Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi.   What reason/s have they given you for declining please?   HB
    • get the FOS done and see. i have a feeling you might not need to do the latter.    
    • Noted, thanks re-draft it is then 🙄    If it does go to FOS and its upheld can I also go for the throat and apply to set aside the suspended judgement (consent order) based  CCA  sections 86E not providing default sum notices 86(5) not entitled to enforce agreement  87(1) and 88(2) leading to unlawful repudiation of the credit agreement. Just an idea. 
    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Parking Eye PCN | Margate Lido car park


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

Just read a few other posts relating to Parking Lie and this very same sh*t heap of a car park.

 

I'm not the registered keeper of the car I was driving; it was loaned to me for a weekend and the car company have forwarded me a PCN from this time.

 

I was completely gobsmacked on receipt as neither I or the passenger didn't see any signage. In fact, the only thing we remarked on was all the pot-holes and the smashed up car in the middle of the car park.

 

I was in the car park for a total of 15 minutes. I had no intention of staying and parking; I'm not local to the area and entered simply to take a few photos of the view (so stayed with the vehicle at all times). I in fact hadn't made an attempt to park in the allocated bays whatsoever.

 

The PCN is Parking Eye's usual £100 reduced to £60 if paid in 14 days.

 

If I was the registered keeper of the vehicle I'd probably ignore the PCN but feel I need to be professional and 'appeal' it via the loan company. One good thing is that this gives me a cloak of anonymity for now, at least.

 

Before I proceed, I'd really appreciate your expert help in the best approach to take?

 

Many thanks in advance for your help.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAg  It would be helpful if you could follow the sticky I have posted and answer the questions, then tyhe Team can advise best way to progress on this.

 

It looks like you have been outed as the driver but all is not lost

 

 

  • 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

 

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

In addition to the above, you should probably realise that the company which lent you the vehicle probably prefer to have an easy life and that means that they are likely to settle the bill regardless of what you say – and then either come after you or else simply remember it if you ever need anything from them again.

In addition to the questions above, what with the circumstances of the loan?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]

 

1 Date of the infringement

26/07/2020
 

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

30/07/2020

 

3 Date received

04/08/2020 - forwarded by email from the car company. To clarify, this wasn't a regular paid-for car hire; rather, it was a FOC "press" loan in exchange for content creation. Well, it ~was~ FOC until I received this PCN. The car company are expecting me to 'settle' the PCN as per the letter of intent I agreed to (but didn't sign, lol — BUT I wish to remain on good terms with them) so they haven't entered into any communication with Parking Eye.
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]

Yes
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

Yes — of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park. But no footage of the fact I didn't actually park or remain stationary in any one spot for more than 5 mins.

 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]

No, not yet.
 

7 Who is the parking company?

Parking Eye
 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

LIDO CAR PARK 1, MARGATE CT9 1RX

 

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

It has a BPA logo on the letter.

 

 

 

Edited by FTMDave
Personal details showing
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DidntEvenPark said:

The car company are expecting me to 'settle' the PCN as per the letter of intent I agreed to (but didn't sign, lol — BUT I wish to remain on good terms with them) so they haven't entered into any communication with Parking Eye.
 

 

 

I don't think there's any lol with this. The fact that you didn't sign the letter doesn't really make a lot of difference if you were aware of it. On these kinds of agreements/contracts, you don't need signatures or even writing to form binding obligations.

Apart from that, I'm afraid I think you are on a hiding to nothing. If Parkng Eye want to proceed then they will proceed against the company – and frankly if they realise that it was a loan vehicle being lent by a company then I would imagine that this will encourage them to bring the action because they will know full well that the company will pay up just to get rid of the problem – and in effect, your loan company will do Parking Eye's dirty work for them by paying them out directly and then making a decision as to how to deal with you.
It's individuals which give parking Eye and other bounty hunting parking management companies problems. Company-owned vehicles simply pay up because it's much cheaper to do that. They then set the money off against tax and get on with their lives. If the vehicle has been lent to an employee then they recover the cost of the PCN directly from wages.

The best you can do is to settle with the company as quickly as possible so that it doesn't get any more expensive

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BankFodder said:

The best you can do is to settle with the company as quickly as possible so that it doesn't get any more expensive

Oh really? I guess Parking Eye get the last 'lol' in this case. I'm absolutely gutted — because the only reason I went in there in the first place was to take the photos of the vehicle (against the backdrop of the Lido) to share on social media, which formed the basis of my loan agreement! 🙈

 

But thank you for your time, and your honesty. And I'm glad I checked, as although I knew this was a little trickier than the average case, I certainly would have appealed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well keep checking this thread for other contributions – because you might get some less pessimistic/more constructive advice from someone else. I'll certainly be interested to see

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You left your registration number on the second page, so I've had to delete the attachment.  Can you please hide that bit and put the attachment back up? 

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

get the loan company to read their T&C's propropely

they say nothing about speculative invoice from private parking bandits.

 

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
1 hour ago, FTMDave said:

You left your registration number on the second page, so I've had to delete the attachment.  Can you please hide that bit and put the attachment back up? 

 

Oh good spot! Re-uploading here...

REVISED PCN.pdf

 

57 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

get the loan company to read their T&C's propropely

they say nothing about speculative invoice from private parking bandits.

 

dx

 

 

 

This isn't a regular rental though... 😬 I was contacted to borrow a car from the "press fleet" in return for social media coverage. And in the letter of intent which I agreed to, it states that all PCNs or charges (including toll roads) are my responsibility.

 

I'm just so gutted as obviously I would have paid if my intention was to actually park — and had no idea they were capturing arrival and entry on camera. I was literally only there for 15 minutes and with the vehicle the whole time! 😫

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a minimum 10mins grace (no stated max) for all private parking tickets

 

it was a loan car so stuff and all PE can do them really.

have the 'press fleet' owners anyway to get money out of you? like are they your employer?

 

there have been no successful court cases by PE against firms as they usually just cough up blindly thinking its a fine when it is not.

and is not covered by any clause in employment contracts.

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, they are not my employer, however I would like to be professional and wouldn't want to get a 'bad rep' with PRs (as I would like similar opportunities coming my way again).

 

It's so frustrating because if I were the registered keeper I would 100% not pay. 😤

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in that case there's an easy enough solution, at least to do with this company.  Simply get them to reply to PE naming you as the driver.  They are even invited to do so on the PCN.  That way they are out of the loop and never hear from PE again.

 

Of course then PE will come after you and we'll be happy to help you fight off their claim.

 

 

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

Yes if they have the driver's details and they are confirmed, PE cannot go after the keeper, they are out of the loop.  there are several ways to tackle them, and they will fall over by misapplying Beavis for sure.  It's not the magic bullet that wins all cases for them.

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

OK so you're saying I should get the car brand to advise PE that I was the driver and then I can deal with PE directly?

 

This might be a daft question but will getting involved in all this affect my credit rating in any way? I'm currently applying for a mortgage!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way it can affect credit rating is if they take you to court, and you don't defend and they get a a default judgment that you neglect to pay within 28 days, or you lose in court and don't pay the judgment in that time.

  • 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

 

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

Ah, OK. Thank you for clarifying!

 

I'm going to sleep on this one more night (I just wish the car brand wasn't involved initially cos it just makes it a bit meh for me, professionally speaking) and then make a decision on which option to take.

 

You've all been so helpful so far; thank you! 🙏🏻

Link to post
Share on other sites

just type no need to hit quote.

 

send them your deetails re PCN number xxxx

then ignore them until/unless you get a letter of claim.

 

and get reading up here

as there are 100's of PE PCN threads

so you can inform the stupid fleet owners they are breaking contract law by even engaging with PE as they were not the driver and it is NOT A 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

Yes, fill out the bit forwarded to yu by the car hire co adn take them on if you wish.

you will need to be returning to Margate to get piccies of the place but in the meanwhile read up on private parking and also ahve a look at thaney councils planning portal and see if PE have permission to put their signs and cameras up in the first place

Link to post
Share on other sites

If no Planning Permission, signs etc are illegal and no contract can exist, as it would be founded in a criminal action, signs without correct permissions to be erected.  PE have been caught out by this many times.  they are owned by Capita, same bunch that run TV Licensing for BBC

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...