Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you both. My defence was as vague as their Claim. 1. I am the defendant in this claim and litigant in person. All allegations made by the claimant are denied. 2. The defendant does not recognise the alleged agreement xxxxxxxxxxx as mentioned in the particulars of claim therefore it is denied that any such agreement exists. 3. The defendant has requested copies of the alleged agreement under Data Subject Access Request, Consumer Credit act 1974 s.77/8 and Civil Procedure Rules 31.4 but to date the claimant has failed to provide a copy of this document. 4.The defendant has also requested copies of the default and termination notice for the alleged account xxxxxxxxx as required to legally enforce the alleged debt, but again the claimant has failed to provide either. 5. In addition the defendant has requested copies of statements for the alleged account xxxxxxx showing the amount of monies allegedly owed to the claimant. To Date these have not been provided. 6. The defendants view is that this claim is vexatious and an abuse of process as the claimant has failed to provide any documentation to support their claim and respectfully requests that the said claim be struck out.   As an aside, I noticed that the 'statement' they did provide had a different figure on it to what they are claiming, so I will hopefully be able to flesh out quite a bit in my skeleton argument.   Spam 
    • 80% refund sounds like a very good deal* as they are entitled by law to deduct an amount from the refund to reflect the use you have had of the item over the 12 months it has been working.   So you could argue that a deduction of 20% for one year indicates that they expect it to last for at least five years, and probably longer.     * Think about it this way - would you pay 80% of the value of a brand new iPad to buy a second-hand one that somebody else has been using for over a year, or would you expect to get it cheaper than that?
    • Hi WoodDD.. Neither Case was cited in the VSC WS... however, MR D form VCS threw in VCS v Ward & Idle for the Judge to consider during the hearing. The Judge did not have time to review this. I believe he may have had a quick scan but decided it wasn't relevant at the time.. By not relevant, he didn't elaborate if it was not admissible or anything else..   Hope this helps..   Regards Tom     
    • Can I  ask what you mean by "... they recommended a firm... "?   I ask because I'm a bit surprised that Social Services are even allowed to do that.  (I may be mistaken and that this is common practice, but it seems a bit odd to me).   If they did do so and the work has turned out to be sub-standard and unsatisfactory, I would have no hesitation in making a formal complaint to the council and also to my (or your friend's) local councillor(s).  You acted on the council's recommendation and you should have a reasonable expectation that the firm recommended should be reliable and professional.  I would also insist that trading standards be asked to investigate this firm.  (Where I live our local county council trading standards department runs an approved trader database).   A complaint to the council might not directly assist you but it might help to prevent others being taken in by this firm.
    • Hello Susan, welcome to CAG.   Hopefully Paul Walton will see this message and reply to you, but it would also be a good idea to start a new thread of your own so we can advise on anything else connected with your refund.   Best, HB
  • 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
      • 33 replies

Minster Baywatch PCN - wrong reg - Folly Hall Mills Carpark, Huddersfield


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I recently received a Parking Charge Notice from Minster Baywatch for 'unauthorised' use of their carpark.

 

They're wanting £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days - from other cases I've been reading on here, this is the usual, generous 'discount' they offer. 

 

I have already appealed and got a rejection, in which I accepted that I was the driver and keeper of the vehicle. Since coming across this page, I now understand that this was a definite mistake - hence, I am asking for advice so I can approach everything correctly from now on.

 

I'll give a quick rundown of the situation, but this is also explained in the appeal I have attached. I was attending JD gym, Huddersfield, which I am a member of. Members are permitted to use the car park given that they enter their VRN on an iPad situated in the reception area. 

 

In my appeal, I explain that I entered my details into the iPad like EVERY other visit and that there must have been a technological error - of course this got rejected just as I gather is the case with every other appeal they receive. 

 

Finally, I now notice that the different between the date of infringement and date on the NTK is not within 14 days, if I have worked that out correctly. Is it possible to use this to my advantage even after having already appealed?

 

I understand that the advice now is most likely to wait and see if they send a Letter Before Claim. However I hope you can explain my chances if this happens, I am not afraid to get stuck in and defend myself if need be. 

 

Thank you in advance :)

 

1. Date of the infringement

25/10/2020

2. Date on the NTK

9/11/2020

3. Date received

12/11/2020 -  I don't have any proof of this however I know this is true as I sent the appeal email the same day that it arrived.

4. Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012?

N

5. Is there any photographic evidence of the event? 

Y

6. Have you appealed? 

Y

7. Have you had a response? 

Y

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

Folly Hall Mills Carpark, Huddersfield

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

BPA

NTK Front, NTK Back, Appeal, Appeal Reply.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Denny Smith said:

I understand that the advice now is most likely to wait and see if they send a Letter Before Claim.

:rockon:

 

nothing more you can do bar that.

its worthy to note the reg number issues are soon to be removed from the list of reasons they can issue a speculative invoice for.

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

Thank you for your reply. 

 

Could you possibly explain what you mean by the reg number issues? Or where I can look to understand this.

 

Am I correct in thinking that I can ignore any contact from MB unless it is titled something along the lines of Letter Before Claim / Action. 

 

If in the eventuality that I do receive one of these, can I continue communication on this same thread seeking advise on my defence / options?

 

I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

 

Have a great day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've underlined the mistakes yourself, don't beat yourself up too much, we've all been there, just learn to get it right in the future.  Well done on all the reading up you've done to find out how these vile companies work. 

 

Unfortunately I think the 14 days is irrelevant as you've outed yourself as the driver.

 

An immediate thought is to get on to the gym and push them to get the ticket cancelled.  Now I note the car park is used by customers of various businesses so this might not be possible, however, nothing ventured ...

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
  • FTMDave changed the title to Minster Baywatch PCN - wrong reg - Folly Hall Mills Carpark, Huddersfield

Government CoP Proposals Out Today - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

 

simply post here if if if you ever get a letter of claim.

 

but just remember:

 

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... 

 

so don't get confused..

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've changed the thread title to show location.

 

Yes, of course if you get a LBA come back here, we'll be happy to help you fight it.

 

Legally speaking, wrong registration cases are the easiest to fight.  What did Minster Baywatch lose?  Absolutely nothing.  You had every right to be there.  Judges have ruled on this many times, inputting the wrong reg (if indeed this is what you did) is "de minimis" ("the law does not deal with trivialities").  Even the BPA, crooks though they are, have told their members they shouldn't issue tickets for singled digit errors, and I see dx has just linked to the government proposals. 

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

Thanks to both of you.

 

I have one final note for now :

hypothetically let's say their VRN database shows no record of similar registrations to mine entered on that day. Would this put me in poor shape for my defence?

 

Cheers.

 

 

Edited by Denny Smith
Link to post
Share on other sites

it probably wouldn't turn out like that anyway.

there are very few mister baywatch claims at all

 

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

As dx100uk has already said there does not look like there is much chance of Minster going all the way with this although they will still huff and puff and you will get letters from unregulated debt collectors and third rate legal companies which can be safely ignored.

Obviously if they send you a Letter of Claim come back and let us know.

 

If you get other PCNs in the future from other companies do not appeal.

Most PCNs include the statement about POFA which if worded correctly allows them to pursue the keeper if they cannot find the name of the driver.

 

If they do not know the name the driver it makes it more difficult to take the motorist to Court .

So often when appealing the name of the driver is revealed which makes it easier for the crooks to go to Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they did, wrong reg no is in law a trifle, De Minimis is the legal term, if they sued on that it would be chucked out, as already mentioned in the new guidelines wrong reg no will be banned as a reason to invoice someone, with multiple use of different vehicles makes that a common occurence, even miskeying a wrong digit, also rubbish cheapo ANPR confusing letter O and  numeral 0  zero

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...