Jump to content


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


Recommended Posts

but on here 

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
  • 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

don't worry about what you posted in your defence, it won't form any major part of any later WS.

 

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
Posted (edited)

1.   Two parking tickets were purchased using the only method of payment - a mobile parking app. One for initial payment, then an extension using said app.

 

2.The alleged "breach" of terms and conditions or contract have been aggravated by the App failing to take payment despite confirming the defendant was fully paid, twice. 

 

3.Following the BPA Code of Practice, a 'You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.' This may lead to the member (Claimant)  be suspended or expelled immediately from the BPA, investigated and disciplinary process commenced . The Claimant is in breach of this code as the defendant could not fail to be in breach of T&C's whilst being mislead into believing the parking was paid in full

 

4. Section 34.6 of the BPA COP Suggests inflation of the debt should not exceed £100.  The Claimant inflated this to £140.  Further breach of membership.

 

 

5. Claimant was informed of this App failures during the defendants Appeal, with evidence of other users of the app experiencing the same issues - This appeal was denied. They have failed to make any changes to the system nor show proof of further testing at the time of appeal to act cooperatively as per BPAS terms.

 

 

 

Edited by BreadAndButter
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/01/2021 at 09:04, brassnecked said:

"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."

 

 

 

add the above into our std 3 -5 line defences found here

Programmable Search Engine (google.com)

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

1.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract.

 

2.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

3.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability.

 

4.  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

 

5.  The Defendant has added additional amounts to the claim to try to circumvent limits on legal costs in an abuse of court procedure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just hang fire on the abuse of legal procedure line until rest of team look it over otherwise OK, as if they make payment impossible or too awkward it kills their case on frustration, of contract alone.

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

yes i'd drop 5 too.

 

 

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
Posted (edited)

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 entered into a contract with the Claimant

 

5.  The Defendant has added additional amounts to the claim to try to circumvent limits on legal costs in an abuse of court procedure. Should be Claimant

Edited by Gick
clarity
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spotted Gick, shows the value of posting up to chek context and content.

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

Yes, I wonder who it was who made such a basic mistake in (5).

 

😬

 

That's the result of me posting on the forum at three in the morning ...

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 then, as a final draft!

 

1.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant , or broke any such contract.

 

2.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

3.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability.

 

4.  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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks OK

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...