Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well it adds up which is an Apollo 11 achievement!   Does simeon need reminding again that it is HIS responsibilty to make sure that all the Exhibits are correctly labelled, ordered and numbered etc, and that they are all correctly cross-referenced in the particulars?  Because we can't check that remotely.   The only remaining thing (which I think would be helpful to have added but is not a necessity) is a list or schedule of exhibits.  It just helps to introduce the exhibits.  But simeon will have to produce that himself - so it may be advisable not to bother...   But I don't want to rock the boat any further and am happy with #165 - unless there are any glaring errors I've not noticed.   [EDIT:  cross posted with 166 and 167.  I will check 165 over as well]
    • No this is (£387.12 for Rubble) not (£8387.12 ) Repairs is £8000.00 and £5190.00 for unfinished work
    • The figures now match, so as far as I'm concerned that's that.   If there is duplication then that's the OP's look out, there has been nearly a year to make simple lists of costs.   I think "the three of us" should have a last read through.   It's up to Simeon to make sure the references to the exhibits are accurate, they certainly weren't accurate in the version I've just edited, in fact they were contradictory, but that's up to him.   If the "three of us" don't see any obvious errors then the document is good to go tomorrow morning (not as the last minute).
    • We might, finally, be there -   Particulars of Counterclaim   1.      The original Claimant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the original Defendant/now Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant and that the Claimant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant provided the Claimant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the Claimant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.   5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the Claimant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the Claimant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The Claimant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the Claimant asked the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The Claimant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the Claimant’s work but the Claimant was absent.  The Inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the Claimant's work.  The Inspector spoke to the Claimant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The Inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The Building Inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the Claimant who agreed to follow them.   10.    The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The Claimant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant of £3000 (see receipt, Exhibit 1).   11.    The Claimant asked if the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.   12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the Claimant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the Claimant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the Claimant £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   14.  It later came to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s attention that the Claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property that the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant suspected either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When the Claimant challenged the Defendant he admitted he had done this.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   15.    On 21 September 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the Claimant (Exhibit 2).  Over a month later the Claimant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Exhibit 3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the Claimant.   16.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed in Exhibit 4.   17.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the Claimant also negligently caused substantial damage to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Exhibit 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £16,577.12 in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete, £3,000.00, Exhibit 1; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in paras 15 & 16 above, £5,190.00, Exhibits 2 & 3 & 4; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above, £8387.12, Exhibit 5; (d)  the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.  This has not yet been costed.   19. In addition to the amount in paragraph 18 above, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant also claims 8% interest under the County Courts Act 1984 from 26 October 2020 which was the last day the builder or one of his colleagues worked at the property     STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I believe that the facts stated in this particulars of counterclaim 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.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Lowther street car park WON at POPLA?? Now DR Plus....


Recommended Posts

Well blow me if I didn't go and get myself a parking invoice off these lovely chaps.

 

I literally just sent an appeal, and in under ten minutes got this very childish arrogant response back.

 

Oh I do love a good fight, easily won of course because its council owned and they allow 3 hours free parking for BB holders.

 

 

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

had to hide your uploads they are unredacted.

 

dx

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 minute ago, dx100uk said:

had to hide your uploads they are unredacted.

 

dx

 

Sorry DX, was all excited for a moment!

 

Just spoken to the Council and it appears that there are two car parks with the same name, so the one I parked in is private, damn and blast!

 

 

appeal-reply-redacted.pdf Initial Parking back redacted.pdf Initial Parking redacted.pdf

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I know, I just couldn't help myself!

 

Been back today to get photos which I shall post up.

 

I'm a little bit irritated by the LA, when you put in Lowther street car park it pops up on the LA's website with a photograph of this particular car park, and it clearly states on the website that three hours are free for BB holders.

 

What it doesn't say is that the photograph they use is of a privately owned and run car park, not sure if that is an avenue I should pursue with the LA, along with finding if they have PP for the signs and cameras?

 

OK here goes, the photos.....if more are needed then I'm going back there tomorrow so I can grab them then.

 

 

ANPR camera entrance.pdf Signage ticket machine 1.pdf First Sign LHS.pdf

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the bottom of their ''very large, BPA approved signs'' in small writing it refers to the use of ANPR cameras, but like they say, it is ''the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they seek out, read and comply with the terms and conditions of parking that are in place'' 

 

Now the issue I have is that unless you walk up to the ticket machine you won't see a sign with the tariff on, or telling you that BB holders have to pay in fact there were only two that I could find in the whole car park.

 

On the flip side, the council run car park which uses the same name, that I thought I was parking in, has a big board with the tariffs on before you drive into the car park, I'm guessing this is how it should be??

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're supposed to have prominent signage at the entrance certainly.

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

no  thats correct

the only place they have to show the tariff is at the payment portal.

 

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

Not only is the signage lacking at the entrance, it's also misleading, they state that it is a P&D car park, when in actual fact it's anything but.

 

You can park and not pay until you leave, and even then you can pay via an app so no ticket need be displayed.

 

Some more photos of the CP and signage

Lowther Street CP Carlisle

 

Having parked here some 16 times previously, and funding them some £97.for the privilege I'm loathed to stump up another £100 because of pretty poor signage and confusion on my part.....

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the signage fails to say what the ANPR is used for, they satisfy the first part of the BPA rules by stating on their signs (albeit in tiny tiny writing) that the CP is monitored by ANPR, but they fail to say what the data they capture is used for.

 

I am also finding it difficult to find the full T&C's they refer to on the signage at the pay point?

 

Might have to pop back and have another trawl of the CP to try and find the sign, if it exists!

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also pay by phone. As you didn't pay, you didn't therefore accept their T&Cs either at the pay point or elsewhere in the car park.

 

Here is an article on Invations to Treat which might be helpful to many as a sticky...

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/offers-and-invitation-to-treat-contract-law-essay.php

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much obliged LFI, all this research is very exciting!!

 

Just on the council planning portal and my heart sank when this CP popped up as having PP for signs and ANPR cameras..........

 

If their name was Smart parking they'd be fine, but they're not, they're called Initial Parking and I don't see they have permission for any of their signs, also smart parking have a brilliant photo of what the T&C's should look like.

Smart parking T&C's

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've trespassed essentially?

 

The signage at the entrance doesn't meet the BPA guidelines and is pretty poor at best, there are no T&C's anywhere, they fail to state what the ANPR will be used for (or what the data is used for).

 

And as I failed to pay, I didn't enter into any contract with them.

 

Does that just about sum it up?

 

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

By and large yes. First the signage at the entrance did not contain their T&Cs and so no contract offered there. Then At the ticket machine their T&Cs were there but as you did not pay, you failed to accept their T&Cs. So you were trespassing.

 

Incidentally under PoFA the NTK should include the relevant land that the car was parked on. Lowther street I would have thought was insufficient to identify where you parked as there must be many Lowther streets in the UK and I assume that the whole of Lowther street is not relevant land even id the car park is. And they didn't specify car park in the location of where your car wa parked. Surely the town and post code must be included. The absence of those last two details should render the NTK as invalid.

 

8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

 

The relevant word there is "Must".

Failure to comply with 6 [1] ]a] or [b] 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct LFI.

 

There are two car parks called Lowther street on that road. hence my confusion that I could use a BB for free parking.

 

I shall wait until nearer the time and bat it over to POPLA to look at.

 

Now I'm looking forward to getting some silly missives from their toothless DCA.

 

Certainly won't be giving these clowns any more of my hard earned, I have already started parking elsewhere.

Edited by Bazooka Boo
Fat fingers.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Important Notice is also misleading as it gives no allowance for the Grace Period, they could in their tiny mind on  strength of that  invoice someone who wentit, no spaces available and left after 5 minutes without parking at all

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

Regarding POPLA - when you appealed to the fleecers, did you out yourself as the driver?

 

 

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

No I referred to myself as the registered keeper, hence why their immature response to reject my ''appeal'' was addressed to Mr Registered Keeper.

 

I went back again today to bottom out their signage, even the pay points don't have the T&C's on, the T&C's are on a post at the back of the car park posted well above head height, a deliberate attempt to circumnavigate the BPA's guidelines and of course to frustrate all appeals by drivers.

 

I've taken some more photos of the signage dotted about the CP.

 

I'll post them up later.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I've actually read one of DX's posts about how to upload PDF's and can now stop smashing the keyboard...

 

Here are the ''relevant'' photos from yesterday. the first photo is taken from where I was parked, and the little white dot at the back in the distance is the T&C's for this CP.

 

The third photo is the signage at the exit.

 

All in all a very poor attempt at following the BPA's guidelines on signage, good luck at making this invoice stick Ben and Lisa Johnson.....tut tut.

Lowther St T&C's signage.compressed.pdf

  • Like 1

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bazooka Boo said:

No I referred to myself as the registered keeper, hence why their immature response to reject my ''appeal'' was addressed to Mr Registered Keeper.

Ah, ha, the penny has finally dropped at this end!

 

Looking back at ancient threads, it seems the forum once advised to appeal to POPLA, but I think POPLA's remit was changed and the contract to run it was given to other people, thus it's gone down the IAS road of always siding with the PPCs.  However, the main reason we say not to appeal to POPLA is that in 99% of cases motorists out themselves as the driver - something you've avoided!

 

So go down that route if you want, or else do what we generally advise, to ignore their tripe unless you get a Letter Before Action/Letter Before Claim.

 

Well done on all the photos, their signage is absolutely carp and would be a good stick to beat them with if they did have the gonads to try court.

 

 

 

 

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 am sorry but I cannot read the signs. I know they are pretty high up the poles making it difficult to read even if you were in the car park especially as the font size is so small. But it does help your case on dubious signage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the signage is pants and would be good to use against them   would have been good to be able to read the T & Cs though

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

I can always attempt to get a clearer photo of their T&C's.

 

But they are up pretty high, akin to the days of cowboy clamping companies hiding their signs 15 feet on the sides of buildings!

 

I'll see what I can do.

 

Do they still have to pay £27 for the POPLA appeal does anyone know?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Bazooka Boo said:

Do they still have to pay £27 for the POPLA appeal does anyone know?

Not sure.

 

Last time it was discussed on here it was still £27, but that's going back a few years now.

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

  • FTMDave changed the title to Initial Parking Lowther Street Carlisle ***Won at POPLA***

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...