Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you do NOT need to pay it and anyway that would not remove the ccj, its there on your file paid or not for 6yrs, a paid ccj even with a cert of satisfaction is as bad as a non paid one.   the ONLY way to remove it is to set it aside.   sadly you the very worst thing you could have done with ANY debt on your credit file or not that you last used or paid or wrote about to the debt owner in the last 7 yrs....you ran away,,,moved without informing the debt owner of your correct and current address.   erudio and drydens are masters at doing backdoor ccj's. they are ofcourse totally wrong that the defaulted date is the sb date...well not when your last written/signed ack of the debt was more than 6yrs before the claimform date.   now how do you remove it....go read that thread ...carefullly then comeback here and lets see if you understand how.   dx  
    • Thanks, having to move house and discovered this. It's causing a nightmare in trying to rent somewhere and mortgage was also refused by the bank.    Shortly after requesting info I got a warrant in the post from bailifs. Managed to halt that and pause any action till I get key dates to try and get this removed.   Not wanting to avoid paying it, just need the CCJ gone.   Appreciate your help. Will read fully although I am not great with law.
    • Write the letter. It's important that you put this in writing so that you have a paper trail. Send the letter by recorded first class delivery. Explain that because of the defect in the bundle which has manifested itself within 30 days – always refer to the bundle – you are now rejecting it under the consumer rights act 2015 and that you require a refund and you want to know what their arrangements will be for providing you with this. You can also send this by email – but do it straight away. This reserves your rights and after that you have some flexibility as to how you want to act. I understand that they are uncooperative. No surprises. Don't imagine either that they will be fazed by your letter – but the important thing is that you are able to show that you are asserting your rights. After that, they are acting unlawfully We will help you make a claim against them and I suppose that will involve threatening to sue them and maybe even going on to sue them. You will find interesting and you will acquire some transferable skills which will enable you to sue anybody else who gets in your way with a degree of confidence. However, it might be a good idea to mitigate your loss and I would suggest that you accept the money that they have put on the table but make sure that they understand that you are accepting it and you are happy with it and you consider that they still owe you the outstanding £70. If you are asked to sign anything then you should decline and then we will help you claim for the whole lot. However if they don't ask you to sign for anything, then make sure that they have a letter from you at the same time saying thanks very much do for the £250. You are accepting it but this should not be taken as an indication that you are now relinquishing your claim to the rest of the money. Tell us what you want to do – with you want to take the 250 or whether you want to simply reject the lot and claim for the lot. If you want to take the 250 – which I suggest that you do – and if they will give you the money despite the fact that you are still reserve your rights in respect of the balance, then come back here when you have that money and we will help you with the rest. If they refuse to give you the money unless you agree that it is in full settlement, then that becomes very interesting because it becomes very clear evidence that they are beating their obligations under the consumer rights act – and this gives you even greater leverage over them when you decide to confront them. The advantage of mitigating your loss is that there is less to sue for and that means that your court fees will be less – although you will get these back anyway when you win. Also, because they are only fighting to hang onto £70, they are more likely to put their hands up once they know you're serious. There is absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking the money that is available on the table subject to the reservation which I've indicated above.
    • Yes she might well have sunk the VCS ship, or put it on the rocks as it rehashes old stuff introduces nothing new.
    • Hello BF   As you caught, yes both items (console with digital game download) bought from GAME as an advertised bundle (still got screengrabs of the bundle/ad).   No letter sent but I did actually quote that specific 2015 act when trying to return it in-store. I was scrolling away online looking at consumer advice on my mobile as the manager was testing the console. It fell on the deaf ears of the store manager who wasn't entertaining the return/my query at all. They just kept saying there is nothing technically wrong with the console. I'd question whether the manager even knows about the CRA2015 considering their response/the lack of engagement.   I've not done anything formally but I'll write a letter. The store said I can pick up with customer services. I've went more along the lines of escalating from store to area manager. Their website is quite specific that in-store returns can only be made in-store. I'm awaiting a call from area manager next week but after todays update that they will withhold £70 I'm expecting a similar response.   It cost £250 in total. I traded in an old playstation as part of the deal. £100 trade-in value and £150 by debit card. For clarity I'm not expecting £250 back via debit. But £100 store credit and the £150 debit refunded was my sole expectation.   Thanks very much btw!
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

UKPC 2 ANPR PCNs - present on site during the restricted no parking period 9pm-6AM - Pentewan Retail Park (St Austell)


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Two invoices received (I'll refer to these as A and B consistently).  Driver pulled off the road to make a phonecall in both cases, for around 40 minutes in each case.

 

1 Date of the infringement a) 15/6/21, b) 17/6/21

 

2 Date on the NTK a) 22/6/21, b) 22/6/21 

 

3 Date received End of July for both.  Post here very occasionally ends up at a neighbouring house due to postie mixup (very similar house names).  Other house is a second-home and not frequently occupied, so post can take any amount of time to get to me when this occurs.  I assume this was the basis of the delivery delay.

 

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

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? After a (very dark) fashion.

 

6 Have you appealed? No.  Timed out in any case by the time I'd received the initial paperwork.

 

7 Who is the parking company? UKPC

 

8. Where exactly Pentewan Retail Park, St Austell

 

Does it say which appeals body they operate under. BPA
 
Other correspondence:

Received a reminder letter dated 22/7 for both, a couple of days before I was handed the initial letters by neighbour.
Then subsequently received initial goon letters, which I was planning to ignore for now :
a) from DCBL (dated 6/8/21), of "Cant pay? We'll take it away" TV fame, they say (do i get to be on TV?)
b) from DebtRecovery+ (dated 6/8/21), from lovely photogenic Abigail ...

 

This used to be a free, unmonitored carpark, but with gates that were closed overnight. This seems to have changed subsequent to 2018  (this was home turf back then). Now managed by UKPC.  They no longer close the gates at night. They have removed the sign at the entrance stating opening hours (as visible on google SV from 2018). They instead have a big sign up stating 3 hours parking, but there is a restriction in the smallprint on a separate sign that says no parking 9pm-7am. There is limited lighting in the carpark and, as you'll note from the ANPR pics, the (light) car is invisible bar the numberplate.

 

A couple of potential complications:
1) The keeper was the driver.  I am neither (happen to own the car, but that isnt relevant to anything, I think).
2) The keeper is a good friend, with whom I used to share residence (and still do for the purposes of DVLA and all correspondence).  She is currently of no fixed address, though (travelling around on contract work for a few more months, before returning here).  She is not in a position to defend this herself.  I'll do it on her behalf if I possibly can.  
3) Infringement in Cornwall. Resident 700m away in Scotland.

 

Given the actions with signage, this seems to be run as a honeypot, especially given the travelodge with the tiny carpark opposite.  I expect it is very lucrative for them.

Suggestions as to course of action would be gratefully received, as I don't suppose this is going to simply go away ...  

 

Letters + pix.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
merge of several posts and PDF to one PDF
Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing much for you to do until / unless she gets a letter of claim, which ideally must be replied to within 30days with a snotty letter.

is she likely to ensure if one is sent she gets it in a timely manner enabling you to act upon it?

 

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

Thanks. Thought as much.  Will post back when/if these arrive. 

I'm currently opening all post addressed to her, so nothing is going to get missed short of misdelivery.

 

I assume it will not be a significant problem for me to deal with this on her behalf?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

how do they know its you doing it...:pound:no-one has to sign anything.....

 

ok now if if if it ever comes to a court claim then ofcourse she will obv be the defendant and she can't avoid that.

well, you could...dob yourself in as the driver before it gets to that stage......but thats a bit extreme IMHO.

 

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to UKPC 2 ANPR PCNs - present on site during the restricted no parking period 9pm-6AM - Pentewan Retail Park (St Austell)

having just checked through the docs, this is an interesting one.

don't think we've ever seen a speculative invoice for parking on a site during a restricted period...urmmmmmmmmmmm

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

"They no longer close the gates at night. They have removed the sign at the entrance stating opening hours (as visible on google SV from 2018). They instead have a big sign up stating 3 hours parking, but there is a restriction in the smallprint on a separate sign that says no parking 9pm-7am. There is limited lighting in the carpark and, as you'll note from the ANPR pics, the (light) car is invisible bar the numberplate. "

 

They might have problems grounding a claim, if the T & C's not consistent, and the signage illegible due to unreadable font size. and the fact that the No Overnight sign not prominent with the other at the main entrance.

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...