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

OPS 2*PCN Claimform - Chichester College, West Sussex ***Claim Discontinued***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1027 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

CPR should dig up the PCNs.  If the fleecers' solicitor can't be bothered to reply, then a SAR can be a Plan B.

 

Make your defence as short and generic as possible.  We have a case at the moment where the motorist put in an extremely-detailed defence - and gave the PPC's solicitors the chance to counter every point.  Keep them guessing!

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Have a look at post 64 of BStealth's thread.  That's the type of generic defence to file.

 

The rubbish from DCB Legal is just standard.  They don't have to reply to your request, but when it comes to it the judge will want to see the documents.

 

As you haven't got the original paperwork you might as well send OPS a SAR.  It's free, it'll annoy them and it'll force them to do some work.  Always better to have too much info,. than too little. 

 

 

  • 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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

Things seem to have moved on massively since April.  Of course we will answer your questions.

 

But first - have you filed your Witness Statement too?

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

dx has explained why you - or the court - have messed up so I won't repeat.  The important thing is to get a WS prepared today, and e-mail it this evening to the court and to the fleecers.  Even if the fault if yours you are a Litigant in Person and the court will allow you some leeway.

 

Have a look at the attachment in post 91 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/431422-vcselms-spy-car-2pcn-paploc-now-claimform-for-1-of-them-no-stopping-bp-station-east-midlands-airport/page/4/#comments

 

This case is very different from yours but you can lift the part from paragraph 18 to the end nigh-on verbatim as it deals with the Unicorn Food Tax that the fleecers always add to their court claims.  Just make sure you get the amount of the Unicorn Food Tax right: I think it is £80 in your case, right?

 

While reading post 39 you're right, most of it is cut & paste bilge.  However -

 

(23 i)  They say they have complied with POFA.  Did they send the PCN out within the POFA timeframe?

(23 v)  They admit you had a permit (good 😃)  Did it really have a 3-hour limit?  

(25)  The idiots admit the charge should be a maximum of £100 ... then spend the rest of the time justifying the Unicorn Food Tax!  Before using verbatim the part from the link above insert a paragraph referring to their point 25 that they admit the maximum amount should be £100.

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

So the mess-up is the court's fault, not yours.  When you e-mail your WS this evening point out that although the judge made their ruling on 4 June, the N157 was dated 21 June, the envelope was franked 22 June and you received it 23 June, making it impossible for you to respect the 14-day deadline for submitting your WS.  This means you'll be fine.

  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you e-mail your WS do it very late tonight or tomorrow morning as a Cagger called lookinforinfo generally pops in late in the evening and is extremely knowledgable about WSs and how to rubbish the fleecers' claims.

 

Some first thoughts.

 

(19)  (20)  (23 i)  They make great play that they followed POFA.  At the start of their contract with the college they state they will follow POFA.  As this was a windscreen ticket, the PCNs should have arrived 29-56 days after the incidents.  Unfortunately they seem to have respected this for once.

 

(29)  As well as the points upthread, ridicule this and point out that OPS are serial litigants who sue hundreds of people a year and are indeed experienced with cases at appeal level (quote case F0HM9E9Zb at Lewes county court which they famously appealed).

 

Their own photos show a tiny number of signs in font an electron microscope would have problems reading, so attack them on this.

  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news!

 

Well done on your victory!  👏

 

In the end OPS wet themselves.  They must be gnashing their teeth at having to give in over two invoices.

 

All you have to do is remember to ring the court in a couple of days to make sure they really have discontinued.  It's unlikely they're lying, but you never know ...

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...