Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @ReuTheo Thanks very much. Coincidentally, it has now been exactly over 1 year since I sent my parcel with Evri and began my enquiries with them as to where my parcel is (and eventually coming to this forum / starting this thread). I understand how you are feeling. It's why I kept this thread active and detailed, so anyone who reads it, can clearly understand what was happening at each stage of the process, so they don't feel anxious or overwhelmed with the process through MCOL, mediation, arranging for trial, working through the WS / Court bundle, and finally going in front of a judge. The work has been put in so hopefully you (and everyone else) now has a good WS template to use and build the case. I agree the legal language and specifics are not easy to understand at first glance by layman / non-legal persons. What I found useful is reading the WS and researching some of the Acts in my own time so that I could understand the legal speak. This reading / research really helped me to have a clear idea of what the rules/laws are and how they apply to my case (and likely your case also). As you know, this is a self-help forum so you certainly got to put in the time/work to understand your case/argument. It will be worth it in the end (I say this from personal experience - given this time last year, I was banging my head against a wall with Evri and couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel). Above all else, the team on this forum such as @BankFodder and @jk2054 are a tremendous help with getting the WS in the right state and giving guidance. Don't be afraid to ask questions on this forum - it's for your ultimate benefit (even if sometimes the responses seem harsh - don't take it personally. If my experience is anything to go by, it'll help give clarity and maybe even close a potential gap in your case). Good luck with your case.
    • Savers are pouring money into cash Isas as they look to protect the interest on their nest eggs from tax. They put more than £11bn into cash Isas in April.View the full article
    • The stock ended the trading day at nearly $136, up 3.5%, making it more valuable than Microsoft.View the full article
    • More from the Second Sight guys in the Law Gazette. Post Office Inquiry: Second Sight accountant accuses lawyer of conspiring to pervert course of justice | Law Gazette WWW.LAWGAZETTE.CO.UK Second Sight accountant found compelling evidence in two cases that evidence was withheld, public inquiry is told.  
  • 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
      • 161 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

ParkingEye/DCB(L) ANPR PCN no.1. 15/09/2020 - Letter of Claim now Claimform - - Hallsville Quarter, London Basement And Surface


Recommended Posts

I can see you've done this on paper.  In case your not aware the form is available online so you can just type, download as PDF and send if you rather.

Anyway, I'd normally suggest that you strike through defendants legal rep and lit friend. so the only option under your sig is your name.

Also, for DCB's copy I'd say to remove your email and phone number, keep it in the courts copy but take it out of DCB legals copy. Leave them your address for paper and NOTHING else

 

Rest is fine yep

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi JK,

Apologies for any confusion on my end. Just to clarify, do I need to send a copy of the Acknowledgment of Service (AOS) to DCBL as well?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope 

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

Let DCBL sweat  they will know soon enough its a defended case so not an easy default pushover.

  • 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

Yes you do

It gets sent automatically on the online portal tho so you don't need to manually

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry you don't..

Notice to claimant that defendant has filed an acknowledgment of service

10.4 On receipt of an acknowledgment of service, the court must notify the claimant in writing.

Back to top

PART 10 - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE - Civil Procedure Rules (justice.gov.uk)

.........

 

  • 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

On 02/04/2024 at 12:11, honeybee13 said:

 

your defence is already done further down in this sticky..

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to ParkingEye/DCB(L) ANPR PCN no.1. 15/09/2020 - Letter of Claim now Claimform - - Hallsville Quarter, London Basement And Surface

Hi and thanks. Would it be just as simple as below defence, or do I need to write up a witness statement along with this? 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of vehicle xxxx xxx.
 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant - Parking Eye LTD.
 3.  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 simply contracted by the landowner 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. 
 4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.
 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 
 6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WS exchange is not till 14 days the actual hearing .....which might never happen

that looks ok to me.

let the experts check

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

@FTMDave

Dave,

We've recently seen one or two PPC's pulled up on their POC before, without really knowing what was spotted by the Judge.

How about adding a section to draw the attention of whoever reviews the claim, to the fact that the claimant can't even decide whether they're pursuing the driver or keeper?

X. The claimant has not specified whether the defendant is the driver or the keeper. This makes any meaningful defence difficult, if not, impossible.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick - it pains me to say it, but I think their PoCs are OK.  They do say "the defendant is pursued as the driver" and then add that if that fails they use POFA to pursue as the keeper, which I think is alright.

Karalius - maybe I'm dreaming this, but I have it in my head that they send you a LoC for £160 and later another for £170.  Is that right?  It's hard to tell from your attachments as you've had to delete some for space.

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

Apologies for wasting your time 😐

I must have got your case mixed up with someone else's.

Anyway, your defence is fine.

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

Thank you. Should I wait and submit the defence the night before it's due i.e. 26th April due, and submit it on the 25th, or should I do it now? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afraid I agree with Nicky.

PE should know by now whether they are chasing the driver or the keeper.

Sheer laziness and incompetence from DCBL.

Under PoFA if the PCN has not been paid within 28 days the keeper then becomes responsible for payment providing the PCN was complaint.

They should surely know that and surely means that they do not know who was driving.

They cannot assume the driver and the keeper are the same person so are on a fishing expedition to see if the keeper will crack.

I would be complaining at the poor quality of the Claim and ask for the Judge to throw it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Karalius said:

Thank you. Should I wait and submit the defence the night before it's due i.e. 26th April due, and submit it on the 25th, or should I do it now? 

I'd leave it late to keep them guessing, but not too late.

Maybe 3 or 4 days before the deadline... MCOL has been known to have down times.

BUT... Don't forget! (It has happened before).

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ye thats fine. They should come back before the date of your defence BUT

 

IN ANY CASE YOU MUST FILE YOUR DEFENCE. DO NOT AWAIT THE PAPERWORK PAST YOUR FILING DATE.

  • Like 1

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I am about to file my defence via email as cannot log in to the claim anymore. 

Can you please advise if I can paste below and if it's good to go for now, or should I add anything else in? 

Thanks! 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of vehicle xxxx xxx.
 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant - Parking Eye LTD.
 3.  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 simply contracted by the landowner 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. 
 4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.
 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 
 6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

std default defence cant hurt

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

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...