Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The 1st 2 calls were the normal scam calls. get a truecall box   the PDC stuff you ignore their letter States our client three whom if you wanted too you deal with directly.   Until/unless whenever it gets sold on too and they eventually send a letter of claim you maintain radio silence    
    • hi all. bit of advice please. I had a Three contract up until November last year. At £11pcm for 24mths. Paid every month on time via their online portal. When I ported over, I received a letter from Three thanking me for being a customer blah blah blah.. It also said IF I owed anything a final bill will be sent. No final bill ever received - I get a phone call around the first week in December form an Indian sounding man who was extremly difficult to understand. Said he was calling from Three, and wanted me to confirm my details - something of which I didnt as something didnt sit right. He said I could log into my account and review my bill as I owed money and then hung up. After the call I thought I'd best log into my account just in case.  Couldnt log in. Account access denied. Logged on to chat - they said as I ported over and I was no longer a customer my access was suspended. Couple of weeks later I had another call from a local area number and answered again it was some Indian guy telling me I owed money, wanting me to confirm details. I refused and he said details will be sent out to me to my email on account and my home address as it was important. Once again nothing.. 15th Dec I received an email from PastDue in my name RE Three. Email stated they were contacting me about Three an I should receive a letter soon regards to this matter. Says about visiting their website.  22nd Jan another email form Pastdue. Stating they have yet to receive a response to the letter, and they had already sent me an email about this. We will continue to contact you until this matter is resolved. Again asks me to login. 23rd Jan letter received dated 13th Jan. Titled "We are here to help keep your Three Services"  Claiming I owed "Airetime Balance £201.43" and contract period was 26/11/2019 to 25/11/2020 States "We have been appointed by Three to recover the amount of £201.43. If you pay this amount in full Three may be able to waive the cancellation fee and reconnect their service for you" - what cancellation fee / re connection??? I ended the contract giving the 30days notice and paying the last bill.. Then the normal crap about its important to pay. If I'm experiencing difficulties etc. Now both December and  January Credit reports from ClearScore, Credit Karma, Credit Expert, Totally Money and Equifax all show Three as Closed and balance as Zero. (Date Satisfied /closed 17th Nov, bal 0, last updated 30th Nov) I've had nothing from Three. As far as I'm concerned I owe nothing as no final bill and no access to the portal. Should I email PastDue and do a prove it & attach proof of Credit Reports being £0 or do I do something else?  
    • Hi she did say she was cancelling and returned the equipment. It looks like they put her on a rolling contract for 24 months when she phoned before trying to reduce her payments as they kept going up.   I know Sky haven't done that to me. She didn't see that email as she's had lots of stressful situations. No letter in post or when she originally phoned about reducing her bill well over £100 they didn't tell her about this contract.   Like you say there should be recordings. BT mobile contract is separate to broadband and the cancellation fee is for the broadband. They have blocked her mobile so she can't use it and that is a contract.   She is phoning CAB in the morning and checking through her paperwork. I'm quite happy with Sky as they tell you upfront what is happening and have never rolled over my contract.   Thanks for taking time to reply it is much appreciated. 
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Parking tickets issued on private parking space


Recommended Posts

Hi, 

I hope someone can help with my query. 

Since March (Covid-19) I have been staying with my partner at his flat. He has a private parking space in a multi storey car park which he acquired on purchasing his flat. (The car parking space came with the flat). 

He doesn't drive or own a car so I have been parking in his space. 

 

I display a parking permit but last week forgot to do so and as I haven't used the car in over a week, today I went to use it and have been issued with 2 x parking tickets. 

 

Legally where do I stand? Do I have to pay these tickets? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

please complete this:

 

 

short ans in NO,

but never ignore a Letter of Claim

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

Your partner has Supremacy of Contract.  He owns the space, he can do what the hell he wants there as can anyone he gives permission to use the space.  Don't pay these fleecers a bean.

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

Out of curiosity, is it really possible to give such definite and certain answers to the OP on the basis of the bare information she has given?

 

For instance, she says her boyfriend purchased his flat and the parking space came with it, but is she in a position to be absolutely certain* of that?  Is that sufficient information to be 100% sure that "He owns the space, he can do what the hell he wants there as can anyone he gives permission to use the space"?

 

What I'm getting at (for my education as much as anything) is that the OP may sincerely believe that her boyfriend "owns" the flat and associated parking space, but as she's not her boyfriend she may not know or fully understand his relationship with the property.  Surely it's quite possible that he does not "own" the parking space and that his use of it may be subject to various T&Cs including, eg, displaying a permit.  (NB - I'm not suggesting that what the OP says cannot be believed - rather I'm suggesting that she could easily be mistaken as to what she thinks are the facts).

 

As I say, I'm interested to understand the legal position that allows such clear-cut and definitive responses to be given without caveat or without asking for further information from the OP for clarification.  I'm sure the OP would find that explanation useful too - rather than just being told "No - don't worry about it."

 

*I seem to be vaguely aware that occupiers and owners of flats can often be under misapprehensions about their rights to use parking spaces they thought they owned.  If they can be wrong at first hand, I'm sure others can be wrong third hand

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

well even if it were not true, and there are no examples of this not being the case in the 100's of residential private parking issue threads already here, it doesn't change the fact, nor change any legalities surrounding the enforceability of, a mere speculative invoice.

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

Firstly, the site is about encouraging & empowering people to fight back and not just accept they have to give in when hassled for money by puffed-up bullies.  Something I've seen you're superb at doing - although in areas of the law that I confess I know very little about!!!

 

Then we can only go on the info we're given.  The OP states "He has a private parking space in a multi storey car park which he acquired on purchasing his flat. (The car parking space came with the flat)".  That is what the OP has stated and therefore he can do what he wants on his own property (short of murdering someone 🤣).  Obviously if that info later turned out to be incorrect then the advice would change.

 

I've never known a PPC win on these Supremacy of Contact cases.

 

Recently someone in a similar position was asking for advice and I dug up these two cases from the Parking Prankster's blog which I think are very useful 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/ukpc-lose-residential-case-will-vicim.html

 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/ukpc-lose-residential-case-tenant-can.html

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

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 so much for all the advice. 

 

My partner's parking space is rented from the management company who manage the grounds etc.

This same management company have an agreement with the parking company. 

 

Legally does this make a difference if we appeal? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't rush to appeal until the guys have thought through your case. Appealing can make things more complicated, depending on the issues involved. I'm sure people will be along soon. :)

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

we need you to complete post 2 please

then we will be better placed to assist.

 

 

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

If it is their space, they can demise the right to you most likely as you also now live there this general take reinforces the points and cases linked by FTMDave

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

 

An appeal might be counter productive at the moment.

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
On 19/11/2020 at 00:25, FTMDave said:

Firstly, the site is about encouraging & empowering people to fight back and not just accept they have to give in when hassled for money by puffed-up bullies.  Something I've seen you're superb at doing - although in areas of the law that I confess I know very little about!!!

 

 

I hope you mean I try to help people stand up to bullying - and not do the bullying!   I'll assume it's a compliment!

 

On 19/11/2020 at 00:25, FTMDave said:

...  The OP states "He has a private parking space in a multi storey car park which he acquired on purchasing his flat. (The car parking space came with the flat)".  That is what the OP has stated and therefore he can do what he wants on his own property (short of murdering someone 🤣). 

 

Well - that sort of demonstrates that you've not understood my point and (perhaps?) haven't actually read the OP?

 

My point is that it is not the boyfriend (the supposed "owner" of the car park) who is posting, but his girlfriend who believes that he "owns" his car parking space.  Yes - it usually makes sense to believe that what the OP is posting is the truth, but in this case there is every reason to believe that there is a possibility that the OP might be mistaken about her boyfriend's ownership of the parking space, because...  well, how would she know for sure whether he does or not?  He might be boasting or lying or simply mistaken.  (My understanding is that many people who "own" flats are often under the mistaken apprehension that they "own" a parking space when they don't.  All the more reason then that somebody else other than the "owner" might be even more mistaken).

 

I suppose what I'm getting at is that I was a bit surprised that both you and dx100uk were able to give such definite and certain answers to the OP without exploring her situation a bit more fully and ensuring that she fully and correctly understood her boyfriend's rights in respect of the parking space in question.  I was simply concerned that without getting more information from the OP, then the replies given to her might prove to be less than useful.  I wouldn't want her to leave thinking that there was absolutely nothing to worry about and then find out there was because she'd been misadvised because she didn't understand whether her BF "owned" the space or not.

 

Of course, it may be that my concern here makes absolutely no difference to the answer that needs to be given to the OP because it doesn't matter whether her boyfriend actually "owns" the parking space or not, which is fine.  But sometimes I think it would be helpful to the OP (and other readers like myself) if some of these legal niceties could be spelled out rather than left unexplained.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

to @unicorn69

can we please have the questionnaire completed..

 

 

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
12 hours ago, Manxman in exile said:

 it may be that my concern here makes absolutely no difference to the answer that needs to be given to the OP because it doesn't matter whether her boyfriend actually "owns" the parking space or not, which is fine.  But sometimes I think it would be helpful to the OP (and other readers like myself) if some of these legal niceties could be spelled out rather than left unexplained.

 

 

A short answer is that the Legal occupier, usually has an allocated parking space in that sort of development, and it would be available to use for any other occupant living there with the leaseholder/Tenant, assuming Tenant has no vehicle of their own, that such a right to park can be demised to a visitor even has been proved details on Prankster's blog. Of course you are correct to indicate caution which is why we ask people to check documentation and T & C's in Tenacy, & lease agreements specifically on parking.

  • Thanks 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

Even if the boyfriend doesn't have parking rights this case below illustrates that there are other reasons to avoid paying the crooks. IE  what the landowner arranges with the parking company and trespass too of course. Also not having a permit means that no contract can be formed because of the doctrine of impossibility of performance.

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/pace-given-pasting-in-manchester.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point there, so more than one way to skin the cat. Wonder if the development is gated or some other restriction on access to unauthorised vehicles?

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

Manxman in exile,

 

of course it was a compliment!  When I have time I try to look at threads on other sections of the site that I know nowt about to widen my knowledge, I often see you giving superb advice and encouraging posters to fight back - such as the great advice you gave Howler today.

 

On the PPC section we continually have people thinking they've been fined, that DCAs really can increase what they have to pay, that they will end up with huge legal costs, etc., etc., so it is a battle to show people they don't have to give in and yes, maybe sometimes we come down too much on the side of optimism.

 

Regarding the OP's partner "He might be boasting or lying or simply mistaken" I disagree with you, unless it's blatantly obvious an OP has mistaken something I think we can only proceed with the info. we're given.

 

Yes, I did read the OP's post.  Before I came across this site I knew nothing about Supremacy of Contract but have read several residential parking threads here and on the Parking Prankster's blog (indeed I've read the whole of the Parking Prankster's blog) and I haven't seen one case where the PPCs won on Supremacy of Contract, even when the resident passed this "right" to their visitor.  So yes, when things become repetitive you begin to see automatically the legal position the OP is in.  Indeed I read somewhere (can't remember where) that several of the PPCs don't want residential parking contracts because they aren't able to rip off residents any more having been tonked so many times in court.  

  • Thanks 3

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

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...