny, deny, deny. It is the knee-jerk response of almost all large organisations, but one for which there should be no place in a Hospital Trust that should strongly want to distance itself from uncaring attitudes and irresponsible practises.


Anyway ...


Anyone finding this because of a similar issue of their own, my strongest advice is to heed the advice given to you on this forum - it put me straight on to the right path and got rid of some nervous uncertainties which makes all the difference to peace of mind, something that CPP relies on to add pressure for those who aren't aware of what's what.


My thanks again to all who kindly helped.







  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hospital car parks are no place to employ sharks, at least in Wales Hospital parking is free, and PPCs verboten.

We could do with some help from you.



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!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well done!  Ten out of ten for perseverance!


I don't know if I mentioned it on this thread or another one, but an enquiry from the local MP almost always guarantees immediate action.  (Unfair, I know, but you have the proof how effective it can be). 

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a nice person (I'm sure you are) I'd take this opportunity to point out to the trust that this presents them with a learning opportunity to put better processes and training in place.


But if you wanted to put the boot in...(1) I'd tell them it's totally unacceptable that management ignored your complaint until you involved your MP, and (2) how are they going to set about ensuring that all the other wrongfully issued tickets that early morning will be cancelled?  That second point is the sort of thing your local rag would love to know about!


But you're a nicer person than I am...


I'll leave it up to you to decide!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can still apply pressure on them by asking for info as a FOI request and when you do so you refer to things that cover your earlier letter writing so for example, how ling does it take the Estates dept to respond to letters and how many letters fro the public has it had in the last year and what was the maxiumum and munimum time taken to respond.


You can whack in a complaint to the trust exec and say that the hospital failed to follow the times given to deal with the comaplints under the govt charter etc and ask why this is and whn are you going to get a formal response.

they will have lied to your MP as well but as they dot know the ful story they will be happy they have helped a constituent so wont push for the truth

Share this post

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...