Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The return under the consumer rights act of the item bought would have to be at the expense of the retailer. If the dealer themselves has arranged for an MOT at their own preferred garage – then frankly I would be prepared to cough up another 50 quid and go get another MOT at a garage of your choice. I think this would be a good move before you try anything. It's still very early days and say you are well within your 30 days. Find yourself an MOT station with a good reputation and tell them that you want them to be particularly exigent because there are questions over the condition of the vehicle. If you get MOT which fails I would point out some serious defects, then this is grist to your mill. This may seem to be a nuisance – but given that so far you have cut corners to save time and money, I think that you will have to treat this as payback time. Just because nobody took the trouble to be careful when buying the car, doesn't mean that some care and preparation shouldn't be taken when preparing to challenge the dealer and maybe to return it. If you don't want to tell your partner that you told him so, then bring him here so that he can see that we think that he's acted quite irresponsibly in the way that he has chucked his money around. Now there is a price to pay in terms of time, money, stress, uncertainty. Your partner now wants to try and cut more corners by compromising but you don't really know what you are compromising over. Get the MOT and the check-over which I've suggested so that you understand exactly what you've bought and then you could understand what sort of compromises you might be prepared to make. If the vehicle fails us MOT for some reason rather then I would be looking to recover not only the cost the vehicle, but the cost of the MOT failure, the cost of travelling to Bristol to purchase it and the cost of driving back with it. In other words, if the vehicle is worth rejecting then there is no reason why you should be out of pocket at all.  
    • Thank you for the advice.   She is just waiting to get the green light on the move and rang and spoke to them to get some details.
    • Bargain Cars Bristol (also trades as Southwest Vans and Commercials). They're around 55 miles away; Bristol is the nearest place to us which has a decent amount of car dealerships.   My partner has (and had previously), yes. He's the very opposite of me - doesn't research endlessly, doesn't always err on the side of caution. I'm not in a financial position to buy a car, but need one for a new job, so the deal was that he paid for it but I wasn't to interfere with my 'over-cautiousness'. Yes, he's regretting that now! (I have so far managed to refrain from saying 'I told you so'). If it was up to me, I'd spend 3 months researching the history of car, dealership, MOT testing garage etc before buying, which is why he usually ends up taking over.   Apologies, the dealer themselves didn't carry out the MOT, but they booked it in at a garage of their choice (which appears to be a couple of miles away from their business). Personally, I don't trust any MOT carried out by the dealer's garage of choice as there were no advisories on the car that had a blow-out either (I did report that garage after the blow-out, so hopefully it was assessed and action was taken).   The ad doesn't explicitly state that, but the dealer stated it verbally (which obviously I can't prove now). Their own website's ad is still visible here, but the one on eBay (which is the one we saw) has been deleted, and I foolishly don't seem to have stored a copy of it.   So, within the first 30 days I have the right to reject without having to accept a repair option, from day 31 up to 6 months I have to allow one repair attempt before having the right to reject? Is that correct? My OH wants to 'compromise' with the dealer and say that if they process a refund immediately, we'll return the vehicle today at our own cost, but if they are unable to refund today then they will have to collect the vehicle from us instead (in line with our statutory rights). However, this section of the CRA confuses me - doesn't this mean that we have to return it as stated on our receipt?    
    • I know this but a few COVID related problems have knocked us for six. So i'll see what the judge says tomorrow. Regarding the letter it seems they are dragging up stuff already covered and cleverly wording it and there are some points that are incorrect.
    • You absolutely can (have a negative lateral flow test, and a positive PCR).   This can also happen when someone is symptomatic, and actually has Covid (the scenario most people would consider first, and what I think you are asking about). There is a fallacy to that scenario, though : if symptomatic, they shouldn't be using the lateral flow test (which is for SCREENING of the ASYMPTOMATIC), but those people should be going for the higher sensitivity PCR as the initial test.   If used 'correctly', (both in terms of 'both samples taken correctly', and 'used for the asymptomatic'!) then it is possible for someone asymptomatic to test negative by lateral flow, and positive by PCR. There is again an inherent issue to this scenario, though : the testing (for someone asymptomatic, for most situations!) should stop when they have the negative lateral flow test, and they wouldn't need the PCR - so why would they then know the PCR result?   An exception here would be e.g. someone traveling internationally, who might get a (self taken) lateral flow test (which comes back negative, with a result within 30 mins), and then a PCR taken at the same time, which takes longer to come back, but then comes back positive ........ presumed then to be the PCR being the more sensitive test, and the 'true picture' (rather than the PCR being a 'false positive'!). In the academic scenario (or if you were a leading politician, or a titan of business willing to pay for a clearer answer ..... or an answer you prefer if it meant you could travel / not self-isolate!): one could then re-test by a different PCR that uses a different target ... which then gives the suggestion of which is the 'false' test (false negative 'insensitive' lateral flow vs. false +ve PCR!).   Where does one stop, though?. All tests have false negative rates and false positive rates, so I can create the possible (but unlikely!) scenario where there is a true negative lateral flow, with one or MORE false positive PCR's. One would tend to 'believe' the PCR's (especially if more than one!), but it would be POSSIBLE (if unlikely!) that the PCR's could all be false positive. As you get more and more positive PCR's using different targets, the likelihood diminishes, though (although this wouldn't affect other sources of error such as sample crossover [what if they tested a sample which was someone else's sample, and was in fact +ve, but it had been labelled as the first person's sample??). Again, where do you stop? cell culture? (the 'gold standard' by which the PCR and lateral flow test sensitivity and specificity should be measured, but not widely available).   None of these are new issue, or specific to COVID, though. The National Blood Transfusion Service has dealt with screening tests (albeit it, not for COVID, but for other infectious diseases) for many years. Blood samples from donations may test HIV +ve (on screening!), and then there is a whole protocol (different tests on the original sample, repeat testing by the original test methodology whilst going back to the primary sample tube, and getting a completly new sample [to ensure different people's samples haven't been inadvertently 'switched'!] if there are still concerns!) to ensure that : a) the donor isn't told "you have HIV", when they HAVEN'T but at the same time b) If the donor does have undiagnosed HIV infection, they get followed up, retested, (and then told!).   All this relies on an understanding of test specificity and sensitivity (and of what can go wrong at any point in the testing : pre-analytical, analytical, or post-analytical !), while appreciating that most people just want a test result and would consider  the report as 'gospel' : "positive means you have it, negative means you don't".........
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

CEL ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - i did Appeal but Rejected - Greyfriars carpark MK40 1BY


Recommended Posts

I’d add (just in case the DJ says “but if you couldn’t pay, you shouldn’t have parked”):

“The situation being compounded by the app appearing to allow payment, with a countdown timer for the period ‘paid for’ appearing”.

 

Have you offered to pay the fee the app should have taken but didn’t?

 

If they were stupid enough to take it to court I’d invite the judge to find that they were entitled to that fee, and only that fee, but [contrary to the usual guideline of costs ‘in the case’] you were entitled to the {limited} costs available in the small claims track.

They’d ‘win’ : but only for the parking fee, you’d win : by them being the ones an order of judgment was made against!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No short and sweet best, the uselessness of the app would be part of a short defence if they did issue a claimform, as in   "No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach

Let it run, (and go to court if need be)   Don’t let the worry about credit report concern you. Even if it went to court, even if you then lost (unlikely), a judgement only goes onto the reg

except claimant and defendant have been switched in two places. 1.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract Should be Defendant enter

Posted Images

Open

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

OK so after my letter in january they have filed a court claim

 

I really could do without a CCJ over this! Im trying to remortgage, id happily pay the £227 for it to go away an not have no credit for 6 years.

 

I obviously need to file this back, what should be the defence?

 

What do they normally do in these cases as its clear a contract could not be entered into easily

 

thanks

Edited by BreadAndButter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let it run, (and go to court if need be)

 

Don’t let the worry about credit report concern you. Even if it went to court, even if you then lost (unlikely), a judgement only goes onto the register if you then fail to pay it within 30 days.

 

Caveat : you MUST notify them if you move / change addresses. You don’t want the scenario where they serve papers to a “last known address” and you don’t get to see them.

If they send papers to an address they know isn’t current, any subsequent judgment that occurs due to them not giving you an opportunity to respond can be ‘set-aside’.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Bazza is spot on.  There's absolutely nothing to worry about regarding a CCJ, credit, mortgage, etc.

 

You need to acknowledge service and make a CPR request.  Forum regular dx100uk will be on shortly with details of what to to.

 

You have a great chance of beating these crooks.  If memory serves, the last three times that I can remember when CEL started court cases against Caggers, CEL got a right thrashing.

 

It's a numbers game to CEL.  It only cost them £25 to issue the claim, and only took them a minute to do so on a computer as all their claims are copy & paste.  Presumably, sadly, there are a lot of motorists terrified of the word COURT who cough up and pay CEL including the £25 plus the £82 Unicorn Food Tax that CEL make up, which means they can fund three more of these dodgy claims.  CEL may go all the way to court, but if you file a robust defence and then WS it's just as likely they'll then drop the matter.  Their behaviour is a disgraceful abuse of the court system, but that's how things work legally in England.    

 

 

Edited by FTMDave
  • 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
  • Thanks 1

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
  • dx100uk changed the title to CEL ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - i did Appeal but Rejected - Greyfriars carpark MK40 1BY

Name of the Claimant : Civil Enforcement Limited

 

Claimants Solicitors: S wilson, Head of legal

 

Date of issue – 23 April 2021

 

Date for AOS - 28th April + 14 days

 

Date to submit Defence - 25th May 2021

 

What is the claim for –

1.Claim for monies relating to a parking charge for parking in a private car park managed by the claimant in breach of terms + conditions (T+C's).

 

2.Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T+C's of use. 

 

3.ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site.

 

Debt + damages claimed the sum of 182.00

Violation date 23/11/2019

Time in 10:34 Time out 13:58

PCN ref: Ref849*******

Car Registration no.: **** *** Car park:- Greyfriars

 

Total due- 182.00

 

Ref:www.ce-services.co.uk or Tel:01158225020)

The Claimant claims the sum of 202.58 for monies relating to  a parking charge per above including 20.58 interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to- 22/04/21 Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment Daily rate to judgment- 0.04

 

Total debt and interest due- 202.58

 

 

What is the value of the claim? £277.58

 

Amount Claimed  £202.58

court fees  25.00

legal rep fees  50.00

Total Amount 227.58

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you confirm date of issue one place you say 23 next 28.

 

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

No 19 days...you acknowledge service of claim by Tues 11th may 4.00pm...you then have a further 14 days to submit a defence.

 

Andy

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 The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

 pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.
.
 register as an individual
 note the long gateway number given
 then log in
.
 select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
.
 then using the details required from the claimform
.
 defend all
 leave jurisdiction unticked.
 click thru to the end
 confirm and exit MCOL.
.
 get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]

no need to sign anything
.
you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.
you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]
 

…………...

 

 

 

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

thanks for this

 

is it not worth adding anything to my defence in case a judge looks at it and makes a decision?

 

or anythign to scar eht other party who see my response?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not submitting a defence yet...just acknowledging service...plenty of time to finalise your defence.

  • 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 The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

B&B you must get reading up on PCN claimform threads use our enhanced google search box.

else you'll become unstuck if you don't do this properly

go get yourself upto speed once you've done AOS/CPR

 

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

Just make sure derfence is in by due date, it doesn't have to be elaborate at this stage, a 3 line defence should do post what you propose to put on MCOL  her so the team can advise if anything needs tweaking.

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

Thanks, that's all done.

 

Ill get reading other threads for the next steps and Ill get a CPR 31:14 request done.

 

Thanks for your help

 

At this stage, as i haven't had time to read up on other threads i presume AOS is all that's needed at this time

 

or is there a defence i need to make as well now (its suggesting i have 28 days to create a defence)

 

Sorry for my ignorance, ill need to read some threads.

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to rip my defence to shreds or add what you think

 

1 . The Defendant was forced to use a defective Mobile phone app to pay for the parking fee as there was no other option

 

2.The mobile App is confirmed 'defective' by firstly failing to process payment, then confirmed again by reviews of other users on the Google App store stating it does not function and users of the app receive a parking fine.

 

3. The Defendant believed to pay in full the required sum  of £1 per hour and additional sums when the app alerted to extend the stay.

 

4. The defendant extended the stay within the App and believed to pay additional fees, suggesting the initial fee was taken due to this expiry alert.

 

5.The mobile App was the only payment method accepted and shows Greyfriars in the App visitation history 

 

6.  The Claimant has added disproportionate fees to the £1 per hour rate, firstly  inflating without reason to £140 within 14 days, then £182 when this was appealed. 

 

7.The Claimant knows their app is faulty, yet continue to make it the only payment method at Greyfriars carpark

 

No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach of a Contract Frustrated from the start, due to inability to pass consideration as in fee to park due to inability of the App, the sole method of payment offered to process any payment. Therefore NO Actionable  Contract can be  deemed to exist.

 

9. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

10.If any outstanding fee is to be considered, it is for the total sum of the time spent at the carpark at a rate of £1 per hour of which the App failed to process. This could be claimed via small claims process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

I expect the guys will be along later with advice, but I suspect your defence has more detail than we advise to include at this stage. Your research could be useful as part of your witness statement later on though. :)

 

Please bear with us until you get more comments.

 

HB

  • Like 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you using the word FINE?

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

nasty habit to have, shows you don't p'haps fully understand things , the claimant will eat you for breakfast..

 

keep to our std 3 -5 line generic defence, don't give anything away regarding exactly what the actual reasons might be .

 

use our enhanced google searchbox PCN claimform

 

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

We had a case here recently where a motorist who was being sued by a PPC put in a great deal of work and educated himself/herself about the law, and filed a detailed defence demolishing the fleecers' claim point by point legally.  On the surface a fantastic piece of work ...

 

... except that gave the PPC's solicitors months & months notice of what the case would be fought on and they made up lie after lie to counter the motorists' points. 

 

As dx says it's best to file an extremely generic defence now, keep the fleecers in the dark and then when it comes to WS stage hammer them with the points you've listed - by which point it'll be too late for them to make up lies back.

  • 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

The 3 line generic is always best, the demolition of their case comes when the submit a cut 'n paster WS.

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

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...