Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

Smart/CST ANPR PCN - Letter Before Claim - Gym Parking Goose Green, Altrincham - forgot to register reg no


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1273 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

I have received a letter from CST Law, instructed by DRP - the agent of Smart Parking Limited. The letter before claim is in relation to a parking charge issued in October 2019.

 

The parking charge is in relation to parking in a Smart Parking Ltd car park which was used when visiting a gym. The gym issued free parking providing a correct reg plate was inputed into a meter within the gym, which may or may have not happened at the time of this alleged charge. 

 

Both my partner and I have access to the car in question, and both used the same gym multiple times per week.

 

At the time of being issued the charge, I asked for photo evidence to clarify who the drive was at the time of the charge, none was sent. So as far as I am currently concerned, I am not liable for the charge as I have no idea who was driving at the time, and my request for evidence to establish this did not get a response.

 

Can anyone advice a proper response? There is a reply form with the letter, which I'm yet to complete. I do not see how simple ownership of a car constitutes entering into a contract, especially if I wasn't the drive or in the car at the time the charge was issued.

 

Thanks

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Smart/CST ANPR PCN - Letter Before Claim - Gym Parking - forgot to register reg no

Absolutely no issue with writing arsey letters, its a pastime of mine. Just want to make sure its solid!

 

In terms of docs I didn't actually get a NTK as they'd sent it to an old address, the appeal would have simply asked for more info re photos via the form on the smart parking site (I'm certain I saved the copy somewhere) and the only other communication was a reply saying it was over 28 days so they wouldn't send. 

 

Will scan and upload what I have shortly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all. I've attached what was my first letter from Smart, didn't get an NTK in the first place. Emailed in from this asking for more details, no admission of driver etc. Didn't get a satisfactory response so ignored everything up to the recent shoddy LBC

 

See below:

 

1 The date of infringement? 29th October 2019
 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] Only asked for more details via website as NTK wasn't received and informed Smart that multiple drivers have access to car and 2 drivers use same carpark.
 

if you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it,

suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

has there been a response? Short letter saying that as 'per the BPA code of practice appeals must be submitted before 28 days' however it wasn't an appeal, just a request for more information
 

please post it up as well, suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

If you haven't appealed yet - ,.........DONT ! seek advice on your topic first.

 

have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] NO
 

what date is on it NA
 

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? Probably, but don't know
 

[scan up BOTHSIDES to ONE PDF of the PCN and your NTK - follow the upload guide]

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?] NA
 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances] NA
 

5 Who is the parking company? Smart
 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Goose Green, Altrincham

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Smart/CST ANPR PCN - Letter Before Claim - Gym Parking Goose Green, Altrincham - forgot to register reg no

PDF attached

ntkscan.pdf

 

Done a fair bit of reading on here and seen a few people get these cancelled lately, going to draft a letter tonight, this one looks closest to my situation? Obviously removing the bit about them not knowing I wasn't the driver and changing it for something along the lines of them not providing me with any information to help me establisher the driver and settle the matter.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Claimant: Smart Parking LTD 

Vehicle Reg: *******


Dear Sirs,


I am in receipt of your letter dated the 22nd September 2020 and have noted its contents.


Unfortunately for you I cannot accept this shoddily thrown together piece of tripe to be a LBC as it fails miserably to come anywhere near a LBC as required under the revised Civil Procedure Regulations and so would expect a court to summarily dismiss any claim later made by you or your client on that basis.


So, to make sure that there is no misunderstanding, I deny that any monies are owed to your client by myself as there is precedent case law that your clients' greed has blinded them to. The same applies to the inflated amount of the claim, the POFA and contract law are very clear on this point and again plenty of examples of dismissed claims are in the public domain. Remember DJ Harvey at Lewes in May?


It would be wise if you took your obligations you signed up to when being entered onto the SRA roll and advised your clients it is not in their interests to continue with this matter as they have no cause for action and I shall seek a full costs recover order for any civil claim made under the unreasonableness criteria.


Yours Sincerely,

 

 

Will something as simple as that do?

Edited by acidliam
formating!
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...