Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • 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

UKPCL/DCB legal Windscreen PCN Claimform - Marlborough Road Estate Braintree Essex CM7 9UZ ***Claim Discontinued***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 342 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

@Niknak76I appreciate what you're saying about Vanguard Way, but Nicky Boy is right, a photo of your car in front of a sign with Marlborough Road and another sign with UKPC on it will unfortunately look pretty convincing to a judge.

 

You will need to counter that with photos and maybe a video of your own showing the car was actually in Vanguard Way.  I'm presuming this place is close to you and you'll easily be able to do that.

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,

I think you might be misunderstanding the situation...

 

It looks like Vanguard Way might actually be a private road and marlborough Road is Public.

 

In my opinion, the fleecers have shot themselves in the foot with evidence that the vehicle was actually parked on a public road and not on their own turf.

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

The fleecers' photos certainly show the car on a road, not in their car park, which is good news.

 

However, if I've understood correctly from what the OP has written, the OP parked on Vanguard Way, a public road.

 

The fleecers "managed" Marlborough Road Estate, that's what's written on their paperwork.

 

It's just annoying that the photos show the car parked with "Malborough Road" on a sign behind it.

 

 

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

Looks like Niknak needs to be asking the council whether Vanguard Way is a private road.

 

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

14 hours ago, dx100uk said:

thats a private housing estate called marlborough-road-estate-braintree-essex-cm7-9uz  - it's not part of the public highway.

Vanguard way where the car is parked is the private road the Marlborough road housing estate is built on .

 

Stop getting confused.

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

Found this...

WWW.THECOMET.NET

Public notices for Stevenage, Hitchin and Letchworth, Baldock and the surrounding Hertfordshire areas from the The Comet.

 

In the last section (Various Roads, District of Braintree)  it states...

(Temporary Prohibition of Traffic & Clearway) (No.3) Order 2020
Notice is hereby given that the Essex County Council has made the above Order under Section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

 

And in schedule 2 lower down...

Road: Vanguard Way, Braintree
Description: From its junction with Marlborough Road for approximately 10m in a southerly direction

 

So, it does appear that at least the first 10 metres of Vanguard way is subject to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

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

hence the yellow lines?

that would tally

 

 

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

Hi all,

Thanks for all your help guys and the link, much appreciated. 
 

So from my understanding if the car was parked within 10m of the T junction with Marlborough Road the fleecers didn’t  have permission to put a ticket on the car.

 

However if the car is more than 10m away I could have a problem if Vanguard Way is a private Road.

 

Surely if the Road sign adjacent to the car says Marlborough Road on it, it suggests the first part of Vanguard way is actually Marlborough Road and public meaning them UKPC signs shouldn’t have been there?


Like I say I have been down there recently and those parking signs have since been removed are only visible in the actual Car Park now.

 

so my next port of call is phoning the the council and finding out about Vanguard way?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to UKPCL/DCB legal Windscreen PCN Claimform - Marlborough Road Estate Braintree Essex CM7 9UZ

just remember it doesn't matter what the state is NOW . this was in 2018.

 

 

 

 

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

Also, to put the cat among the turkeys, a sign straight across the road from the confusing Marlborough Road one, actually says Vanguard Way.🙄

 

But, as has been said, what was it like in 2018?

 

The fleecer's sign also says to look for details in the car park. Your car wasn't in the "car park".

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

i did that on google earth a few days ago.

the whole estate from the entry road - Marlborough Road - is called the Marlborough Road estate.

the wall sign is NOT a road sign, its a std one you get at the entry of a housing estate that tells you where parts of the estate houses are...zoom in you can see that on the sign..it is NOT a road naming sign!!

 

the car is parked on vanguard way which is the road the private estate is on.

 

 

 

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

It’s not clear at all is it?

 

DX how do you know for sure Vanguard Way is private?

 

And does it matter that the Marlborough Road sign is identifying the block of flats and not actually the road? 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

So, it does appear that at least the first 10 metres of Vanguard way is subject to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

no only temp in 2020 to install fibre cables. on google earth you can see the tarmac ditch run.

 

i suggest any TRO exists to the extent of the yellow lines. past that point it is a private estate whereby parking is managed by UKPC Lts.. private state requiring a permit.

 

the OP's pix clearly show the car parked where no yellow lines exist.

 

needs to see the contract with whomever and UKPc Ltd. that will come in their WS. bet it's not 2018 paid annual contract.

 

 

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

its worthy to note they claim? by their red line that they control parking along the front of the estate on marlborough road itself, NOPE thats a public highway and the pavement and the green verge are PART of the highway maintained by the council.

 

 

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

Niknak,

 

You said earlier... "Another note UKPC no longer operate this car park, another company have signs up now but the ones facing the road where our car was parked are no longer there. The current parking signs are now only located in the actual car park."

 

This may mean that the private road, Vanguard Way has been "adopted" by the council at some point. It's a common procedure after a housing estate has been finished. (The builders sometimes retain possession, so they can charge residents maintenance fees).

 

This might be why the new fleecers have "retreated" to just the car parks?

 

So if the road has been adopted, you'll need to ask for the date it happened.

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

Ok let's see if we can clear this up. The first thing  is that that neither the windscreen PCN nor the second PCN specify the relevant land  which was Vanguard Way.  They have stated it was parked in Marlborough estate which is not specific enough. In any case they state the postcode is CM7 9UZ which is Victory Gardens. Vanguard Way is CM7 9UY. So they have failed to specify the the correct place where the car was parked.

 

On top of that they have failed on both PCNs to quote the period of parking. In addition they have failed to quote the required words on Schedule 4 S8 [2][f]. All of which means the PCNs are not compliant and therefore the alleged debt cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.

 

There are no signs when entering Vanguard Way that one is entering a private road nor that UKPC are monitoring the road. Marlborough road where Vanguard Way begins is definitely maintained by the Council as you can see from the road signs outside the school.  Obviously at the time of the incident there were many  UKPC parking signs on various wall on Vanguard Way and Victory Gardens but missing entrance signs to alert motorists to the fact that they are entering private land.

 

That should be sufficient to win in Court if UKPC do not see the sense in dropping your case like a hot potato.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Google maps shows the position of that permit holders sign on the entrance to the car park as being in Vanguard Way. It also shows that in 2019 there were UKPC signs attached to properties in Vanguard Way on the other side of the road from the car park.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, lookinforinfo.

 

so because they haven’t identified the correct postcode or the correct road name on the ticket the fleecers haven’t got a leg to stand on? Marlborough Road Estate does not exist on any signage in the area or on any road maps.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

look at their cpr return, their map and the red outlined area.

 

that area is know as the marlborough road estate, the generic postcode (in the middle ..their red pin) is stated too.

 

the windscreen pcn the operator has issued is a generic no permit pcn for marlborough road estate. using the generic address probably upon their contract.

 

this also tallies with the 2008 photos, those are of signs from trafalgar way (next right after the school) as you go below the houses - the underpass going through - states marlborough road too .

 

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

  • 2 months later...

Hello everyone,

I thought this had gone away, however I have now received a General Form of Judgement or Order. I have a dispute resolution hearing in June.

 

I am thinking my defence is as per lookinforinfo’s post above? Would this be a good defence? 

 

One note is that I have not been provided with a copy of UKPCL’s agreement with the land owner that enabled them to operate in the area I received the ticket.

 

Kind Regards

Edited by Niknak76
Link to post
Share on other sites

tell us what happened from when you sent your Dq n180 please

and scan up this latest order to one mass pdf

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...