Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see simeon  has several quotes for remedial work and also a report on some of the damage.  They need to be given exhibit/attachment numbers and linked to (16) and (17).  That is simple clerical work, you don't need any legal knowledge to do so.   Obviously the piling receipt has to be linked to (10).   As MiE has pointed out, the total needs to go in (18) and personally I would include the four sub-totals in (18 a b c d).  After all, the court did ask for a properly itemised counterclaim.   If simeon can do the above tomorrow we can then add Andyorch's point about interest at the end.
    • Hi, I’m really scared and nervous to write here, as I’ve never done anything like this before.    I had a telephone DWP compliance interview the other week, when I had the letter I thought I’d been called up at random as I couldn’t think what I’d done wrong.  In 2016 I started an open uni course part time as I was working, however a few months later I suddenly became unwell and was off work a year before finally becoming dismissed. I had to claim ESA while I was still employed as I hadn’t paid enough tax. My mum helped me make the ESA claim over the phone and one of the questions was ‘are you in full time education’ which I replied no to, but we said I had as at the OU part time.  I had to attends job centre visits and told them again about my open uni course, and every year I phoned up for a letter to confirm my ESA for my student fee loan and a part time grant.  The compliance officer is investigating me because I hadn’t declared my studying even though he had it down that I said I was with them. So I’ve had to send in all my information on my student grant which is £1155 a year.  I’m terrified of what is going to happen because I’m sure they had everything down about it all. I’m still claiming ESA for my illness and I’m in the support group, and I’m upset because I’m sure everything was down.  I just wondered if anyone knows what’s going to happen to me.    Best wishes 
    • OK, I've sorted out using the correct terminology to refer to the parties.   The original document was absurdly long and filled with waffle. I reduced it. Then MiE did so further – twice. I've continued on the theme and have merged (13) & (14) as I don't think we need to go into detail of why a £2000 payment because £1500, it'd just confuse the judge.  Feel free to disagree!   I've sorted out the new numbering and references to paragraph numbers.   IMO (16) needs beefing up to explain why the builder disappeared, but simeon seems to not want to explain this properly, so so be it.   Apart from that it looks about ready to go.   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 £3300. (See receipt at Attachment1).   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 suspects either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When challenged the Claimant 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 (Attachment 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 (Attachment 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 at Attachment 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 Attachment 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 £nnnnnnn {Simeon - put in the actual total amount here) 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; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in para 16 above; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above; and (d)    the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.   A receipt in respect of item (a) - see Attachment 1 - and two priced quotes in respect of items (b) and (c) - see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim.
    • The firm's growth halved last year after surging demand during the pandemic.View the full article
    • If you look at your credit file..what debts show that youve not recently paid or not paid in a longtime?   might give a clue?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

UKPC Windscreen PCN - 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER - NCP Car Park?


Recommended Posts

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions....

 

1 The date of infringement?

07/12/21
 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?]

No

 

Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days]

Yes
 

What date is on it?

08/01/22
 

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence?

Yes - The photographic evidence is inconclusive please see my additional comments below.

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?]

Yes
 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances]

N/A
 

5 Who is the parking company?

UK Parking Control LTD
 

6. Where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park?
The alleged location on the windscreen slip and NTK states 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER

The driver of the vehicle at the time is under the impression that they parked at 3 Parkside, Crawley, RH10 1ER

 

Additional comments / potential mitigating circumstances.

 

1. The windscreen slip states "Parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit".

2. Parking was paid for at the time stipulated on the speculative invoice - receipts have been retained.

3. There was torrential heavy rain on-going at the time the car was parked and upon returning to the vehicle.
4. The car park was severley flooded in areas which could have osbcured bay markings.

5. The windscreen slip was not discovered for several days until after it was allegedly left placed on the windscreen and was eventually found stuffed at the bottom of the windscreen under the lip at the top of bonnet.

6. If everything UK Parking Control allege is correct then it would still appear to be totally unreasonable to have some bays in a car park subject to permit control and not others. This could clearly cause confusion to parking customers.

 

The attachment below contains the following.

1. A redacted copy of the windscreen slip

2. A redacted copy of the NTK.
3. A redacted copy of the photographic evidence disclosed by UK Parking Control on www.paycharge.co.uk

4. A redacted copy of the payment receipt

UKPC - CAG Combined PDF.pdf

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can see on Google Earth, The Martletts seems to be a pedestrian-only shopping street where it would have been impossible to park.  Am I right?

 

Whereas Parkside seems to be, guess what, at the side of a park with, I suspect, an NCP part and a residents' part (see image).

 

I see UKCPS have included their usual tiny, carp signage.

 

 

4 Parkside - Google Maps — Mozilla Firefox 14_01_2022 23_30_02.pdf

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

Yes I agree. No doubt if UKPC bring an action they will attempt to claim a portion of the parking to the rear of the buildings belongs to the buildings with an address located on the other side of the road.

 

Either way if it is confusing enough for people to make a mistake I think that is evidence in and of itself the signage is not fit for purpose.

I will of course check for planning permission, however I note the signage they have evidenced is located on the side of a building, so may not fall under the council's jurisdiction and may be erected with permission of the building owner. Either way they will be put to strict proof they have permission to erect the signage on display.

 

The actual situation may be made somewhat clearer using a top down view of Google maps on a perfectly sunny day, but unsurprisingly I doubt the driver or any driver at all breaks out the reconnaissance drone prior to making their parking decisions, particularly on a stormy rainy day.

 

I missed your point above that some of the car park may have been allocated to residents. If this is the case then the address is incorrect and that is the end of the matter.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to UKPC Windscreen PCN - 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER - NCP Car Park?

Things you have going for you.

 

1.  They accuse you of parking where you didn't, in fact where you've never parked in your life.

2.  They say you parked from 15:57 to 15:57.  Well, there is a 10-minute grace period.  Who is to say you didn't get out in the rain, read the signs, realise you had made a mistake, and moved your car within the ten minutes to the NCP bit.

3.  Their signage is rubbish, small and hidden away.

4.  That is done deliberately, to catch out people who think they are parking in the NCP bit.  It is predatory behaviour, which according to their Code of Practise they shouldn't engage in.  Knowing full well motorists could confuse the two, and to protect residents, their signage should emphasise it is not the NCP bit.

5.  You were a trespasser, and only the landowner can sue for trespass.

 

In other words don't pay them a penny, but prepare for half the Amazon arriving through your letter box and to have to put up a fight with them.

  • 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

The NTK is not compliant with PoFA so they are unable to transfer the liability of their so called debt from the driver to you the keeper. It is important that you do not divulge  who was driving therefore. It is much more difficult to prove who was driving than who the keeper is as so many people are legally able to drive your car-all they need is a current British insurance certificate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @lookinforinfo thank you for your response.

 

I have searched around for the possible reason the NTK is not compliant but could not come up with anything beyond that indicated above by FTMDave which is the NTK fails to specifiy a period of parking and merely states a time that the vehicle was allegedly present at the location stipulated.

Perhaps you could kindly give me a clue if there is another reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under PoFA  Schedule 4 s8 2  the PCN must comply with the following rules .

Further down the list of rules  is  s8 2  [f] and if you compare their PCN wording with the PoFA wording  you will see they have missed out "  (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met]  "

 

So with that wording missing and the period of time missing they cannot transfer the liability for the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. That missing phrase may seem minor to you but when in Law there is a statement that something must be done then it must be done. If not then the wording is not compliant.

 

That is why we say it is best not to challenge that PCN at the outset since the keeper can inadvertently alert the crooks to who was driving. Without knowing who was driving  it is very difficult to convince the Court to accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person. It is up to  Highview to prove who was the driver they cannot assume it was the keeper.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Missed call from "Redwood Collections". I imagine it is relating to this although I am not sure how they would have obtained my number.

I understand your point, obviously they will attempt to claim in court that they were justifiable in transferring liability to the keeper and I will point out, amoungst everything else, the non-compliance of their NTK.

Edited by Intrepid
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not too diffuicult to bat thgem away with no POFA, as they usually try arguing old discredited cases as authority.

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...