Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be 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 it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
  • 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

CPS ANPR PCN - overstay - Spring St, Hull HU2 8RA ***Cancelled***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 248 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

What do you think to this as reply to their letter before claim

 

Dear Complete Parking Services (CPSUK) Limited

 

I write in response to your so-called Letter Before Claim, which I have received in relation to PCN Number: ?????, issued by yourselves for an alleged parking breach.

 

I am writing to notify you that I have no intention of paying these ridiculous and made-up sums of money, for allegedly breaking some imaginary contract with yourselves.

 

As I was not the driver at the time of the alleged parking incident, you have no grounds to claim anything from me. Surely for a company claiming to manage car parks you should be aware of a little thing called the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. and in particular Schedule 4 of said act. If you are not, I suggest that you go should join the millions of kids around the country who are currently home schooling, by doing a little reading.  

 

You have also scored a big own goal by adding a £60 admin fee. Presumably, this admin fee is some sort of unicorn food tax. I suggest that you look at DDJ Harvey’s judgement at Lewes County Court on 05/02/2020 (Claim number F0HM9E9Z). He was not very happy with these made-up amounts, was he?

 

You can either drop this foolishness now or get a good spanking in court. The choice is yours. I quite fancy taking the kids to Disneyland once this Covid stuff is finally over and it would only be sweeter if you were helping to finance it. After all should you proceed with this ridiculous claim I will be seeking an unreasonable costs order under CPR.27.14, as well as damages for a breach of GDPR as you accessed my information from the DVLA without any reasonable cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

looks good just wait to see what the others think

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

Looks superb to me.  I like the way you've already chosen a destination for the holiday they'd be funding :-)

 

To ridicule them even more I'd be tempted to write at the start "Dear Kev and Jamie"  https://www.completeparkingservices.co.uk/about-us  These two jokers come across as a pair of small-town spivs who try to persuade anyone who has a bit of spare space to make it into a car park, where they can make up the £100 charges - and who know nothing about the law or the legal system.

 

See what others have to say during the day then send it off tomorrow with a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.    

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

Looking at companies house they are a local company to here. Heck I drive past the directors house daily on my drive to work. Interestingly they have an address in London as their business address. That is a shame as if the address was the local one, I would have been tempted to hand deliver a letter as well as post one with a free proof of posting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a slight typo, it should be either "If you are not, I suggest that you go and join the millions of kids" or "If you are not, I suggest that you should join the millions of kids".

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

Over the last few days I have done some research and found that there are actually 2 companies at play here. The paperwork states Complete Parking Service (CPSUK) Limited sometimes and Complete Parking Services at others. I have checked with companies house and these are seperate companies with different company registration numbers. If they were stupid enough to go to court would this help as its unclear which of the 2 companies should actually be claiming.

 

I have also had a closer look at the pictures of the signs in the car park and notice that the T&C's have had a sticker over them at some stage to replace the original supposed Terms. Likewise the company details for (CPS UK) Limited seem to have been stuck on after the original signs were in place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That might well work in your favour if they tried court.

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

  • 1 month later...

Well after almost 2 months the snotty letter has landed back on my brothers doormat, with a Royal Mail notice of return to sender Addressee not known at this address.

 

We sent the letter to the address on their letters and this matches the address they have registered with companies house. I have since found another address for them, which they are claiming is their correct one. Do I re-send the snotty letter to this new address or is it too late now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep the Royal mail Notice, it may be evidence if they did try court, as you responded to their given address.

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

1 hour ago, miley_b ob said:

which they are claiming is their correct one

In what way are they claiming?  Have you been in contact with them in some way?

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

An enquiry was emailed to them from a friends, works email asking for a postal address. I think they thought they had hooked another car park to con people in, so they replied pretty quickly with an address in Hull, as opposed to the London one that has appeared in their letters and at companies house.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And thats the address you sent the snotty letter.

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

The original snotty letter was sent to the London address as that was the one in all of their letters and Companies House. The other address has only come to light this weekend after enquiries following the return of the snotty letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done on your detective work!

 

I've had a look back through the thread and the number of letters they've sent threatening a last chance to pay has become laughable - these clowns seem to have no real intention of doing court. 

 

However, I agree with Brassnecked, it's best a snotty letter gets to the right address.  The point of the letter is (a) to show a judge you complied with PAPLOC and (b) to show the chuckle brothers you'd be big trouble if they were stupid enough to do court. 

 

So unless the regulars suggest any tweaking, send the following off tomorrow to the Hull address with a free Certificate of Posting. 

 

In post 55 you write you drive past one of the director's houses daily.  No harm dropping another copy into his letter box and getting a photo of you doing it.

 

So -

 

Dear Kev and Jamie,

 

I write in response to your so-called Letter Before Claim, with a made-up address for your company which Royal Mail can't deliver to, which I have received in relation to PCN Number: ?????, issued by yourselves for an alleged parking breach.

 

I am writing to notify you that I have no intention of paying these ridiculous and made-up sums of money, for allegedly breaking some imaginary contract with yourselves.

 

As I was not the driver at the time of the alleged parking incident, you have no grounds to claim anything from me. Surely for a company claiming to manage car parks you should be aware of a little thing called the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and in particular Schedule 4 of said Act. If you are not, I suggest that you should join the millions of kids around the country who are currently home schooling, by doing a little reading.  

 

You have also scored a big own goal by adding a £60 admin fee. Presumably, this admin fee is some sort of unicorn food tax. I suggest that you look at DDJ Harvey’s judgement at Lewes County Court on 05/02/2020 (Claim number F0HM9E9Z). He was not very happy with these made-up amounts, was he?

 

You can either drop this foolishness now or get a good spanking in court. The choice is yours. I quite fancy taking the kids to Disneyland once this Covid stuff is finally over and it would only be sweeter if you were helping to finance it. After all should you proceed with this ridiculous claim I will be seeking an unreasonable costs order under CPR.27.14, as well as damages for a breach of GDPR as you accessed my information from the DVLA without any reasonable cause.

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Just an update to say that the Snotty letter was sent to the new address and so far it has been met with a deafening silence. Hopefully these clowns get the message and crawl back under their rock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well its been over 6 weeks since they should have received the snotty letter at their new address and about 4 1/2 months since they sent the PAPLOC letter. Since then they have gone quiet and my brother has received nothing from them. Hopefully they have got the messaged and given up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given their country bumpkin, amateurish operation I think you're right.

 

However, they have six years during which they can start court action, so make sure you keep all the paperwork, and should you ever move then inform them just to ensure you don't lose a court case by default.  Often the PPCs seem to give in then dust down their old files and send out more demands two or three years down the line.

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

  • 1 year later...

open

 

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

  • 10 months later...

Thanks for Re-opening this thread.

Following on from the Snotty Letter 2 1/2 years ago my brother has received absolutely nothing from these clowns.

My brother moved house a few weeks ago and we have tried to notify the clowns at Complete Parking Services of his new address (Just in case they try anything before the 6 years is up) but letters are not replied to and in the past have come back as undeliverable by royal mail.

I have even resorted to trying to call them or use their online web query form am getting no reply from them. Is there any more that I can do?

I am trying to get my brother to send them a subject access request, just so when they don't reply we can issue a claim against them and set the ICO on the clowns. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

check companies house see if they are still active.

if closed etc then gameover.

speculative invoices dont get sold on.

 

dxdx

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're absolutely right to give them the new address, just in case they try to sneak in a backdoor CCJ.

Yes, they don't like to be contacted, do they?  Presumably because they work out of one of the chuckle brothers' living rooms.

The company number of this entry at Companies House corresponds to that on your brother's PCN  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10212042  I remember he sent the first snotty letter to that address but it was returned undelivered.

The idiots have redone their website  https://www.completeparkingservices.co.uk/  There's an e-mail address  [email protected]

There's also an e-mail address on your brother's PCN  [email protected]

Try the e-mail addresses?

It would be hilarious to sue them for not replying to a SAR, the problem though would be enforcement as they don't seem to have a real physical address.

 

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

Already checked. Sadly the clowns are still on the go and still have the same office address in London, despite been based in Hull.

I have even managed to find 1 of the chuckle brothers on social media, but sadly i am unbale to find a way to actually contact the company.

I have tried emailing from a new burner account, stating that they are only to use this email to reply to acknowledge receipt and for no other correspondence. Alas they have not even replied to that. Every attempt to contact them just appears to be going into a black hole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...