Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ah good. changes things then. but you must reply to them within 30days. we'll deal with that later.   now why are you getting this letter if the agreement you said earlier is in your brothers name? should be in his name its also not on that they did that, it was obvious you could not get the credit , so can you clarify please who's name is on the agreement too?   what is also not very nice either is they scammed you into handing the car back under i would assume voluntary surrender, whereby you owe everything, rather than telling you you could voluntary terminate only owing to the 50% mark.   can you expand upon the how the handback came about and what they did and didn't say?   all of the above if true bodes well to p'haps buffing this debt away .   dx
    • Hi dx,   The letter does not have any title but, it does have attached to it a reply pack with an income and expenditure form included.   No problem, I'll scan and upload the agreement tomorrow so you can have a browse. Just as an aside, the agreement does say on the top of the page hire agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. So I was wrong.   Thanks!
    • 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     
  • 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

PCMUK Ltd - ANPR PCN now PAPLOC- St Michaels Retail Park, Basingstoke ***Cancelled by landowner***


Recommended Posts

Many thanks. I have sent. I will let you know if I get a reply.

 

Just had an automated reply saying he's out of office until 4th Jan. Shock.

Edited by theSC0TT
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to PCMUK Ltd - ANPR PCN - St Michaels Retail Park, Basingstoke
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just had a visit to the retail park this afternoon. Further NEW signage has been added to the existing, poor signage. I'm taking this as an admission original signage wasn't fit for use?   A

Slow down!   You're in a brilliant position legally (due to all the good work you've put in, photographing the signage and contacting Nando's).  It's highly unlikely that PCMUK will take you

Just had a visit to the retail park this afternoon. Further NEW signage has been added to the existing, poor signage. I'm taking this as an admission original signage wasn't fit for use?

 

Also got warning signs still displayed by members of staff outside in the car park as well as inside Costa Coffee itself.

St. Michael's Retail Park visit - 23.12.2020.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb work.  It just gets worse & worse for PCM.

 

Keep a list of approximate dates when all these changes took place.

 

Even better, as you see to be on good terms with Nando's, would it be possible to contact them and get the exact dates?  I presume they would know giving all the hassle PCM is causing them.

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
  • 4 weeks later...

Good afternoon gents,

 

After ringing Andy's office for an 8th time, and leaving ab 8th urgent message, I've finally had a reply which is below.

 

Hi Scott

 

I hope this finds you well.

 

Thank you for your email. Firstly apologies for the delay in getting back to you, I have been off on annual leave and also picked up a spell of Covid prior to Christmas.

 

You are correct we do manage the estate on behalf of the landlord. Like you we do not want the parking enforcement in place however it is something that has been forced upon us as a planning restriction of the recent short stay car park development. We are doing our best to try and make a case to the Basingstoke local authority that the restrictions should not be in place and parking fines to be stopped. As it stands we have an obligation to enforce this and failure to do so would mean a breach of our planning restrictions which in turn could result in major fines being issued to the landlord. To be clear we see absolutely no income from parking fines and have received nothing but bad press from the situation.   

 

I am currently working with PCM to try and implement more signage, as it stands there are 6 signs stating it is short stay car park and PCM have confirmed that the quantities and locations are all approved and authorised by the IPC (international parking community).

 

I would like to offer our apologies regarding the matter and I will be including your complaint in our case to the relevant planning authorities.

 

Regards,

 

Andy Conway MRICS

 

Management Surveyor

CHP Management Limited

 

To which I have replied:

 

Morning Andy,

 
Thanks for your reply and your apologies. 
 
Where does that leave us in regards to the charge PCM are enforcing?
Currently the initial charge of £60 has escalated to £160
and has now been passed on to a debt collection agency
and are threatening court proceedings in the near future.
 
As the management company the landlord has employed,
do you have the power to call off PCM UK Ltd?
If not, could you give me the contact details of the landlord
so I can speak to them. 
 
I have pictures dated the end of December
showing further new signage erected since my last visit in October
and pictures inside Costa and Nandos of notices to the public
about the parking. Why can't PCM UK Ltd admit they were at fault?
They seem like bullies to me.
 
If court is where this is heading,
then I'll see it through until the end because I,
along with many other people that have been handed these fines,
don't believe I am in the wrong here.
 
Regards,
 
Scott 
 
Any thoughts? I have also attached the 2nd letter from Trace Debt Recovery that I got last week.
 

2nd Trace Letter.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you allowing him to believe they are fines and then you yourself do so...wake up!

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'm going to try and get a phone call with this Andy bloke. What do you suggest I say to him on the phone to not put my foot further in it and to also get my point across?

 

I should never have replied in the first place. I feel like I've just admitted guilt and screwed myself over with communicating with these crooks. Do you think it may be worth getting in touch with the council who imposed these restrictions?

Edited by theSC0TT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Slow down!

 

You're in a brilliant position legally (due to all the good work you've put in, photographing the signage and contacting Nando's).  It's highly unlikely that PCMUK will take you to court, and if they did they would be humiliated with all the proof of their pathetic signage.  You don't really have to do anything.

 

I only suggested to contact the landowner as a belt & braces approach.  This Andy bloke has been told the landowner will be in hot water legally if PCMUK sue you.  Leave it at that.

 

Relax now, but come back here if you get a Letter Before Claim.

 

Keep a record of all the changes in the signage with approximate dates.  You seem on good terms with Nando's and Costa, if you can get the exact dates from them, even better.

 

 

  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll wait them out! I've had a look into worst case scenario, as I'm that way inclined. With the £160 charge, I'm probably looking at £250ish total, including court fees. For the sake of an extra £90, I'm happy to go to court and argue my case. 

 

What makes you think PCM won't take me to court? They seem to be sticking by their guns if they've given the debt to another agency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we've seen the PPCs' antics a thousand times.  They always refuse appeals.  On every occasion they send out the same standard "threatening" letters.  In each case they then involve a third party to pretend the matter has somehow got more serious and the sum owed has increased.  It's got nothing to do with "sticking by their guns", it's what they always do, whether their case is good or if it's pants.

 

What do you think an unbiased judge would decide when you prove there was no sign at the entrance, just one in the car park at the height of the stratosphere, that the cafè owners had to stick up their own signs to protect their customers, that ages after your visit PCMUK finally installed decent signage, etc., etc? 

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
3 hours ago, theSC0TT said:

Do you think it may be worth getting in touch with the council who imposed these restrictions?

Nothing to do with any council its private land, now if the original planning permission said diff and i bet it does..and i doubt theres planning permission for the signs etc anyway

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
1 hour ago, theSC0TT said:

they've given the debt to another agency.

Debt has gone nowhere..a dca is not a BAILIFF

And have

ZERO legal powers on ANY debt..no matter what it's type

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
  • 3 weeks later...

OK, it's 'snotty letter' time. Do a search in the box at the top of this screen and type in those words. You'll see what other people have written.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to PCMUK Ltd - ANPR PCN now PAPLOC- St Michaels Retail Park, Basingstoke

top right red banner search 

snotty letter.

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

There are also numerous examples on "Letter Before Claim" threads yesterday & today.

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

I notice that you haven't reposted your PCN after the first one hadn't been redacted. Could you please repost and not redact the dates or times on it and allowing the words on the PCN to be clearly read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

I have had a phone call about 10 days ago with the land owner stating their hands are tied in accordance with the planning permission for the 30 minute maximum stay and they need to enforce the parking charge, however he was going to email the PPC to see if the charge could be cancelled.

 

I rang him back about 5 days ago, asking for an update. No answer, left a voicemail. Nothing heard.

 

Got in touch with the local newspaper and they seem very keen to publish the story. I gave the reporter the email of the PPC and the land owner and they got in contact with the land owner.

 

Almost immediately, I got an email from the land owner saying the charge could be cancelled "as a one off, would have to confirm." He also asked me if I had been in touch with the media, to which I replied "yes" as I wasn't getting anywhere going down the official avenues. I'm now waiting for him to get back to me regarding cancelling the charge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done on the phenomenal amount of work you've put in to see off these vermin.

 

Hopefully the landowner will have the sense to demand - not ask - that PCM cancel the invoice.

 

In any case you have till the end of the month to reply to Gladdys.

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

Gents, we won.

 

After hassling the land owner and passing the story on to a reporter, the land owner has informed me the parking charge has been cancelled. I have still went ahead and given to nod to publish the story in the local newspaper. The more people know about it, the less money in the pockets of these parking charge cowboys.

 

Thanks and appreciate all your help!

 

https://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/19072973.man-will-make-point-court-falling-victim-parking-charges-st-michaels-retail-park/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • FTMDave changed the title to PCMUK Ltd - ANPR PCN now PAPLOC- St Michaels Retail Park, Basingstoke ***Cancelled by landowner***

well done on you

shame you cant stop that idiot in the newspaper calling it a FINE several times.

when are these media people going to LEARN.

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

Good to see they've done a second story on you  https://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/19074577.man-stood-ground-st-michaels-retail-parking-charges-gets-debt-cancelled/

 

Hilariously I tried to register after the first story to counter the comments from the best-to-tug-your-forlock-and-give-in-merchants, but initially the site said I'd registered before and wouldn't accept me.  So I tried to log in with my favourite password and managed to.  Goodness knows what had brought me to the Basingstoke Gazette in the dim & distant past as I've no connection with the place (!!!)  Anyway, have tried to back you up on the first story and will add a comment to the second tomorrow (also setting the journalist right about "fine" dx!)

 

Well done on going to the local rag, all this will empower others who would have given in to fight back.

 

Make sure you keep all the communications from the landowner.  PPCs have been known to "lose" these in the past and try to go for for the ticket again.

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...