Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, I live in a house with multiple flats and when Royal Mail brought my package they didn't ring anyone, just left my package in the open when public walks to/from the park. I never agreed to this. They already confirmed to the seller that package was left in the open and wasn't given to anyone. Now the seller wants me to report this to police and obtain a reference number. My concern and source of anxiety is talking to police. I never had to deal with police before in my life and after hearing many stories how even small issues like "not politically correct" posts on social media result in record to your name. I don't understand why seller can't obtain this reference number themselves. I've provided all details and was helpful, but seller insist that I must call police myself.  Is it true? Is it something I need to do myself. I would appreciate if anyone could give me some advice. I don't want to sound suspicious, but I really don't like the idea of dealing with police. If it any help, I bought my item on eBay. Thank you 
    • Also, don't forget that the claimant has already spent about 150 bringing the claim.  Even if you agree at 600  they will still have the 150 to deal with and frankly I don't think you should be responsible for that.  The best solution will be to have the case dismissed for lack of protocol and we will deal with that in the defence.  By including that in the defence, we avoid the need for an application notice and we avoid the need for an upfront fee which you might not get back.
    • I agree about your suggestion or settlement, but I don't think you are there yet. Although this is a judgement you will have to make.  For the moment you will need to file a defence to the claim, but there's lots of time and we will see what his response to your letter is and whether or not he agrees to provide you with the information you are asking or if he declines.  It would be useful to have the information but if he declines then this could play into your camp as well.  We may then have to file a process which requires him to comply.  So I understand that you have the electrician statement already in a WhatsApp text.  If you can't get a statement from them then the WhatsApp text will be very useful.
    • I have explained that to her this morning  and have a job starting with her on Tuesday next week so I will chat it through again then As an alternative we can use the whatsapp message wihout the statement of truth direct to the claimant in the letter requesting information as it may help claimant to a decsion My preference is to get this out of the way and settle but not at £1200  £500 or £600 would save us all lots of frustration and time, I have no axe to grind and my client is/ was a very nice man and we both felt the same about each other  
    • We have heard about this waste of taxpayer money in a national crisis ... when hige amounts of it were reported 'dumped near a nature reserve .. but the saga continues Lets hope labor gets a billion back from the duff stuff supplier, and prosecutes the government figures behind the atrocious mismanagement and cronyism   PPE worth £1.4bn from single Covid deal destroyed or written off | Coronavirus | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM UK government deal struck at height of pandemic described as ‘colossal misuse of public funds’  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

TPS ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - Wrong Reg - boddingtons Gt Ducie Street, Francis Street, Manchester, M3 1PQ


Recommended Posts

That is a powerful WS with a lot of research having gone into it.

It is perhaps a shame that it is only for a wrong vrm entry.

It would have TPS deciding not to go ahead with a stronger case then yours after reading your WS.

It does seem very one sided when you have a company that has a non compliant PCN and no planning permission be able to go to Court when the motorist has paid the correct fee and all they have done is quoted the wrong registration number.

TPS should be aware of the Baroness Walmsley  v TFL case in the Supreme Court where they allowed the Baroness relief in paying the Congestion charge because she had paid but messed up on the registration number and not gone to Court with this

.I would be asking for costs if it goes to Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks lookingforinfo, much appreciated. I will look into the costs to see how much I need to quote if it comes to it.

Most of this has been advised by the good people of this website such as yourself so I can't take any credit for this. I hope its ok, and I will continue to tidy up.

Also, today I have received in the post, a kind offer from DCB, off their client TCP, to settle the case for £150...'to assist the court in achieving its overriding objective'.

Sorry I should have added, current balance is £253.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That WS as LFI indicates is a sledgehammer to their case

DCBL are trying it on to with the usual guff and offer to settle for at least 50 quid more than they were originally not even entitled to.

 Think that WS would hit them across the chops with something bigger than a wet herring more like a shark.

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'll have a detailed read through the WS when I knock off work this evening.

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

OK, I've read through your thread from the start and also the WS.

It's very good - but if we can improve it, why not?

The whole part DEFENCE can be binned.  The court already knows you filed a defence.

Onto DE MINIMIS.  I've reconsidered what I wrote above re the letters.  After "The defendant informed the Claimant during PAPLOC about the wrong reg being incorrectly entered" I think you should include the two letters you wrote during PAPLOC.  That will show the judge that TPS knew they had a rubbish case but decided to waste the court's time anyway.

Onto KEEPER LIABILITY (actually it should be NO KEEPER LIABILITY) where you write "Principally because it misses out a small section of the Act" I think the word "small" should go.  There's no need to point out that their mistake is small, it's still a mistake.

Also point out here that in their PoCs they have written "liable as the driver or the keeper" which is "fishing" for liability.  If they have not respected the provisions of POFA then they can only pursue the driver, and they have no evidence whatsoever that you were the driver.

At this point the legal arguments become a jumble IMO and some paras need to be moved.

After NO KEEPER LIABILITY I would start a new section NO LOCUS STANDI and move paras 43 & 44 (the first 44, there are two) there.

Next create an ILLEGAL SIGNAGE section and repeat para 44 (the first one).

I think you vastly overegg the pudding in the DOUBLE RECOVERY section and paras 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 (the second 44, there are two), 47, 48 can all go, they are repetitive and superfluous.

If you agree please post up a second draft and we can take it from there.

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

Thanks all for your fantastic advice, I've already go too work on the amendments.

Just to be sure tho will I still be ok to include the letters, even if they both draw attention to the 'house move'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "moving" issue is ancient history now and has no relevance to whether you owe the money or not.  Don't worry.

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

Thanks Dave, that’s reassuring to know.

I’ve also been meaning to get back that my case has been moved to 10th April.

But I’ve been so busy I haven’t had chance.

This why I knew Feb was a bad idea I’m so glad they could shift it, the next date should be much better all being well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Time to refresh my memory and start to focus on my ws again.

I believe it needs to be be submitted by 27th March, and a lot of this time between now and then I'll be working.

If you're able to review my 2nd draft it would be appreciated as always.

 

Defendants WS 2ndt draft.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is short and sweet - exactly what judges like.  No waffle.  To the point.  Well done.

It should be: EXHIBIT 05 - Letter written during PAPLOC

As De Minimis is your ace it would be good to quote a couple of persuasive cases.

Paras 15 & 16 are a bit jumbled.  I would change to:

15. The Defendant asked to see their contact with the landowner that authorises the Claimant to bring legal claims in their own name by CPR 31:14 request but they never replied EXHIBIT X. The Defendant does not believe that the Claimant possesses such a contract.

Illegal Signage

16. The Defendant asked to see proof of planning permission for the Claimant's signs by CPR 31:14 request but the Claimant never replied EXHIBIT X. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant possesses planning permission, which is a criminal offence under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. No contract can be formed where criminality is involved.

  • 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

Hi Dave,

thanks for getting back to me, and helping tidy up again.

It really is appreciated as always.

Yes it does appear to be a a more concise summary now, which as you say, I'm sure the judges much prefer to having to sift through reams of paper.

I'll make those respective changes, along with the remaining tidying up of the document, then sit tight now before my submission date. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So presumably that is Total Car Parks' Witness Statement.

Have you filed yours yet?

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

Hi Dave

It is sorry yes. I've missed a couple of pages out with personal info, but that is the bulk of it.

No not yet just thought I'd send this over quickly before I sent mine across asap

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be worth trying to use this somewhere in the WS?

I know that they say it should be dealt with at the appeal stage, but given that the OP told them this at PAPLOC stage...

 

FRom BPA Code of Practice

Section 17:  Keying Errors

B) Major Keying Errors
Examples of a major keying error could include:
• Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration
• Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration
• Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly)
• Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits
In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant).
It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal.

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

Posted (edited)

Most of what they have written is waffle, but if you want you could add little bits to your WS.

After your current (4) you could add

5.  The Claimant is incorrect in stating in their Witness Statement (para 13) that "no payment for parking was made by the Defendant".  My exhibits show that payment was made.  They again state (para 22 vi) "a valid parking session was not purchased by the Defendant" which is incorrect and the Claimant knows the statement is incorrect.

You could expand your current (5) to

5. The Defendant informed the Claimant during PAPLOC about the wrong registration being incorrectly entered.  The Claimant can witter on all they want (their WS para 21) about their laughable appeals procedure where they judge themselves, and my "unreasonable behaviour" (para 31), but the simple fact is that they knew they were paid and they suffered no loss but decided to start a court claim anyway.

You could add to your current (11)

11. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.  The Claimant (their WS, para 20) can "believe that the Defendant was the driver" all they like but such belief has no basis in law nor indeed in the opinion of their own trade association's appeals body.

 

Edited by FTMDave
Outing of the driver corrected

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

It's not essential, but if you have time a persuasive case for the DE MINIMIS section and including your PAPLOC letter as an exhibit in your current (5) wouldn't go amiss.

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

for sake of not making any slip ups.

we need to see ALL the claimants WS inc exhibits.

dx

 

  • I agree 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

Section 1.1 of the "lease" is an ace, because they will not have "obtained all necessary planning approvals and permissions,etc"

You should put the claimant to strict proof that plannig consent was obtained to use the area as a car park and planning consent was obtained to erect signage.

If they won't / can't, the terms of the lease have not been satisfied.

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

Posted (edited)

If you haven't emailed it yet, as it is a deed it requires signatures and addresses from  directors of both companies along with the names and addresses of independent witnesses to the directors signatures. On top of that there is a requirement that Realty confirm that Deansgate can sign on their behalf.

the Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. if you haven't admitted who was driving in any way so far, TP will have to provide some sort of evidence that you were the driver.

But even if you were the driver it's no biggy since they will lose anyway since it is just a number plate difference.

Edited by lookinforinfo
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...