Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I had forgotten that the fleecers had already played a lot of their cards in the WS they made opposing your set aside application (post 12 for anyone looking in) so that means we can already tighten things up.   Obviously the paragraph numbering will now take one hell of a beating, but that can be sorted out later.   Observations in blue, changes in red.     IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD    CLAIM NO: XXXX   HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT) VS XXX (DEFENDANT)   Date: 3rd May 2022   Witness Statement   1. I Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. 1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX. 1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE  This is likely to be one of your aces so will need a lot of work once you get photos.  The fleecers have also shown a plan where they claim there are signs (their WS post 12, PDF page 15 which you need to confront).   2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (the bank statement proof exhibit 1).   3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   3.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   3.1. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it was likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   4.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   4. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.     UNFAIR TERM   4.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit XXX) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   5.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   6.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    7.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   5. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.  Is this really in the PoCs? - you need to look and find out.    The rest of your section is about the use of POFA at airports which is completely irrelevant.    Adapt LFI's suggestions re POFA and keeper liability -   First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail.   The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   PROHIBITION  This deals with no stopping cases.  Yours in not no stopping so it is completely irrelevant.   LOCUS STANDI   You have quoted a different contract in a different place with a different PPC.  You need to read and try to find holes in the contract they produced (post 12, page 15 of the PDF for anyone looking in).   Adapt LFI's suggestions -   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   8. After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   LFI's suggestion -   They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS  I've cut some bits out as the CoP hadn't been published when the fleecers went after you.  Are you sure the Unicorn Food Tax in the PoCs is £60?   9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”   9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’    9.5. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    9.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   Statement of Truth    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.   I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • Can you just remind us what is meant to be happening tomorrow
    • Thanks for your reply, we returned home to find the lock tampered with and it had been broken into. Our alarm system had gone off and we have the log of which systems within the house had been triggered showing they had been in the house. There was a letter left from a supposed bailiff addressed to a complete different property. The letter said they had been acting on behalf of SSE energy company. Our home and street are clearly signed, we have no idea how they have managed to mistake our home for the other property! SSE told us not to call the police and they would get back to us within 48 hours, no explanation or apology. We contacted the police anyway and got a crime number. Thanks 
    • Yes absolutely. The text is as follows:(identifying info removed)   Our response to your complaint     Dear xxxx I am sorry that you have had to raise concerns regarding your Credit File issues and thank you for your patience whilst I have investigated your concerns. Thank you for taking the time to talk to me today regarding these concerns. Your concerns As I understand, you raised concerns that your credit file had shown that there was an association with a previous joint account holder despite them being requested to be removed in 2016. Our findings I have received confirmation that the joint account holder, Miss BRIAN was not fully removed from the current account and her details remain associated with the account until now. This has been manually updated this week and details sent to TransUnion for their records to be updated. I would hope that they would take the information and backdate this to 2016 however, I suggested that it may be in your interests to contact TransUnion directly to ensure this is done. This letter is confirmation that this administrative error has been caused by Nationwide but if you require any further documentation to assist with your Credit File, please do not hesitate to contact me. I have sent a request for all associated financial details to be removed from your profile and this will be processed and TransUnion notified within the next 6 - 8 weeks. Our decision You advised that upon reflection, you have been affected by this over the years when applying for credit and I would like to apologise for any inconvenience or confusion caused by this. In upholding your concerns, I have arranged for £250.00 compensation to be credited to your current account ending xxxx, this will appear as a credit from sundries on your statement by close of business on Monday 14 February 2022. Your information The information you provide will be held by Nationwide. We’ll use it to process your complaint and resolve your concerns. Your rights You have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge – but you must do so within six months of the date of this letter.  I’ve included a link to their leaflet, or you can visit their website – www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk.  If you do not refer your complaint in time, the Ombudsman will not have our permission to consider your complaint and so will only be able to do so in very limited circumstances.  For example, if the Ombudsman believes that the delay was as a result of exceptional circumstances. Next steps As previously explained, this letter is to confirm you’ve accepted the proposed outcome and we now consider your complaint to be resolved.  If there’s anything you’d like to discuss further, please reply to this message by sending an email to me at MS&[email protected] or you can contact me on 00000000000. Your complaint has been logged in accordance with our internal complaints policy. Our strategic root cause team will therefore be able to access your concerns if required, to identify trends in member dissatisfaction and identify improvements to our products and processes. While we cannot guarantee your case will be reviewed, we take member concerns seriously and therefore are constantly looking to identify areas of improvement. Yours sincerely Chris Hemming Member Relations Consultant Member Service
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Evans Cycles - Not honoring agreement/contract


Long John Silver
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 427 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

Morning All 

 

I wanted to please get some help on an on going issue with Evans Cycles I will try and bullet point the points as this may get too long a point,  please note the chain of events is a summary and not all communication I just want you to get an overview.

 

* March 2020 Ordered a Specialized bike at the value £650 from Evans Cycles

* Bike arrived a few weeks later and the documents clearly stated the bike was preassembled and ready to ride

* Second time using the bike I had an accident, the bike chain jammed in the frame throwing me into the road facing oncoming traffic

  spoke to a local Specialized dealer who inspected the bike,  the dealer was very concerned and highlighted me to several issues relating to poor assembly (gross negligence)

* Raised with Evans Cycles who confirmed they may have been over site du to volumes of bikes being made and was offered an Exchange

* Late April bike was collected by Evans Cycles

* Due to lack of stock (Covid related) the bike was not in stock,  I was offered a replacement of a different bike at a higher value as form of compensation and full resolution at the time the new value was  £895

* The new bike Trak Al3 was put on order and confirmation emailed to me,  expected September 2020

* October 2020 I chased customer service and was advised that the bike was not in stock still,  at the same time I was checking Evans cycles stock levels by calling and checking there site and could see stock and buy the bike as a new 

  customer which I sent them emails as proof which they denied.

* Because I chased they cancelled my order and offered me my original value of £650 as full resolution

* I refused and advised them that I wanted the bike as agreed in writing by them as resolution of my case

* December 2020 I was called by Evans Cycles and offered a lesser bike to what was offered Trek AL2 not Trek AL3 so I refused and reminded them of the agreed compensation

* Feb 2021 full range of stock arrived at Evans but all prices revised,  my original bike Specialized now listed at £800, Trek AL3 now listed £995

* Chased Evans again only to be told that they would not honor the original agreement and could only offer a bike for the value of £795

* Spoke with Trading who asked me to approach Evans again giving 14 days notice and to inform them as the offer was in black and which that this would be seen as a Breech of contract 

* Evans response to my letter and detail above was "I you would like your £650 back we can issue a refund"  they are now ignoring calls and only send the same reply to me and do not answer questions 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please will you post up the correspondence between you.

Was any of this done on the telephone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure. I think I would like to see the message they sent you accepting that there had been a problem with their assembly and their offer to reimburse you with a more expensive bike.

I like to see the confirmation email

I like to see their denial

I like to see their offer of the cheaper bike

And I would like to see the message in which they appear to renege on their promises and offer you your original outlay by way of reimbursement.

Please can you post these up as a single file – multipage PDF

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very sorry, but you haven't included all the messages which I listed out in my earlier post.

If you don't have those messages in writing then please say. Otherwise please will you supply them – in single file multipage PDF format.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have so many messages to go through but will post as I work my way through them and edit to remove my contact details.  the idea in me posting what I have posted is to give an the case.  At this stage I wanted to see if this is anything someone could advise on but to answer you question I made sure that even if there was phone calls I follow up in email so everything agreed is in black and white. 

 

To better understand your line of  questions can I please understand your role within the forum  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations on your email technique. Many people don't do that.

However, I put up a simple list of messages which I think are basic to your case. I expect the rest aren't very relevant and I'd like to see them.

We don't want them all posted. We don't have the time.

My role within the forum is somebody is prepared to put their own time into helping you free of charge

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...