CPM ANPR PCN Claimform - -THE ATLIP CENTRE EALING ROAD ALPERTON WEMBLEY LONDON HAO 4LW

[dx100uk]

its probably a large shopping centre etc? shouldnt matter which one, the owner is probably the  same.

worth a try me thinks.

could be another bit to add to your ws.

dx

[dark.knight.10]

Here it is 

Register summary

Title number

NGL835940

Registered owners

Jehangir Qamar Malik

179 Ealing Road, Wembley, Middx HA0 4LW

Last sold for

£400,000 on 14 February 2008

[Nicky Boy]

So, not Makita Corporation Ltd in the Cayman Islands, as stated on the parking contract?!

Certainly needs to be pointed out in your WS.

[FTMDave]

Whatever document you got from the court which stated tomorrow as the hearing date, also stated that WSs had to be filed with the court and served on the other party 14 days before the hearing.  Clear as crystal.  The same system is on every single court hearing thread on the forum. 

I'm afraid I have things on in my own life this evening.  It's a huge pity you didn't come here at least before last weekend.

The only saving graces are (a) they aren't turning up which gives you an open goal, and (b) your WS is on the right lines with the legal arguments.

[lookinforinfo]

The contract was started with  BPA but now CPM are with IPC who have different Ts &Cs

.  The contract does not appear to give permission to CPM to take motorists to Court

By redacting the signatories to the contract we do not know whether they were signed by directors of the respective companies nor their names nor whether they were signed at all.

The PCN does not comply with the protection of freedoms act 2012. Schedule 4 Section 9[e] 

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

The creditor did not ask the keeper to pay the charge so the keeper is not liable for the charge. The Claim is addressed to the keeper so the PCN should be cancelled.

The Entrance sign has too many conditions on it to be able to read it while driving past the sign. There is no proof that the signs inside the car park coincide with the entrance signs so the PCN should be cancelled.

The £70 extra charge is not allowed because the amount is not specified in the signage and under PoFA the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the signs.

It would have helped had you posted it up two days ago to give us a better chance of helping you.

However we all wish you well today.

[dark.knight.10]

Thank you all so much! 
I will add those to WS and let you know what the verdict is as soon as I come out. The hearing is at 3PM 

[honeybee13]

Good luck, we'll be waiting for your news.

HB

[Nicky Boy]

Good luck!

[dx100uk]

nail the fleecers!!

just in case they get a locum ....do not enter into any little chats before you go in. smile...WALK AWAY!!

[Nicky Boy]

4 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

nail the fleecers!!

just in case they get a locum ....do not enter into any little chats before you go in. smile...WALK AWAY!!

Just hand them your witness statement (they don't have it yet)... SERVED!

[AndyOrch]

Neither does the court  None compliance with court directions may play a part here if the claimant has informed the court lets hope they allow verbal evidence only.

[honeybee13]

Are you OK, dark.knight?

HB

[dark.knight.10]

Hi,

Sorry for the radio silence, I just didn't have it in me to tell you all how moronic I have been all week! 

I went to the wrong court!!! the first court (Harlesden - the preferred location), not the one that was rescheduled in! I really think I need a break because my brain is fried. 

Anyways, I feel like I let everyone down! 

Thank you all for everything! I will be donating regardless! I planned to donate the whole amount to this site. 

[Nicky Boy]

Ooops!

It's been said before on the forum that we've all made mistakes in the legal process. I suppose this is just another one we've heard of...

Don't beat yourself up.

I think we've all suffered from fried brain.

Life goes on.

So, what was the result at the "other" court?

[dark.knight.10]

Thanks, hard not to be! 
 

I called today and they told me that the judge ruled that with the lack of attendance from both claimant and defence. He ordered that I pay the client the fine 

 

[dx100uk]

its not a fine he did not say that..i hope..!!

you would have won if you'd attended............

dx

 

[FTMDave]

Yep.  The judge had no choice.

One party notified the non-attendance - the other didn't.

One party filed a Witness Statement - the other didn't.

[lookinforinfo]

Did the Judge allow  include the extra £70?

[dark.knight.10]

The judge has awarded the claimant the full amount. Including the £70. 
They have sent it via mail and said I should get it tomorrow. 

[FTMDave]

Inevitable.  The fleecers wrote some lies pretending they were owed the £70.  The OP wrote nothing back and was not in court.  Therefore the judge accepted the charlatans' lies.

[lookinforinfo]

Might be worth a letter to the ICO admitting you did mess up but you don't think that they should have charged the additional amount since it is in breach of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Section 7[2][c] 

(c)inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice;

The notice which is the sign in the car park-so  no more than £100. The extra amount they charge is usually the payment to the debt collector working on a no win no fee basis. The DCA obviously did not win as you ended up in Court so why are they being paid? 

Many Judges keep throwing out the spurious additional charge stating it is an abuse of process or attempting a double recovery and of course with the extra amount 66 to 70% addition it is certainly a penalty.

Up to you.............you might get the £70  refunded which would be a  win.

[dx100uk]

not sure the ico would ever get involved in a ppc court claim judgement.

 

[FTMDave]

Agreed dx.