Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

PE PCN Letter Of Claim - entering retail car park without permission' - London Southend Airport


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1553 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

Oh dear, got another PCN from Parking Eye Ltd, who claimed I have entered their retail permit holder only car park inside the airport at about 4 minutes when I tried to google the drop off points of the airport.

 

I did enter when I am looking for the temporary parking (before I asked the onsite traffic warden).

 

After recent visit of London Southend Airport (my first time being there). I got a PCN from Parking Eye Ltd, who claimed I had entered their retail permit holder only car park inside the airport at about 4 minutes. As I could not find the temporary parking space to pick up my family, I did enter one of the retail car park to google the drop off points of the airport.

 

Here is the sticky:

 

or PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]

 

please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement .     8 / 08 / 2019

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] .    13 / 08 / 2019

 

3 Date received .  18 / 08 / 2019

 

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 .   Just automatic response saying a reply will be in 28 days

 

7 Who is the parking company?    ParkingEy e

 

What should I do? Ignore them until receiving the letter of claim from them? Please advise.

 

Thanks a lot in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Honeyee13, They are from the same day in 10 minutes apart :( . what a joke!

 

One is for stopping at the no stop zone for 10 seconds (by asking the traffic warden where the drop off place); this one is for entering the retail car parking without permission before I saw the traffic warden to google the temporary drop off points. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the clarification. You do need two threads then, although this is a bit crazy.

 

I expect people will be along to advise later and in the meantime I'll alter your thread title to show there are two tickets.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to PE PCN - entering retail car park without permission' - London Southend Airport

can we have the NTK up to one pdf please bothsides

read upload

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Now I might be tempted to respond to this one but as they feign ignorance on what is and isnt an offer to park it is 50/50 as to whether you will be successful.

 

What yu should do is read the BPA's code of conduct very carefully and them make a complaint to the BPA itself about their largest benefactor ignoring the rules on the grace period (and thus breaching their KADOE agreement because they dont have a reasonable cause for obtaining your keeper details).

 

the fly in the ointment is their submission will be that you were prohibited form parking but that means there was no breach of contract as they can only pursue a parking contract condition or breach therof.

 

You will spank them at court but the BPA/POPLA will try and rubbish your submission because their client wil lose a lot of money if they stick to the rules and that is what it is all about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Just got a reply from ParkingEye with expected result: unsuccessful. The reply is attached below. 

 

Advice please, should I ignore the reply?

 

Thank you very much in advance.

 

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

 

Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 08 August 2019 at 16:42, at Airport Retail Park Service Yard car park.


We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.

 

This is because you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that you did not break the terms and conditions on the signage.

 

We are fully compliant with British Parking Association regulations on signage, and confirm that there is adequate signage at this site that is visible, appropriately located, clear and legible.

 

Please be advised:
 There is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information and further information can be found enclosed. See also www.popla.co.uk


 As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, you will be liable to pay the full amount.

 

If you have already paid the reduced amount, the Parking Charge will be increased to the full amount and you will be liable to pay this increase.


 By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.

 

However, we have not chosen to  participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.

 

As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.


A payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to ParkingEye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ.


Yours faithfully,
ParkingEye Team

Link to post
Share on other sites

so they ignore the meat of the appeal and just say their signs are correct. Well, so what, that is not what the appeal was about and totally irrelevant.

 

If you drove through a red light a defence of "my car has an MOT and insurance so i am legally entitled to be on the road" wont cut it.

however, this is about money so they were never likely to agree with you.

 

As you have appealed it would be wise to go through the motions and appeal to POPLA but before you do you need images of the signage to pick holes in re the contract actually offered and also find the BPA code of practice,

 

read the BEAVIS decision where it mentions time needed to park up and read signs etc ( cribbed fro earlier persuasive cases) and quote that to POPLA to point out that they havent followed the rules so no contract or breach exists

 

That will cost them £27 regardless of what POPLA says and they may well not defend if it looks like they might lose and create publicity regarding this particular money spinning spot

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you ericsbrother.

 

As advised, I'm going to appeal to POPLA. I'll draft the appeal and post here. It'd be appreciated if you can check my appeal in due course.

 

Thanks a lot!

 

Here is the sign of the gate I found on internet. Is anything I can dispute against it? 

 

image.png.637acada2cc51c1a5ec6780ccc860caf.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

so not an offer of a parking contract anyway but PE are too greedy to care and outside POPLA's remit so dont expect miracles.

 

It is still worth having a go just to get written evidence that POPLA dont even enforce the BPA CoP let alone the law. Wont cost you anything and wont damage your defence if they eventually make a claim.

 

The opposite is true, they will look silly pursuing something they know has no legs and breaks the CoP they signed up to. That makes a difference when it comes to getting your costs back

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would drop points 4 and 5. Reason being you dont want them to know what else you know, stick to the breach of the rules they signed up to and if you dont win you can use that to embarrass them later if necessary.

 

there are loads of other popints you could raise but they wont be considered and it will give PE a sense of security because they will then be forewarned of what you are likely to say if they do sue you. Show as little as possible at this stage other then the breach of the BPA rules

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if they decide in your favour it will be on point 1 only becasue they wont want to tie their biggest payer with conditions that would prevent them from making money, even if dishonestly.

 

It wont hurt though and will be interesting to see what they say about the other points if they dont agree with the first one.

Nothing you have said can harm any defence in court if it ends up going further

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

With regard to POPLA appeal, which option should I select on page 'Why are you appealing your parking charge?'

 

The options are:

1. My vehicle was stolen

2. I was not improperly parked

3. The amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct.

4. I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.

5. Other grounds for appeal (Appeals based solely on the following grounds for appeal are less likely to be successful)

 

I am not sure about option 2 or 5.

 

Thanks for advice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

doesnt matter as long as you hammer home the point about breach of the CoP/grace period.

 

Plenty more to stuff them with if you lose the POPLA appeal and by making this point it may lead them down a dead end as far as arguing that they followed the procedures when they didnt even ifPOPLA decide that you dotn have to obey the rules of the club you join. maybe they will use parliament as a precedent

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello All,

 

Today I received an email from POPLA asking me to provide comments on the operator evidence.

The operator evidence is attached below. 

 

What comments should I provide?

Any help would be really appreciated.

 

Thank you very much!

 

Obviously PE did not mention 10 minutes grace period at all.

The alleged parking period was only 6 minutes 21 seconds.

 

what about?

 

Any comment would be really appreciate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...