Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • Owners of older vehicles tell the BBC of their anger that their cars' apps will stop working.View the full article
  • 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
      • 160 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

Premier/Gladstone CCTV PCN Claimform - parked on DYL - euro car parts gatwick 80 crawley RH109pl *** Claim Dismissed***


Recommended Posts

The way you've gone about your WS is very different from the majority of other WSs here ... not necessarily worse ... just different.

Apart from sometimes jumping from one argument to another and back again most of it is good stuff.

The more time we have to work on it the better, which is why I asked what your deadline is.

 

  • 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

Thanks for the feedback FTM .. I realise that some jumping back and forth was going on. 

I searched on here but struggled to find a similar case with a witness statement so had to source this WS template from outside this forum.

A few threads that looked similar are abandoned halfway.  Can you please point me to any good WS s that could apply in this case as well.

Deadline is around 15th Dec but the problem is that I will be going out of the country around that time so I wanted to file it by end of the month. 

The crux of the defence is 

1> Vague POC

2> Problems with Signage 

3> Double recovery & other fictitious costs

4> Non Compliance of POFA 

I just need to streamline (reduce) arguments on the first three and add points on the last point (POFA violations on the NTK)

 There are some other points that were raised earlier by dx , lookingforinfo and yourself  such as

-- on their use of CCTV instead of ANPR

-- should have been a manual windscreen PCN.  

-- confusing interpretation of DYL on private land

(but these are even harder to formulate as I couldnt find any reference WS)

PS: Do we need to repeat the defence in the WS verbatim. I read somewhere that its a good idea so added it in  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The end of the month is fine.

I have two busy days at work now but will be able to do some work on it on Friday and then over the weekend.

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 a couple of quick things before Friday.

Personally I would change your order of points to -

1> Vague POC

2> Problems with Signage 

3> Non Compliance of POFA 

4> Double recovery & other fictitious costs

This is because, although judges can chuck out the case due to fictitious costs, they hardly ever do.  So de facto you're inviting the judge to chuck out the claim on one of the first three points, and if then if they don't, to at least reduce the sum payable with the last point.

Regarding the Unicorn Food Tax, have a look at that section in the attachment in post 110 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments  as there may be arguments you can use.

If it's not in post 110 it'll be a couple of posts above or below, sometimes the post count goes wonky.

Also have a look at the WS in post 149 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/454551-opsdcbl-2xpcns-paploc-now-claimform-machine-said-not-in-use-llangrannog-beach-car-park-west-wales-claim-dismissed/page/6/#comments  (again I make it post 149 but it might be slightly above or below).

This WS was prepared in a huge hurry but in a sense I prefer this cut-down version.  Anyway have a butcher's at the Double Recovery section.

More on Friday.

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. 

Updated the WS and tried to streamline the arguments & removed the repeated defence.

Might need guidance on  

> keeping CRA breaches & Costs for defendant section (highlighted)

> Shall I add arguments about landowner authority / planning permission of signs  ( BTW they havent sent anything on the CPR 31 14 request)

 

WS-AMPPHRSHM-Redacted.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have composed a well written and well argued WS except for the fact that you have admitted being the driver.  Because the land is not relevant land they cannot pursue the keeper only the driver. That lessens their chances of winning as Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person. 

So in point 3 you didn't visit Europarks, the driver did. And it was the driver, not you, that parked the car across the street. And APPARENTLY here was no clear no indication that there were any parking restrictions , as you want to give the impression that it wasn't you who was driving.

In point 12 you didn't revisit the site you visited it [giving the impression that this was the first time you had been there].

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick thought...

I've looked back through the thread and noticed that you're doing all this on behalf of a friend.

Is this friend keeping up with what you're doing here?

If it actually does end up in court, HE will be the one presenting his case.

If he doesn't understand the legal arguments, this could all go belly up and waste all of your efforts.

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

Yes Nicky, its on behalf of the friend , I will walk him thru the main arguments and hopefully he does the needful. 

 

@lookinforinfo - thanks for the suggested edits, I will incorporate them in the WS. Will require some  thought.

 

 

Edited by boxer1978
comment
Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions 

Do we need to send the W S to the Solicitors and the parking company as well?

What email ID do we use for sending WS to the court?   [email protected] Also , is there  any specific subject line guidelines on this?

Edited by boxer1978
change
Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of "driver admissions" still left in the WS...

Para 14: "I" and "my"

Para 36 ii: "I" and "me"

  • 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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for taking for ever to get back to you.

I like the way you've put headings on all your sub-sections so the legal points you're arguing are clear to the judge.

We don't normally use your Preliminary matter: Claim should be struck out arguments, not because your arguments aren't valid, they certainly are, but because you're unlikely to win just on that basis.  However, what you have written is short and to the point, so why not? 

What we have seen judges get annoyed about in the PoCs is the PPC mixing up "driver/keeper" and not stating whether they are using POFA or not, so I would include those points.

The rest is really, really good.  Well done.

 

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

To answer your questions - you file the WS with the court and also send a copy to the solicitors, not to the PPC themselves, so Gladstones in this case.

The e-mail address will depend on whichever court the case is at, your mate will need to look it up.  Is it not on the correspondence from the local court?

In the e-mail subject title it's a good idea to write "Witness Statement", the claim no., and the names of the two parties.

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

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 still have one statement that needs rewriting in the third party.

"None of
this was agreed by me, let alone known or even seen as I attempted to gain entry to the store."

Also the PCN is non compliant with PoFA because under Schedule 4 S( [2][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; "

I don't see you have stated that in your WS ans it is the stronger point in getting the Judge to agree that the PCN fails to make the keeper responsible for the debt.

I agree with Dave that this is a WS and should be held up till the last minute. this does two things. First it doesn't allow Premier to see your arguments in order to counter them  before sending their WS to the Court. Second it does allow you to counter their arguments before you send your to Court.

At the moment all you need is a simple three or four point cheeky riposte to their claim to show that your friend won't be intimidated and Premier will have to go to Court with a poor case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I am XXXX, i am the Register keeper of (reg no.) and the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts
below are true to the best of my belief and my own knowledge.

3. On Friday, 6th August 2021, at approximately 15:20 PM, the driver visited the Euro Car Parts store in
Crawley to collect a part for the car. The Parking spaces (about 3-4) directly in front of the store were fully occupied. The driver stopped the car across the street from the Euro Car Parts Store and collected the car part and left within 10 minutes. There was no clear indication that there were any parking restrictions where the driver stopped.

12. Ambiguous Signage:

On visiting the site later, I saw that there is no signage as one enters or exits the (name the road). It is important to note that this area has a Toyota car dealership at the front with a big car park visible from the main road. (Exhibit xx-05)


Only after one drives about 50m after entering (name the road) there is a sign, on the left side that indicates some form of parking restrictions. It appears that the sign applies to the big car park on the left because it is placed at the entry of the said car park and NOT at the entry to the whole site from the main road. To reach Euro Car Parts store, one has to continue down the side street past the actual car park. It is therefore not
clear that any parking restrictions apply to the side street in addition to the actual car park. (Exhibit xx-05).

13. Signage obscured & improperly positioned on the wall:

On the same visit, I saw the long warehouse wall (against which the driver parked my car) had a couple of signs from Premier Park Limited. These signs are too far apart and are placed very low on the wall. One of the main signs is also blocked by a pipe running through the middle. (Exhibit xx-09) There is every likelihood that the sign is obscured by a high sided vehicle as it appears to be common on that street. (Exhibit xx-10) Presumably, this was the case on the day of the incident. - speclation remove it

15. Signage prohibitive - Upon further close inspection of the signage during the visit, the wording appears prohibitive, as it says, “No Parking on yellow lines or hatched areas (No Exceptions)” (Exhibit xx-08).

The verbiage does not provide an offer to park, so I don’t see how a contract can be formed between the driver and the claimant. As, the terms are forbidding, this means that there was never a contractual relationship. ADD: Any Markings upon roads on private land are mere tarmac graffiti and are not covered by any Applicable Laws or Traffic Regulation Orders enforceable by any local authority.

 

  • Like 1
  • 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

I went back to your first post on this thread. The PCN that was apparently uploaded early in the thread appears to have disappeared but there is mention of the  breach occurring in the postcode RH10 9 PL. Yet Europarts claim their postcode on the Eezehaul road is RH10 9AN. So that would be another defence. I have checked using 

WWW.GETTHEDATA.COM

Find data about postcode RH10 9PL including maps, open data, schools, flood risk, crime stats.

I also checked on there RH10 9AN. The PL postcode is on the left hand side of the road  when coming in from the roundabout and the AN postcode is on the left hand side so it will depend on which side of the road you parked. But if they have the wrong postcode they lose as PoFA  requires that the area is specified.

The earlier thread involving a cagger parking in a similar place to your friend only lasted about four posts so we don't know the outcome. But we did learn that Eezehaul were the employers of Premier.

The signage from Premier didn't apply with PoFA requirements which I saw in google maps dated 2020. For a start when you come off the roundabout into the Eezehaul road there should be a big sign advising motorists that they are entering a private road with parking restrictions. It didn't then though Premier may have altered it since. 

The first No Parking sign is on the corner of the the road that turns into the Toyota giving the impression that it applies to the Toyota section rather than the Eezehaul. Plus it is not big enough to attract attention. their is a further sign that faces at right angles to the road so would be easily missed. there is a third sign past the Europarks store on a wall across the road. 

It would be worth getting legible photos of the signage there now since you may remember why you didn't see them on the day of the visit. Strong sunlight, high sided vehicle hiding a sign, busy road making it difficult to look sideways where the sign was, etc etc. The name of the road is  The Drive which is presumably where you parked.

In any case the signage all say No Parking which is prohibitive and therefore cannot offer a contract.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 09/07/2021 at 00:15, Boxer1968 said:

heres my paperwork hope this is correct ?

premier.pdf 1.89 MB · 30 downloads

 

On 11/07/2021 at 11:48, dx100uk said:

if you look on google nosey neighbours you can see the CCTV cameras on the tall warehouse wall , the images there are 2021 too, but you can't see the disturbed  curb stone as i think the RAC van is in the way. it's a private road too.

added a pix in PDF of where you exactly parked as an addition to the above info

where you parked .pdf

  • Thanks 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

the op parked far side by the white door , obv because the bush, the square  drain cover and the brick pavement are at the other kerb and the round drain cover and repaired tarmac can be seen in the pcn photos by the white door.

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 weeks later...

I understand your reasons for filing early.

The only problem is that this gives Premier a chance to see yours first and potentially the opportunity to make up lies to counter your arguments.

Will you able to get your hands on their WS when it arrives?

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

  • 4 weeks later...

thanks a lot guys for your help with the whole claim.

The hearing is in a couple of days and I have just come back to the country. 

I have had the claimants WS that states that they wont be attending but would like the hearing to go ahead anyway based on their arguments in the statement. 

Not sure what to make of this. I am planning to go to the court as planned and defend. 

As I would like the experts to give me any more arguments for the day if possible,

Please let me know if it is okay to post their WS in here? 

Anything I should redact beyond my personal details etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is essential we get to see their WS.

Plus please post up exactly what they have written about not attending it is extremely important because there are two ways of not attending.

One is to just not show up at all and ask the judge to decide on their written WS.  In that case you would win.

The other is not to show up but send a solicitor on their behalf.  A totally different story.

  • I agree 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

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...