Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
  • 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

Car park penalty Thurrock council


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1541 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

Any useful advice to the following is appreciated.

 

This time I got a ticket on my windscreen at the pay and display car park I use every morning for work - on 3/12/2019. 

Once again I had no clue what this was for as I never, ever knowingly contravene! 

 

it was for parking outside a marked bay. 

There is no reason for me to do this as the time I arrive every morning there are always about 20 empty spaces and that day was no exception. 

 

Long story short

I checked the next day where I had parked and it was an end space. 

Although the line on one side is quite faint it is definitely noticeable. 

I took a picture of it. 

 

Meanwhile I sent an email the same night as the ticket, saying that I was inside the line. 

My first thought was that they were saying I parked on top of a line instead of inside. 

As I said in my email, I always check I am inside (as I don't take chances).

 

I didn't hear anything back until I got a letter today saying I had made no representation and owe £50. 

There is still a chance to appeal. 

 

As it stands I see it as my word against theirs as there is no photographic evidence provided. 

If there is any I am confident that I am right. 

I am going to appeal, attaching my email sent, which seems to have been bypassed. 

 

Would there be any photographic evidence? 

Any suggestions on what I can do?

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • honeybee13 changed the title to Car park penalty Thurrock council

the CEO will have taken pictures so you need to demand to see them so you can decide whether to formally appeal or not.

 

I would also be having a pop at the council for failing to correctly safeguard yur data, namely the letter or email sent for the soft appeal.

I once had a similar tickt in Surrey and the end bay wasnt actually a bay but as the paintwork was so delapidated they determined that  the motorist wouldnt know that as the non bay was actually too small and generally used for putting bins in. Worth measuringa dn photographng in case they dont cancel.

 

Send a copy of your emal to them by post as well and tell them that you are going to appeal to the adjudicator on their failure to follow their own procedure as well as the incorrect issue of the ticket in the first place. They may well decide that discretion can be used after all

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 17/01/2020 at 11:44, ericsbrother said:

the CEO will have taken pictures so you need to demand to see them so you can decide whether to formally appeal or not.

 

I would also be having a pop at the council for failing to correctly safeguard yur data, namely the letter or email sent for the soft appeal.

I once had a similar tickt in Surrey and the end bay wasnt actually a bay but as the paintwork was so delapidated they determined that  the motorist wouldnt know that as the non bay was actually too small and generally used for putting bins in. Worth measuringa dn photographng in case they dont cancel.

 

Send a copy of your emal to them by post as well and tell them that you are going to appeal to the adjudicator on their failure to follow their own procedure as well as the incorrect issue of the ticket in the first place. They may well decide that discretion can be used after all

 

Some interesting points.  I am going to appeal definitely about them failing to follow their own procedure.  Thank you for this.

Edited by joyjoyjoy
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'd suggest appealing it based on the poor markings. 

 

I got a parking ticket in Camden in Autumn 2018. Residents Bay which was not sufficiently differentiated from adjoining Pay and Display bays. Got my photographs together and a clear statement of my arguments. Stick tio the facts however bone headed the Council appear to be. The Adjudicators have a library of significant cases on their website, see if there are cases similar to use. If there are it will help you see how thw adjudicators approach the issue of parking outwith bays that are ill-marked. These cases are not a binding precedent but can be persuasive. I was lucky in that there was one at exactly the same location and pretty much identical facts 20 years previously. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 01/02/2020 at 14:37, Bromptonaut said:

I'd suggest appealing it based on the poor markings. 

 

I got a parking ticket in Camden in Autumn 2018. Residents Bay which was not sufficiently differentiated from adjoining Pay and Display bays. Got my photographs together and a clear statement of my arguments. Stick tio the facts however bone headed the Council appear to be. The Adjudicators have a library of significant cases on their website, see if there are cases similar to use. If there are it will help you see how thw adjudicators approach the issue of parking outwith bays that are ill-marked. These cases are not a binding precedent but can be persuasive. I was lucky in that there was one at exactly the same location and pretty much identical facts 20 years previously. 

Thank you.  Of course my appeal has just been rejected.  They also said they haven't received my email.  I had sent a hard copy as proof so they're saying although they never got it they're willing to go back to the original £25 charge.  Hopefully I can get some justice with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're confident you are correct take it to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The worst that can happen is you lose and have to pat £50. The success rate for those who attend the hearing with a well prepared case is pretty high. 

 

It was a bit of a busman's holiday for me as I previously worked in an Quango that had some oversight of Tribunals including those concerned with parking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm wondering now, as the photos show there are only 3 lines so the one that would be in front of the car is missing.  Unfortunately I didn't notice. The infuriating thing is there were plenty more spaces so I wasn't parking there because the car park was full.  I believe it was a space once upon a time and it is obviously not blocking anyone else.  Do you think I sill have any chance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

your argument will be about confusion as to what a marked bay is is there is no indication that whwere you parked wasnt a bay. Dont think about the line at the front of the bay means nothing as far as the markings go unless they are trying to rely on bay sizes that apply to on street parking

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...