Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant 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 relief.
  • 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

APCOA 2xPCNs - Dartford Railway Station


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1484 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

 

I am dealing with two infringements here.

05/11/19, and 07/11/19.

They are both identical paperwork which I have attached in merged PDF format.

 

I will deal with only one here for the purposes of this forum-(The infringement of 05/11/19).

I am not sure that the land in question is owned by the rail company ?

 

In both, the PCN to me exceeded 14 days ( NOT windscreen).

You will note in their reply to challenge that they are not using POFA so they will prob claim that this does not matter.

I have attached a letter that I am considering sending them.

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

1 Date of the infringement 5th November 2019

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 2nd December 2019

 

3 Date received 13th December 2019. I was on holiday until then.

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  NO

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes - see attached documents

 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Yes - I had not seen this forum at that time.

 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Yes - see attached documents

 

7 Who is the parking company? APCOA

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Dartford Railway Station Car Park - Victoria Road, Dartford Kent ( not sure it is raileway land ? )

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. BPA / IPC

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here PCN ( both sides), their Reply to my Appeal, Demand for payment x 2

- Only one attached (other is identical to the first) as PDF's in one document.

File size would not allow both.

 

 

554_Redacted_Basic_Paperwork.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Use pdf reducer in upload guide

stop scanning in such a high resolution

the land is covered by byelaws

 

who told them to appeal??

 

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

They can say what rubbish they want, but the POFA is a law.  They don't know who the driver is, they haven't followed the POFA, so no keeper liability.

 

Then it's a prohibition.  Plus bye-laws apply.  So you won't be paying a red cent..

  • Like 1

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

Ok my post meant to say, like your s, is it covered by byelaws?

i dont think so..

all is not lost no

await if/when letter of claim

can you get photos of all the signs/clear wording/location please??

 

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

Confused 

My ticket has not been issued within 14 days – does that make it invalid? 

http://www.knowyourparkingrights.org/News/faq#7

 

The timeframe of 14 days only applies if the operator is relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  If the operator has not mentioned the use of the legislation within their notice, then they do not have to stick to the timelines stipulated within the Act.  This usually applies to tickets issued using ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition). 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that the charge has now increased to £150 and they are quoting Beavis v Parking Eye where it was decided that £85  was not unconscionable. £150 looks like a penalty and so is unenforceable.

 

Just a point of clarification. The NTK does not need to be delivered before the 14 day period. But they cannot then rely on POFA to sue the keeper. They can only take the driver to Court if they know their name. So never reveal the driver and you should be ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason not to appeal is that the parking companies think that you will be worried when your appeal is rejected. So they up their threats thinking that you will be more likely to pay than some one who couldn't be bothered to appeal. The latter they think will be harder to get to pay so go for the easy ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

POFA regulates the ability of a company that manages car parks to issue demands from motorists and to create a keeper liability AS LONG AS CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET

 

Now parking is a fairly simple matter of contract law but the POFA says the parking co has to issue the correct sort of demand or there is no liability for anyone to pay them. Thos, if they have done it correctly applies to the driver as they were the ones reading the contract and parking the car.

 

If the parking co doesn't know who the driver is then they CAN create a keeper liability by following a prescribed course and part of that is issuing a notice in the correct period. If they dont jump through these hoops then they can only chase the driver and they will have fallen foul of the GDPR and the KDOE contract they signed up to with the DVLA.

 

Now by appealing and identifying the driver the keeper conditions of the POFA are negated and it wouldnt matter of you told them you were the driver 2 days or 2 years after the event, the effect is the same.

 

So the question you need to answer about these demands is what EXACTLY did you put in the appeals?

 

Now the plus side of their NTK is it fails to create ANY liability because they didnt use the key phrases to create one.

Basic accounting errors but that wont stop them chasing you and I have yet to see a court claim defended solely on this basis and wouldnt risk it either as judges seem to understnad the keeper liability bit but havent digested the rest of the Act fully yet.

 

Appealing will have encouraged them to think you are going to pay so lets see all fo the correspondence and we will advise accordingly

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

i've sorted the file for you

 

so didn't i'd the driver

well done

 

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

await lba or letter of claim om either.

 

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...