Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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
      • 160 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

VCS/EXCEL/UKPCS - so who CAN litigate 'no stopping' PCN 's at Airports/Railway Stations/Port Authority with Existing Byelaws ?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1411 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

It would also be able to demonstrate who should have enforced the contravention, local authority I suppose. An area I have never had an interest in.

 

I would be very surprised if there was no rational for their actions, however false.

 

So in fact the sign has nothing to do with making a contract,

 

The purpose of traffic signs and road markings is to ‘adequately inform’ drivers of the stopping restrictions on the red route.

 This means that, provided drivers are not misled, the sign or road marking is valid.  

 

We regularly survey our signs and road markings to ensure they are properly maintained.  

We will always allow drivers time to check the signs but their priority must be to do this as soon as they have stopped

 

"The purpose of traffic signs and road markings is to ‘adequately inform’ drivers of the stopping restrictions on the red route.  This means that, provided drivers are not misled, the sign or road marking is valid. "

 

Pointless arguing about the creation of a contract. 

 

That Which also said this

 

There is a 10 minute grace period before a PCN can be issued 
 
The grace period only applies to vehicles stopped in a parking bay.  

If a vehicle is parked legally in a designated parking bay when it is first parked, the ten minute grace period applies from the moment it becomes parked illegally. 

 

This means for example that, if a vehicle is parked in a bay that allows between 10am and 4pm, we may issue a PCN if the vehicle is still parked at 4.10pm.

 

 Remember that not all bays allow general parking and times may vary so always check the signs

 

 

 

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

the airport authority are the only ones that can ever enforce anything.

see the parking prankster site and blog re simon Renshaw-smith and ports,airports and their byelaws

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

A little more digging through the regs and company house.

 

The enforcement company who presented this are absolutely in locus standi, at least they are employed by the relevant creditor to enforce the collection of certain traffic offence charges.

So really the OP just has the identification of driver issue.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they're not in locus standi, the area is covered by bye-laws.

 

If I see vandals smashing up lampposts, say, in my street, I can't go round handing out charges to them.  The correct procedure would be prosecution in a magistrates court and payment of a fine to the state.    

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

you must understand that the RTA doesnt apply so there is no such thing as a red zone, double yellow lines etc, merely a convention as to what is wanted or expected.

 

If you park on a DYL in a private car park what offence have you committed? none.

 

What does the signage say about parking.

the agreement is that you park elsewhere and if you park on DYL's it costs you £100

so the sigange should clearly offer you that choice.

They dont.

 

the signs say things l;ike no stopping,

they should say stop here for £100 to create a contract but them the owners of the land will tell the parking co that they dont want peole parking there at all so the likes of VCS are stuck with telling lies and trying to enforce the unenforceable.

 

Now contract is based on offer and acceptance,

there has been no offer and you werent given the oportunity to read and consider the signage so no acceptance.

 

this is why VCS will not appeal one of these decisions becasue as soon as they do and lose

they cant issue another demand without seeing the inside of a prison cell.

 

they will take a few hits and continue to lie their way to make a profit

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peterbard said:

A little more digging through the regs and company house.

 

The enforcement company who presented this are absolutely in locus standi, at least they are employed by the relevant creditor to enforce the collection of certain traffic offence charges.

So really the OP just has the identification of driver issue.

 

:pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound:

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

Well DX. 

 

I think that this, just about sees to what little was left of your credibility.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ericsbrother said:

you must understand that the RTA doesnt apply so there is no such thing as a red zone, double yellow lines etc, merely a convention as to what is wanted or expected.

 

If you park on a DYL in a private car park what offence have you committed? none.

 

What does the signage say about parking.

the agreement is that you park elsewhere and if you park on DYL's it costs you £100

so the sigange should clearly offer you that choice.

They dont.

 

the signs say things l;ike no stopping,

they should say stop here for £100 to create a contract but them the owners of the land will tell the parking co that they dont want peole parking there at all so the likes of VCS are stuck with telling lies and trying to enforce the unenforceable.

 

Now contract is based on offer and acceptance,

there has been no offer and you weren't given the opportunity to read and consider the signage so no acceptance.

 

this is why VCS will not appeal one of these decisions becasue as soon as they do and lose

they cant issue another demand without seeing the inside of a prison cell.

 

they will take a few hits and continue to lie their way to make a profitThe provision regardingten minutes leeway applies to car parks, this is not a car park. It is a zone where vehicles are not allowed to stop

 

There is no contract Eric, it is a warning sign, not an invitation to treat. There is an argument about it not being clear enough, but that is all. Also the 10 minute leeway applies to car parking, not no stopping zones. Provision to enforce is in regulations and the agency is operating under a permission to enforce given by the authority. Not some parking shyster.

 

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

No VCS take people to court in these cases to a County Court under Contract Law, read up on their LBA's and see the cases quoted, they will be stuff like Beavis.

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

Well they would under a civil offence or a contractual breach. Please show me a case and I will illustrate.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  1. who put the red lines there...
  2. who put the signs up...
  3. are the signs reliant upon the red lines.

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

Hmm yes thanks dx.

 

Here is the LEGISLATION which brings the action.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/17

 

I will find the specific regulation if you wish. It is not about a contract in the case, It is a penalty charge brought about by breach of regulation. 

 

As I say parking is not one of my interests but law is.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember one airport VCS/Excel court case where Simon won when challenged on locus standi or prohibition.  One might of course exist, judges do get things wrong.  But can't think of one.

 

I can think of quite a few cases where Simon withdrew his case once the motorist defended on these points.

 

There are many, many threads on previous pages in this section where Simon didn't even bring a court case once challenged by an EB snotty letter.  Simon scuttled back under his stone.

 

I wonder why Simon keeps dropping cases against motorists despite apparently being in a strong position.  Maybe he's just a philanthropist wanting to save mere mortals money.

 

But, er, it's almost like, er, the advice that dx & EB have been giving for years on locus & prohibition is credible & spot on, and the way to see off Simon!  

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

Peterbard, why would Simple Simon seek  CCJ in a County Court if it should be dealt with by magistrates then?

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

6 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

I can't remember one airport VCS/Excel court case where Simon won when challenged on locus standi or prohibition.  One might of course exist, judges do get things wrong.  But can't think of one.

 

I can think of quite a few cases where Simon withdrew his case once the motorist defended on these points.

 

There are many, many threads on previous pages in this section where Simon didn't even bring a court case once challenged by an EB snotty letter.  Simon scuttled back under his stone.

 

I wonder why Simon keeps dropping cases against motorists despite apparently being in a strong position.  Maybe he's just a philanthropist wanting to save mere mortals money.

 

But, er, it's almost like, er, the advice that dx & EB have been giving for years on locus & prohibition is credible & spot on, and the way to see off Simon!  

Hi and I am sorry I dont have a clue what you are talking about, my fault. As I said I have never followed parking issues, just looking at the law. Much of what is said seems to be unclear to me.

I will say that in this case the claimant has right to pursue under legal instruction?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Op is setting aside a CCJ obtained by Simple Simon, the only way he could get a CCJ for this No Stopping is by suing for  breaching a contract entered into by parking .  Parking by stopping in a prohibited zone, As explained by FTMDave and EB above its under contract Law, and Simple has No Locus due to Bylaws being in effect there.

Its a legal oxymoron, as a prohibition cannot be contractural, yet that is the only way Simple can get a CCJ and a payday, by suing for breach of a Contractural term

from post #13

"The claim is for breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land.

The defendants vehicle was identified in the fuel station in 3rd quater of 2019 in breach of advertised terms and conditions.

Namely stopping in a zone where stopping prohibited.

 

At all material times the defendant was registered keeper and or driver.

 

The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations.

 

The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct.

 

The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely the parking charge notice will be issued, and the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability."

 

Clearly CCJ obtained under Contract law, not   Legislation.

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, Peterbard said:

Hmm yes thanks dx.

 

Here is the LEGISLATION which brings the action.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/17

 

I will find the specific regulation if you wish. It is not about a contract in the case, It is a Penalty Charge brought about by breach of regulation. 

 

As I say parking is not one of my interests but law is.

 

you can't litigate on a Penalty Charge in county court.  

 

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 I am sorry but it is a breach of regulation nd nothing to do with contract law. This is what the guides say and thw legislation backs it up. 

 

There is obviously something else going on here, I will explore further.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

But who made that regulation and what options are granted by said regulation to legally enforce i t and who can do that..

 

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

That was quick.

 

So firstly the ticket which the OP posted says" for contravention", so it is not a contractual issue it is a breach of legislation. 

 

However, are not these pursued under section 75 0r the civil procedure roles, in such a case the civil court will issue a judgement which , if no one attends will be in default?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

What has been contraveened?

 

The byelaws

or

the civil parking contract?

 

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

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/note/made

 

Part 5 is concerned with the enforcement of penalty charges. 

 

Regulations 19 and 20 provide for the service of a notice to owner by an enforcement authority in respect of an unpaid penalty charge and specify the contents of a notice to owner and the time limit for service.

 

Provision is made by regulations 21, 22 and 23 for the service of charge certificates in respect of unpaid penalty charges (where a notice to owner or penalty charge notice under regulation 10 has been served and the avenues of appeal have not been pursued or have been pursued unsuccessfully),

 

for charge certificates to be enforced through a county court and for county court orders to be set aside where the respondent serves a witness statement stating one of the matters mentioned in regulation 23(2).

 

 

Anyway SORT YOURSELVES OUT

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations.

 

The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct."

 

That was from the POC posted in Post#13  It was clearly an action for Breach of  a Contract,  VCS aver the OP entered into by stopping in the garage. irrespective of any Bylaws or Regulations.

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

discussion thread created.

 

please now post 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

peter,

even under a contract signed with the land owner...a private Parking company cannot issue  penalty charge notices.

these are a speculative invoices for breaking some imaginary parking contract the driver entered into by entering onto private land.

 

only the governing authority of the byelaws can issue a penalty charge notice.

and that can only be enforced via a magistrates court with the resulted awarded penalty going to the crown

 

geddit yet..??

 

 

 

 

 

 

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...