Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Excellent news! Thread title updated. Please do consider a donation in light of the help received here. The help we give is free, but try telling that to our server hosts!
    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
  • 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

CEL ANPR PCN PAPLOC now claimform - Morrisons, Butterfly Walk Car Park Denmark Hill Camberwell, London SE5 8RW***Claim Dismissed***


Recommended Posts

done if you look at the previous one you can see thru your blacking

  • Like 1

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

  • 4 months later...

open

 

 

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

Evening. 

I took the advice from FTMDave's post #127 and queried the initial response then followed up.

I have now received a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) scheduled for 4th April 2024 at the local County Court.

The letter advised that on 30th Jan 24, District Judge Thistle considered the statements of the case and directions questionnaires filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track.

I will post up the letter in next day or two.

The standard process seems to have been corrected by this action?

I expect I will need to prepare documents for the hearing. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WS exchange 14 days before hearing date 

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

Looks like you're back on track.

Just to be sure please upload this letter.

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

So you're back on track.  Well done.

Your Witness Statement has to be in by 21 March.

You might as well get started with a first draft.

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 know this may sound rather basic, but you must attend court on 04-04-2024

just that we've had someone today, whom we had, to put it kindly,  nursemaid from day one all through a thread/claim that ran for almost 2 years and some +150 post - didn't realise they had to GOTO COURT IN PERSON..

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

I'm at work now and don't have time to read through the whole thread.  However, from the most superficial of glances it seems that the signs show a completely different company run the car park so you can start drafting part of a Witness Statement that covers this aspect and refer to the photos of the signage that you have as proof.

The last part of your WS will concentrate on the Unicorn Food Tax that they always make up which is essentially the same in every case soi you can use what is below..

More when I knock off work.

 

DOUBLE RECOVERY

33.  The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim for a £100 invoice to £170.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.

29.  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 practise 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.”

34.  In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, 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 Parking Eye 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...''

35.  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.

36.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).

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

just type

stop hitting quote everytime!!

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

So your Witness Statement needs to be -

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS - a brief description of how you got the ticket.

INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE - all the signs point to different companies running the car park, not CEL.

NO LOCUS STANDI - you also believe CEL don't have a contract with the landlord to enter claims in their own name, they never produced one after your CPR request and the signage refers to completely different companies.

PCN - it's pants and doesn't even say what you were supposed to have done wrong.

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE - they did not produce proof of planning permission after your CPR request, lack of PP is a criminal offence.

DOUBLE RECOVERY - Unicorn Food Tax section listed above.

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

You may have to go to Court later this year and you still haven't posted your original PCN. This is a very important document as if the rogues get it wrong it makes their case much harder fro them to win.

Could you please post the front and the back of the first PCN they sent you and please ensure that we can see all the wording and that it is legible -not out of focus and preferably a decent font size.

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to post #142.

I'll check back on the thread as I thought I had. uploaded.

I assume this should be uploaded with my name and references still omitted?

I have received a letter from the Claimant titled 'Without Prejudice save as to costs' dated 7th Feb 2024 with offer to settle which still covers their payment for court costs. The offer remains open for 14 days. Attached.

As the Court's Notice of Allocation letter encourages settling the case by negotiation, do I formally need to reply back to the Claimant stating no? 

Claimant without prejudice letter 07 Feb 2024.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

std letter everyone gets.

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

means they are not sure if they will win so will cut their losses and grab what they can.

 

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 know there is 145 posts to trawl through looking for your original PCN as I did it. But three days and still not posted it🙂

Surely quicker to post it now as if the PCN does not comply with PoFA you can combine it in your WS now  without having to rewrite it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes its definitely on the first page

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 have started to draft the contents of a witness statement. {Sorry, but I couldn't find any examples on the forum for a WS template when searching. Maybe I don't know how best to do this correctly?}

Q's:

1. I have started to reference chronologically all relevant correspondence as an appendices to the WS? Assume this is fine. But know to bring any original hard copies to the court.

2. Started to pull in posts #139 and 141 into this content.

2. Assume if I upload draft of WS to this forum, I still keep the claim number and my name, address (and anything linked to myself) etc off the document. Only to add these to the final submission to the Court and Defendant.

4. Original PCN is in post #5. Hopefully no further action needed from me on this.

 

I have focus that that last day for WS submission is 21st March 2024. Thanks.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no WS template simply because the cases vary so widely.

There are plenty of examples of WSs.

If you look at the last page and the last-but-one page of our PPC Successes thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347084-ppc-successes-no-questions-please/page/17/#comments  virtually every thread wuith "claimform" in the title will have a WS in,. generally towards the end of the threads.

When you have a first draft ready, then yes, please upload it for comments, but of course redact any identifying details.

 

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

Evening

I've pulled a draft together. Clearly more to do and some items that I've included may not be relevant or detract from the statements intent. 

Appreciate feedback on content and any items to add, omit or rewrite. Thanks.

All suitably redacted currently..

Witness statement 19_02_24.docx.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to start that with 

i am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxx

your end statement also needs updating the one you have used is out of date.

the rest quickly looks a good start.

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

I am sorry,  you did include your original PCN but you redacted so much of the necessary in formation-times and dates. A few minutes over time can be argued away but over 38 minutes is not easy to explain . Is there a reason why you were so much longer than the time you expected?

Thank you for the photos of the car park showing ABC management faciliities running the car park then. Of course they went into liquidation in 2016 so were not members of the BPA or the ISC at  that time so were not capable of having a relationship with the DVLA nor did they have to comply with PoFA 2012. CEL were mentioned but in very small print and appeared to be minor partners in  the  relationship. ABC appear to be the major company running the car park so one would expect that the contract to run the car park would be in their name. If CEL were involved one would expect that they would comply with KADOE terms and show the BPA membership logo.

The signs appear to show that the car park is run by ABC a company in liquidation so no breach of their T7Cs could have occurred.,. the PCN does nor comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 since it does not specify the parking period. Obviously the ANPR cameras only record the entry and departure times of vehicles but have no clue how long it takes for motorists  to find a parking spot and then drive into it being careful to park between the lines and then later leave the parking spot and drive to the exit. This can take anywhere from a few minutes to perhaps half an hour depending on the volume of traffic in the car park at the time and how difficult it may be to leave the car park and filter into a busy road , not to mention returning the trolley tio the car park or strapping children or disabled people int o the car before being able to drive off..

 

You can also complain about their LOC bei I will post it when I find it.ng sparse on info. leading to the Court cancelling the case altogether but I cannot find it at the moment.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...