Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Have you suffered any loss from fraud?
    • Hi   I recieved the following email a few days back I sent a complaint but had no response or acknowledgement        Dear Me Unfortunately, I am writing to you to let you know that earlier this week we discovered that DivideBuy and its customers (including you) have been the victims of a cyber incident, which involved some of your personal data being accessed. I wanted to write to you as soon as I could, to let you know what we have discovered so far, and how we are going to protect you against any consequences of this attack. Details of the Data Breach In the last few days, since becoming aware of the incident, we have been working hard, together with external specialists, to make sure that all data is secure and that an attack of this kind cannot happen again. We have also established that within the information that was accessed it may be possible to identify: Name Date of Birth Address Telephone Number Email address Associated Alias Although some credit report information was also contained within the material that was accessed, this was not stored in a readable format and so is not likely to be able to be used by the person or persons who accessed it. Please be advised that the data compromised in the incident did not contain any bank account or credit card information.   Further Steps My primary concern, and the concern of everyone at DivideBuy, is to make sure that as far as possible you are protected from any worry or other adverse consequences as a result of this incident. In conjunction with TransUnion International UK Limited (“TransUnion”), one of the UK’s leading consumer credit reference agencies, we have therefore arranged a 12 Month subscription to TrueIdentity, an online monitoring service, at no cost to you. This credit monitoring service will notify you by email of critical changes to your TransUnion Credit Report.  Should you receive an email alert, you can review and validate the reported change by logging into the TrueIdentity portal. This allows you to identify any potentially fraudulent activity on your TransUnion Credit Report.   How to access TrueIdentity To take advantage of this service and help protect your identity, please visit:  https://trueidentityassist.creditview.co.uk And enter the following Secure Access code below before 30th March 2021: DVB1346 Upon successful completion of the registration process, you will have access to the following features: Unlimited online access to the TransUnion Credit report. Unlimited online access to the TransUnion Credit Score, with score factors analysis. TransUnion credit monitoring alerts with email notifications to key changes on a consumer’s credit file. Unlimited access to online educational resources concerning credit management, fraud victim assistance and identity theft prevention.   What should I do if I believe I am a Victim of Fraud? If you believe you are a victim of fraud, check your credit report and dispute activity via your TransUnion Credit Report that you do not recognise. TransUnion will then contact the Lender who has provided the data to make them aware that the data is possibly fraudulent. The Lender will then perform a fraud investigation and remove any data if they find evidence that fraud has occurred. You may wish to add password to your credit file as an extra level of security, so any lenders performing a credit search will need to request the password from you so they can proceed with the application. You can do this by adding a Notice of Correction (NOC), for free, to your credit file. You can do that by emailing [email protected] with the wording you would like to apply and include your full name, address, and date of birth.  Please bear in mind that Notice of Correction data is not shared across the credit reference agencies. You can also request a Notice of Correction to be raised with the other credit agencies too, please see their contact information below:    Experian Ltd: https://www.experian.co.uk/consumer/guides/notice-of-correction.html Equifax: https://help.equifax.co.uk/EquifaxOnlineHelp/s/article/What-is-a-Notice-of-Correction1   You may also wish to contact Cifas, the UK’s fraud prevention service. They will be able to apply a Protective Registration warning on your credit file, for an administration fee.  To inform Lenders that you think your data could be at further risk of fraudulent access, so they can make additional checks to protect you moving forward.   The Protective Registration flag can be applied to your file with immediate effect by telephoning 0330 100 0180 (and must then be confirmed in writing).  You can also apply online at www.cifas.org.uk/pr_for_individuals. I, together with all of my colleagues at DivideBuy, truly regret any inconvenience this may have caused you, but we are working hard to put this right and to make sure that it cannot happen again.     Rob Flowers Chief Executive Officer   You are receiving this important information email because some of your data was on our database at the time of the data breach. You have NOT been added to our marketing lists or any other email list. We are sending this email to a list of people to provide important and urgent information updates about the data breach ONLY. You will not receive any marketing emails from DivideBuy unless you have signed up to receive marketing emails from us. If you wish to contact us regarding the matter you can contact us by post or email [email protected] www.dividebuy.co.uk Copyright © 2021 DivideBuy, All rights reserved. DivideBuy, Brunswick Court, Brunswick Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 1HH, UK     I went on the dividebuy live chat and was told that dividebuy are not giving compensation for this breech, what can I do as this is causing me all sorts if worry now that my identity is going to be used in fraud, they have offered the 12 month transunion thing but I can't help but think this won't pick everything up on the dark web. I suffer from bipolar and I am really struggling to deal with it.   Is it worth me starting a County Court claim for damages or would I be wasting my time. Or would it be too early to start that and need to go through a certain route?   Tia
    • It was £229 DIGIHOME 32INCH HD READY SMART TV   Dx100 so ill have to wait for them to get back to me and then take it to a repair shop to diagnose the fault? Do you think there's any chance they might just replace it? It was only £229 which is not a lot to them but not an amount i can afford to just replace unfortunately.  
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 27 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

CEL ANPR PCN - Morrisons, Butterfly Walk Car Park Denmark Hill Camberwell, London SE5 8RW - paid-did not enter Reg No - POPLA rejected appeal


Recommended Posts

Where have you got the idea any debt can have bailiff s involved before you've lost in court????lll

 

you paid, just because their stupid system shows an extra mystery payment and your reg not having paid, is not your problem!!

 

there are numerous wrong or missing reg number threads here already

none have ever gone to court and even if yours did they would have to disclose their data that will prove them wrong or they lose anyway.

 

 

  • Like 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
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Where have you got the idea any debt can have bailiff s involved before you've lost in court????lll   you paid, just because their stupid system shows an extra mystery payment and your reg n

Perfect, so basically make a lovely file of future origami fodder until or if a Letter Before Claim arrives.   At which point it's time to get my legal ducks in a row.

And this is exactly why you never appeal, they have pointed out that they are now pursuing you as the driver, not the keeper.   Assessor supporting rational for decision The appellant

Posted Images

dx is spot on.

 

Try to think things through tactically & legally.

 

If bailiffs could be involved just 'cos someone reckoned someone owed them money, then a person who'd you'd had a row with would send the bailiffs to you, you'd send the bailiffs round to them, you'd be sending the bailiffs to Morrisons and CEL right now, etc.

 

Bailiffs exist to enforce court decisions.  For the bailiffs to turn up CEL would have to

   - send you a formal Letter Before Claim

   - issue court proceedings

   - win a court case against you

and then you would have to refuse to obey the court decision to pay.  Even then the amount involved would have to be over a certain sum.  You're nowhere near step one yet!

 

The legal position is clear.  You paid.  CEL suffered no loss.  You're in the right.  If CEL were so stupid as to take you to court you'd hammer them.

 

About Morrisons and the car park.  Is this just a normal supermarket car park or is there something I'm missing about who it belongs to?

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

There is no way you are royally stuffed.

There is no chance you would lose in Court if they were stupid enough to go there. 

 

As far as I can see ABC parking do not belong to either the BPA or IPC and none of their signs there carry either's logo.

As CEL are acting as enforcement, they are in breach of BPA CoP since it states quite clearly that members cannot apply to the DVLA for motorist data from non members. And by doing so additionally it follows that CEL have obtained your data unlawfully-a GDPR breach.

 

Also you paid.

Not inserting your reg. no is a secondary consideration , so as per parking Eye v Beavis charging you £100 is a penalty and so unenforceable.

 

I know I have that in an earlier post, but it is the case and no Court would find in favour CEL and that don't even have a contract with the land owner.

 

You do not owe a penny so pay them nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much lookinforinfo, good to hear a bit of good news.

 

My only question is how to proceed now.

I've chased up the DVLA so will see what comes from that.

 

In the meantime, should I follow back up with CEL, firstly requesting their CCTV footage of that day under my GDPR rights. Then stating that their entry way signage did not include their terms and conditions, thus nullifying any 'contract' I would have entered with them. Lastly sending them the image of the parking meter with excluded any of their terms and conditions at point of purchase.

 

We can then see where we end up, saving the GDPR breach, lack of planning permission for their signage and cameras and penalty being unenforceable for if they attempt to escalate the charge.

 

Again you've all been a big help and I really appreciate your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no yours is NOT the next move with regard toward CEL.

 

no you most certainly DO NOT enter into ANY pointless letter tennis with them or ANY of their wolves until or unless you receive a letter of claim...as detailed in post 19.

 

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

The next step is to sit on your backside!  The chancers are sending you threats for money you don't owe.  Sit back, relax, and ignore the paper tigers.

 

But don't ignore a Letter Before 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

Soon as they send a Letter of Claim, come back and update thge thread with what the muppets are asking for.

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
For reference, this is what the appeal through POPLA came back with:
 
Decision
Unsuccessful
 
Assessor Name
xxx
 
Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failing to make payment.

 
Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that he did purchase a parking ticket on the day of the breach.

 

He states the payment machine did not request a vehicle registration (VRM) so he did not enter one but did pay and redeem it inside the store.

 

He states that the operator will be able to see that a ticket was purchased at the time he was on site, without a VRM attached.

 

The appellant adds that CCTV will demonstrate he purchased parking time and his bank statement demonstrates he purchased goods inside the store. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

 
Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver.

 

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period.

 

The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract.

 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “PHONE AND PAY OR PAY AT MACHINE. 1 HOUR £2.00…If you do not obtain a valid permit you must pay within 10 minutes of arrival and provide your full, exact registration number when making your payment…If you breach any of these terms you will be charged £100”.

 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 12:20, and exiting at 12:49, totalling a stay of 28 minutes.

 

The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant did not pay to park.

 

The appellant explains that he did purchase a parking ticket on the day of the breach.

 

He states the payment machine did not request a vehicle registration (VRM) so he did not enter one but did pay and redeem it inside the store.

 

He states that the operator will be able to see that a ticket was purchased at the time he was on site, without a VRM attached.

 

The appellant adds that CCTV will demonstrate he purchased parking time and his bank statement demonstrates he purchased goods inside the store.

 

I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and do believe that the appellant purchased parking time, but it is evident that he did not enter his VRM.

 

I appreciate that the payment machine may not have requested this, but it is clear from the signage that it is a requirement when paying to park.

 

It is clear the appellant was aware that payment was needed to park but failed to read the terms of parking in error.

 

I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of signage on site which make the terms of parking clear.

 

I appreciate the appellant states the signage in the centre of the car park did not stipulate this, but he has provided no evidence to show what the signage in the centre of the car park stated.

 

The operator has provided images of signage throughout the site, all of which make the terms of parking clear, and the full and correct VRM must be entered when making payment.

 

The operator has provided a list to demonstrate other motorists followed the terms and entered their vehicle registration via the terminal.

 

Although I do take the appellants point on board and the operator may be able to locate a vehicle with no VRM entered at the time of the breach, but it is not their responsibility to do so, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms of parking.

 

I fully accept that CCTV may show the appellant paying to park, but it is the responsibility of the motorist to request this from Morrisons and provide this to POPLA as part of his appeal.

 

We cannot obtain evidence on behalf of the operator or the appellant.

 

I note that the appellant has provided a copy of his bank statement which demonstrates he was a legitimate user of the site, but this does not demonstrate that parking time was purchased unfortunately.

 

Whilst I fully sympathise with the appellant I must advise that POPA’s remit is to assess the validity of the PCN, as the appellant has provided no evidence that parking time was purchased and the operator has provided clear evidence that it is a requirement to enter the VRM when purchasing parking time, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued accordingly.

 

I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of the appellants vehicle entering and exiting the site.

 

It has provided images of the signage on site which are clear, legible and evenly spread, this sets out the terms of parking and the PCN amount if the terms are not met.

 

I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract.

 

POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions.

 

Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.

 

Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions by failing to make payment.

 

As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

 

Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Popla often get it wrong and misinterpret the law in favour of a PPC.  Non entry of VRM is de minimis, so a trifle, paid so no ground for 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

 

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

You have to understand that these tribunals are unlike Courts and heavily biased in favour of the Parking company. For instance it may well have been a fault of the ticket machine that the VRM waas not requested-

which a Court would consider.

 

By appealing too early before you had your ducks in a row, not only did you give away the fact that you were the driver but that you didn't check that there was a contract between you and them.

The tribunal assumed there was.

The lack of planning permission means that there was no contract -so no money owed.

 

So relax and carry on with your life.

The ball is now in their court and it is they who has to decide, given all the things they know about the likelihood of winning or losing in a proper court.

 

Given the fact that your appeal wasn't strong may give them hope that they will win.

If they do, your WS should convince them that they are backing a lost cause. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is exactly why you never appeal, they have pointed out that they are now pursuing you as the driver, not the keeper.

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver.

 

So your protection under POPLA as the keeper is now removed.

 

It matters not, they still won't win in court as you paid and have evideced that - they have sufferred no loss, what would they claim for?

 

Be prepared for lots and lots (and lots) of threatograms in scary red ink adding unicorn food tax to your ever growing imaginary debt - all meaningless drivel

 

Do nothing unless you get a Letter Before Claim from the PPC not a DCA.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this just a normal supermarket car park?  If so, I'm thinking of a belt & braces approach of ignoring the paper tigers but at the same time getting on to Morrisons head office.

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

Also, revisited the carpark today and it appears they have fixed the machine. So you can no longer purchase a ticket without entering a reg number. Very infuriating. But we shall see what comes next.

 

Cheers all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Update with the notice from the DVLA,

 

The signage in the Car Park states that all claims will be followed up by CEL,

 

am I right in thinking that it's against DVLA rules because CEL are not the Carpark Owner and it's illegal to apply for records for a non member. IE CEL were allowed to get my data, but not to chase it on behalf of the car park?

 

I guess this is the tricky bit, I am up against CEL, and they were wrong to obtain my information as they are not the owner of the carpark?

 

Thanks all!

 

David

CEL_DVLA.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

did you get onto morrisons?

 

holding the stick the wrong way..if cel are contracted to manage the carpark under kodi they are allowed to request your details 

 

 

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

Morrisons want nothing to do with it, literally washing their hands of the entire thing.

 

The only thing I have in defence of my claim, is my bank statement showing an £8 transaction in that Morrisons with no further details.

 

Morrisons now have no record of their CCTV or the transaction, as it was too late when I requested it.

 

All the CCTV in the Car Park is owned by the car park. So when claiming in previous appeals the CCTV would show I paid, they know that I don't have that footage, I could request the footage, but will involve getting backing in touch with CEL.

 

Getting a bit antsy as of what to do next.

Would rather this whole thing would go away, but it from other forums it does sound like CEL are cantankerous.

And it would go to a game of who would show up in court.

I'm just not sure a bank statement is enough?

 

All the best,

 

DM

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you've received a letter of claim from CEL?

 

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, but I guess I am pre-empting. If I do receive a 'letter of claim', this is the information I have on my side.

 

If I do receive a Letter of Claim, will I be liable for the Unicorn Tax, as a previous poster so wonderfully put it. Or will I only be held for the £100 fine?

 

I'm just getting the fear I guess, while I know that I am in the right, I'm just getting worried they will hit me with a whopping bill for making them escalate it to court, then that I don't have enough on my side in defence. I realise this may be the result of watching far too many crime dramas. Again, thanks everyone for their patience and help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

where does anything say it's a fine please?

 

CEL very rarely win any claims

 

just use our search top right

type in CEL and read.

 

stop fretting. until/unless you get a letter of claim.

as has been said numerous times

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

I was going to write to say to give Morrison's both barrels, but upthread you say that Morrison's state it is a private car park.  Well, is it or isn't it?  Is it a private car park or specifically for Morrison's?

 

Also, have a reread of the posts by lookinforinfo & brassnecked.  They have stated reason after reason why you're legally in the right and if CEL were stupid enough to do court they'd get a right kicking.  

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

If CEL take you to Court they are bound to lose as they have no contract with you.

ABC has the contract with the landowner.

 

So if they do try it on, when you send them the CPR31.14 asking for the documents that they will need to win the case, they will not have any paperwork from the landowner giving them permission to do anything in that car park. 

 

Just relax and get on with your life and forget about CEL.

However if you do get a letter before Claim let us know straight away so we can send them on their way with a snotty letter.

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...