Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a good article on how to try and spot whether a phone call about Track and Trace is genuine.   https://fullfact.org/online/test-and-trace-scam/
    • The Independent are saying that Boris is dropping the promise of not allowing US chlorinated chicken, hormone-fed beef and so on.   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chlorinated-chicken-us-trade-talks-boris-johnson-trump-a9549656.html#gsc.tab=0
    • The problem with these small debt amounts is that they can hang around like a bad smell. Every now and again you will start to receive letters followed by phone calls. Then it will go quiet and you will have another debt company chasing you. This could go on for many years.   Ignore DCBL as advised.   Send a complaint letter to ELE/Engie, asking why they have asked DCBL to chase a debt, when ELE have never sent any such bill to you. Then explain that you received a final bill relating to address xxxx and you paid it. If somehow there had been a billing error, ELE were advised of your new address, so they should have written to you at the new address.        
    • Of course it could be the same company trading under variations of the same name in order to dilute their bad reputation. In terms of the money you paid, section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act says that where a price for services has not been agreed then a reasonable price will be implied. I gather from what you have told us that they give you the price in advance and you agreed. I'm afraid that on this point, you would be bound to pay the price because contract law does not help people to make good bargains. It simply requires the people stick by the bargains they have made. On the other hand, if they undertook to do a certain job of work and to achieve a certain result – and that result wasn't achieved then you certainly have an action against them. The problem is that a company like this may be difficult to get hold of unless they have got a very clear office or workplace and some assets. The second problem is that you would probably be required to have given plumbforce the opportunity to come back and try again – and unfortunately you didn't do that. This means you tried to make a claim against them, they would probably argue that these plumbing problems they always take one or two goes to fix and that a reasonable person would give them an opportunity to sort it out before going elsewhere. I'm sure you're absolutely right and these people are completely overpriced – and it seems that they have done a bad job – and of course the reviews don't do them any favours. However, I think you're going have difficulty getting your money back on this – although if you want to try, will be very happy to help you – but I'm sure that it will go to a small claim in the County Court. Of course this would be an interesting exercise for you if you have the energy. It's quite simple – but of course you do risk your claim fee and your hearing fee if you lose. I can imagine that if you produced evidence of their reputation and what has happened in court that the judge will be disposed to find in your favour regardless of the arguments which I have suggested that they might put forward. The final risk could be that they would say that you are only entitled to recover the cost of the second plumber required to finish the job that you had paid Plumbforce for. In other words about a hundred quid. It's not a bad argument – I don't know if it is a winning argument – and as I probably wouldn't bother to be represented, they might not think of it for themselves. However, I'm just letting you know of all the possibilities in this problem. Of course I think one of the lessons view is to make sure that you get at least two quotes for everything – even if it seems to be an emergency. When your new home, it's worth making sure that you gather a list of reliable support services – either from your experience or from the experience of neighbours who will already have been through it. That way you can be reasonably certain that if you have any other problems with heating or lighting or water – et cetera, you will have one or two numbers to hand that you can call on with a certain amount of confidence.
    • Stores around the world have been forced to shut their doors due to the virus pandemic. View the full article
  • Our picks

Stevie_T

Excel Windscreen PCN Claimform - Parked in a disabled space - MIDDLESBROUGH LIESURE PARK

Recommended Posts

show us the new pictures and indicate where they are by giving us the EXACT address. you will need to get screenshots of google earth and streetview to help your defence and make a simple line drawn map as well.

 

You throw in pictures of the kitchen sink as well if you can find case law on stainless steel and parking,

the fact that these signs weren't on your route is irrelevant,

they are relying on signs you didnt see and it is your duty to look for them if you have been warned from the outset.

 

Now that is a matter for argument about quality and content of the offer of a parking contract but dont hamstring yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just received Excel's witness statement. It's a doorstop. I've read through it once as a skim and again slighty more in depth. There is a lot they probably re-use over and over. The post pictures taken around the car park. These are poor quality. They show signs but not the detail of what is on them.

 

It also shows a picture of a notice tucked under my windscreen wiper which I never actually got Perhaps it blew away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we'll need to see everything sadly inc exhibits

scan it all up in ONE multipage PDF

read upload carefully

 

well done on holding off yours

you can now use it to rip theirs apart item by item.

and you've got till the 2nd march? to do it?

 

dx

 

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - scanning session tomorrow

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

we don't need to see each exhibits cover sheet, nor any full printouts of any cases they refer too, if that helps??


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a bit of a glitch in their pagination 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m attaching the Exel witness statement. A few things occur to me:

 

They seem to be claiming that I failed/refused to inform them of the driver of the vehicle. I do not recollect and no see no evidence of them having asked for this info

 

They accuse me of being non communicative. I know I can’t use this as a defence but my experience is that there is no point in communicating with these dudes of submitting any mitigating factors

 

The images of the “disabled” bay including ones with my car in it are different to how they are now. They have added extra signs. On the evening in question there were none

 

Their own pictures are of their signs are crap. The wording can not be read. There is no clear indication of where each sign is. 

 

I still think my strongest defence is that the perfectly reasonable route my car took presented no signs to the driver whatosever. 

 

They mention the “authority” to erect signs but make no mention of planning permission

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry removed

you MUST remove all ref numbers 

claim numbers 

and numbers around the outside of pages

please try again.

 

dx

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Will do 

it took three passes to get this far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its on everyone of your 1st 4 pages! and page 1 of the WS atleast

 

they purposefully put the edge numbers on the rest so they can find you on forums as simon appears to be getting rather annoyed with CAG


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their NTK's fail to fulfil the protocols of the pOFA so they cnat create a keeper liability and they use this statement that you refused to name the driver in an attemot to get bits of case law that dont apply considered.

 

When this is challenged they lose that argument but many judges dont understand that the POFA HAS to be obeyed in all of its parts to allow the parking co to create ANY liability and not just keeper liability.

 

The problem Excel have is that by failing to do so they ahve broken the law in obtaining your keeper details.

sadly this isnt a matter for this hearing but worth a mention of you ahve found other lies in their WS as it places a weightng to the evidence.

 

Now to look at their statement.

 

point 8

they have a contract with a managing agent, not the landowner. they need to prove there is a chain of authority that allows them to enter into contract with the public and to make civil claims in their own name. this is very different to just a managemnt contract where all of the risk still belongs to the landowner.

 

Again, judges often accept that such authority exists without any proof of such a chain of authority so you need to look at old cases where this was a deciding factor (Parking prankster blog)

 

point 10

suggest that they monitor someone elses conditions not create their own so again sight of what the landowner told them they can and cant do will decide so you ask for this as no right to make their own rules exist if this popijt is true

 

point 42

that is only part of the purpose of the POFA,

it also states what a parking co has to do to create a contract and allow them to make a demand by claiming a liability exists between teh 2 parties.

 

they have deliberately not included the part in their following points that only the amount invoiced on the NTK is applicable to the keeper as the contract and thus any extra charges brought to the drivers attention by way of that contract are not applicable to a keeper laibility if one is created and then used to enforce the debt.

 

that means that point 76 cannot apply  as they dotn know who the driver was and have made this clear in their WS so only the original £100 could ever be subject to a civil claim.

 

Judges have also decided that open ended contracts that are vague in their wording and purpose are not binding . Again look up relevant cases on the Parking Pranksters blog

 

The big sign they say is at the entrance is not an offer of a contract but an invitation to treat. thsi menas you can enter and park and not have to read or consider the other signs there if you dotn want to. Other terms are unfair unenforceable and so amke the entire contract void under the CRA 2015, (s62) if you do not wish to be bound by them.

 

Courts have also decided that the rubbish paint job seen in their evidenec doesnt define a disabled parking bay and each disabled bay will require its own blue and white sign. No evidence of that here. again look up a case, there is one from less than 2 yeras ago in this section of CAG

 

Hope this is of help to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. All good stuff but sorry to be obtuse - what is NTK and POFA

 

The photos show very little marking on the “disabled” bay. If you visit now they have made it much more prominent  and put blue signs up. As if they’ve been stung by this before

 

11 minutes ago, Stevie_T said:

Thank you. All good stuff but sorry to be obtuse - what is NTK and POFA

I think I found it NTK - need to know ?? Is that right

POFA - Protection Of Freedoms Act. - am I right

Edited by Stevie_T
Failed to give thanks - oops - rude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have had 5 months to do your homework on this, I hope that you have pictures iof the bays as they were to use in evidence. If you avet then you will have to play judge lottery unless you can idg up somehting else. Now what about planning permission for the signage etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their own pictures show how the bays were at the time I parked there including the one with my car in shot. When they began this process and I returned to take pictures there was a new paint job and signs had been erected. I have not made any inroads into the planning permission issue. I'll set some time asside tomorrow to work on this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attached is the first draft of my Witness statement. I have more to add but I wanted to offer it up for comment now. I'm going to UP another one of things I'm not sure whether to include or not and I'd like a second oppinion

 

 

witness-statement-draft1.pdf

 

On reflection, I wonder if should have laid out the images to follow the text that they illustrate rather than collect them all at the end

  

 

I'm going to attach a PDF containing additional info and images I am not sure whether to include in my WS or not

INFO TO CAG.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

images do NOT go into you WS text

your REF what exhibit number you are referring too

and bundle them at the end with a cover sheet for each.

exhibit A1 a2 a3 etc.


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your 1 is crap english ... reword it.
2 remove 'and as' the claimant
3 they have in their NTK.
4 is in the wrong place.

 

i'll do the rest laTER internet is crap due to winds here.

 

dx

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - I’ve looked at your points will make a start on this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rockon:

 

scroll up to 

ericsbrother post of February 10 

 

a good start.

 

dx

 

 

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was planning to introduce  Eric’sbrother stuff next but see now that perhaps I  should introduce the NTK first and then get into my specifics of sinage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2020 at 23:49, dx100uk said:

>>your 1 is crap english ... reword it.

Reworded ......

 

1.      The defendant is the keeper of the vehicle [REGISTRATION NUMBER]. On [ DATE] the claimant issued a charge notice claiming that the vehicle was parked in a manner that breached a unilateral contract offered by way of signage at the car park situated at Middlesbrough Leisure Park.

 

>>>2 remove 'and as' the claimant

Removed and reworded......
 

2.      The defendant denies being the driver at the time. The claimant has failed to follow the protocols of the POFA. There is no keeper liability in this matter.
 

 

perhaps this is the point at which I I should intruduce the NTK and POFA arguments  suggested by ericsbrother

 

Quote


>>>3 they have in their NTK.

OK -I have deleted this section


>>4 is in the wrong place.

where should it go? Later on I introduce another judgement about signage

 

 

 

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...