Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That is great news. Many people would have given up and paid after losing two appeals so well done for hanging in and fighting. It has paid off and they have finally backed down before getting whipped in Court. I looked at your NTD and your NTK again to see if there was a chance of going for a breach of your GDPR. Sadly although your NTK on its own could have well deserved a claim, the NTD is good enough not to warrant a claim even though it wasn;t compliant with PoFA. As it is the first Notice that mostly accounts for  GDPR breaches there is a reasonable cause for the NTD to have been issued. However you are now freed from worries about appearing in Court and you have learnt about the dangers of parking especially where the rogues that patrol private parking spaces are concerned. Thank you for making a donation and should you fall victim in the future to the parking rogues or anything else that we protect from, you are always welcome .
    • Hi guys I'm about to submit the defence as per below     There has been no reply to our CPR 31:14 request.  Is it worth adding that I (driver, not registered keeper) didn't actually enter or park in the car park and was sat at the petrol station forecourt the entire time?  Or is that covered by the simple points?   Thanks
    • a DCA is not a bailiff and cant enforce anything, even if they've been to court who are they please? sar to the original creditor FIO isnt applicable they are not a public body. who was this query sent too all the more reason to teach her young upon how these powerless DCA's monsters  work... she must stop payments now  
    • Unsettling the applecart?,  I'm going to be direct here, I know how this works , I've been in far worse situation than your relative, and I can assure you , now that there i likely a default in her name, it makes absolutely ZERO difference if she pays or not. Denzel Washington in the Equalizer , 'My only regret is that I can't kill you twice'... It's the same with a default, they can only do it once and it stays on your credit file for 6 years if she pays or not, and as it stands right now she's flushing £180 of her hard earned money down the toilet  so that the chaps at Lowell can afford a Christmas party. As for the SAR this is everybody's legal right, originally under the Data Protection act 1998 and now under GDPR, it's her right to find out everything that the original Creditor has on her file, and by not doing it the only person she is doing a massive disservice to is her self. As the father of 2 young adults myself, they need to learn at some point.. right?
    • Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

NCP/BW PCN PAPLOC now claimform - New Gatwick Drop Off Zone - I thought I had paid for both visits? ***Claim Dismissed***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 194 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

Understood.  Excellent work.

You'll probably need to do a tiny bit of last-minute tweaking depending on what the fleecers write in their WS.

  • 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

And, if these expert friends ever have a bit of spare time on their hands, send them to over to CAG.😊

  • 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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please see the Notice of Trial Date doc that I was sent by the County Court.

Will I be notified of when the fleecers have submitted their WS? The MCOL website seems to have stop updating since they assigned the matter on to the County Court.

If not, where do I find this. I obviously have all their cut & pasted letters outlining their case against me after my response to their LoC, but I don't think that constitutes their defence WS, does it?

NoticeofTrialDate.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

mcol closes upon allocaTION out to your locAL county court

THE PPC HAVE TO SEND YOU A COPY TOO JUST LIKE YOU HAVE TO SEND THEM YOURS. read the pdf ....by 7 days before hearing.

opps caps sorry

 

 

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 for clarifying dx100

I may be being blind here, but I can't see anywhere on the pdf I just uploaded where I am being instructed to send my Defence WS to the fleecers? All I seem to see is that it instructs me that, "All documents and correspondences are to be sent electronically to xxxx County Court...." 

I'm sorry if I have missed something? Could you point me to where it is stated that I have to send my defence to them? I am getting somewhat overwhelmed here with paper. 😤

Also, I have told the fleecers I do not want to communicate by email, so should I post a printed version to them? Will thy have to have received this by 13th Sept? Or can I simply post it then and get a Post Office FPP?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its std practice. to exchange witness statements (its not a defence!) 

actually thinking about i , if you dont get theirs by say 23:55 on the day it due, there is no harm in youremailing it even though you've said not to use email

play them at their own game!

 

  • Like 3

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

Be careful with that though. I've noticed on some letters that the fleecers / dodgy solicitors state that they don't accept service by email.

Have a quick check of their correspondence. 

  • 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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh but its ok for them to send things out by email...nope cant enforce that if they've already used email sod 'em

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...

CASE DISMISSED. 

Apologies for silence. I was asked to drop off any public areas and not share our course of action. I will revert with full defence and help for people on here asap.

But I have to wait for obvious permission from the legal team.

the judge dismissed the case on the grounds that there was no real opportunity to consider the Ts&Cs of 'the contract' before entering the DOZ.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AndyOrch changed the title to NCP/BW PCN PAPLOC now claimform - New Gatwick Drop Off Zone - I thought I had paid for both visits? ***Claim Dismissed***

Congrats topic title updated.

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done on your victory!  👏

 

Is it 3-0 now?  This court victory, the one they "should" have issued at Gatwick airport but their software messed up, and the one they cancelled?  Just leaving the one Gatwick hotel parking one in limbo?

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

Excellent another dodgy fleecer claim vaped.

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

That was beyond a Tolchok it was a vapourisation Dave😂🤣

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

On 20/09/2023 at 16:41, MoaningCrusader said:

CASE DISMISSED. 

Apologies for silence. I was asked to drop off any public areas and not share our course of action. I will revert with full defence and help for people on here asap.

But I have to wait for obvious permission from the legal team.

But basically, the judge dismissed the case on the grounds that there was no real opportunity to consider the Ts&Cs of 'the contract' before entering the DOZ.

 

Asked by who?

Was the case dismissed or did you agree to a settlement via Tomlin Order (which you may not be at liberty to disclose).

If the judge dismissed the claim then I cannot see how you agreed to any confidentiality concerning a claim that was heard in an open court.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe this person as well as cag advise used a a firm of solicitors (why i dont know! ) and they are the ones restricting his freedom of speech.

a tomlin does not restrict you from revealing its contents nor the outcome of a case. thats not what the associated clause means.

 

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


The case was dismissed. 

We did not want to post any further plans on here as anyone can read this thread, including the fleecers, if I am correct.

I had a barrister in the end, who worked pro bono because he himself was caught out by the DOZ at Heathrow and wanted to test his argument in a court, but couldn’t on his own case as it was discontinued as soon as they found out he was a barrister. We had to hide his involvement as we were concerned should the fleecers discover it and discontinue the case. 

We are currently going to the press about our case result. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we are going to major national newspapers. The instructing solicitor's firm (who also was a victim of the DOZ at Heathrow) has a PR department who will be handling this. We are waiting for the judge to sign off a drawn up summary of her judgement, as we don't want to pay for the transcript which could take months to be produced. 

We asked if we could use it to publicise the fact the fleecers use the Parkingeye vs Beavis to bully people into thinking they have no choice but to pay these charges. And in particular with my case how they use a completely irrelevant Supreme Court judgement to support their bullying, when in fact the judgements of the Law Lords in most cases supports the fact the likes of DOZs at Gatwick and Heathrow are unfair and unenforceable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I thought I might put up some stuff to help any other CAGers hit with APNR DOZ penalty charges.

I am sharing a redacted:

1. My WS

2. The Defence Skeleton Argument (which was submitted later than the bundle)

3. Defendant's Authorities 

Unfortunately, I cannot upload the trial bundle as it's 52MB in size. But I hope the above helps people. Is there anyway of getting the trial bundle up?

I have redacted all documents. I hope I have got everything before I stop my Adobe subscription. Please should you find any info that you feel should be taken down, let me know.

FYI everyone I was strongly advised to not use any POFA in my WS etc. This is primarily because I would be unable to lie under cross examination from either the claimant's solicitor or the Judge. If I lied it would be perjury. Even if I did attempt to mislead the court (again not advised) it would not take long for them to find out through further cross examination that I don't have any other names on my car insurance, and even if I did, I would then be wrongfully naming them as the driver. Basically it's a very messy argument. I was also advised that POFA is being misread by all parties.

On the whole, I was advised to focus on the core argument of an unfair contract. The DOZ set up is clearly completely unfair, and therefore the strongest and really only argument with any real strength in this case. There's no point going into anything else. It would be different in a more standard car park set up. In fact, I have to stress this is all only relevant to APNR DOZ set ups.

The judge dismissed the case solely on the basis that the defendant had no 'REAL' opportunity to consider the Ts&Cs before being put under contract. The judge refused to carry on with any further judgement on our submissions. This was disappointing, as we wanted to get them on the fact that the contract was unenforceable in common law. I think the judge cleverly avoided giving a more controversial judgement in a Small Claims Court.

The judge did say that the parking charge amount was fair, and would not be drawn into the recovery costs submission, as the case had already been dismissed on the first submission of unfair contract.

PS There was an article ran in a major newspaper last weekend... I won't confirm it was me in the article... But the case is very similar. 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT_Redacted.pdf Gatwick DOZ - Defendant's skeleton argument_Redacted.pdf DEFENDANT'S AUTHORITIES.pdf

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another avenue of complaint is that there appears to be only one way to pay. If you don't have access to wifi or your supplier's system is down for maintenance or repair you cannot pay.

I also recognise the problem you had when checking to see whether a payment had been recorded or not. I had  the same problem with TFL and their Congestion charge help facility. It is tantamount to a scam site. I wanted to know if my car had entered the Congestion charge area in the past four days. They said nothing had come up for the third and fourth days but couldn't confirm anything for the first and second days. 

They suggested that I could pay the charge  for the second day to cover myself but they would no give me a refund if no charge had been due and nor would they accept that payment could be transferred to the first day  if a charge was due from the first day. NCP could take lessons from TFL on how to increase their income.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...