Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont panic and wet yourself and offer payment !! Date of issue – 14 june 2024 date for aos - 2nd july  date to file defence - 16th july      other than the CCA/CRP and if it ever gets that far..a witness statement, you send them NOTHING and dont ever instigate comms with them. esp by email.. i would be sending one final email in reply to theirs above. PLEASE NOTE: email is NOT to be used for any comms with regard to our mutual court claim. else they'll be sending a whole forest of faked agreements/documents to you one minute before a court deadline removing your shace to object/pull them apart as unenforceable etc. dx        
    • Unbelievably I can't find it, I will have a really good look for it when I have a bit more time on my day off this week. AS a side note, I emailed them offering a token payment to settle the account and avoid court action, which unsurprisingly they have declined. However their reply states:  A Claim was accepted on 19 June 2024 which means we cannot set up a payment plan just yet. You should have received a claims pack from the Court. We would ask for this to be completed with your offer of repayment and returned to either ourselves or the Court.  You have 21 days for this to be completed and returned in order to avoid a Judgment by Default. This means we would need to receive this by 10 July 2024. I was under the impression it was 19 days from date on the claim form. which was the 14th, which would be 3rd July. Could I use this against them as it seems like they are giving me false information in the hope of getting a judgement by default?
    • when is your mediation? honestly I don't think that the ups case is much use actually because it concerns third party rights BUT  as we know now the contract for packlink is direct and there are no third parties rights at all so you don't need it, and frankly the really helpful one will be from @occysrazor case but I don't know if they have it. expect evris mediation to be a complete fail yes
    • jk2054: I have ensured there's not reference to the third party rights in the updated letter of claim. BankFodder: thanks for the edits and information. I understand the Consumer Rights Act prohibits EVRi's attempts to avoid liability in their duty and care of accepting to deliver my parcel according to Section 57.  They have accepted to carry my parcel even though I have identified it as a laptop and specified the value so they must take reasonable care to deliver the parcel or face the consequences if it were lost as it seems to be in my case! I hadn't originally referenced Section 72 because of EVRi didn't offer any insurance whether free or for me to purchase. I understand that if I were to have any sort of insurance from EVRi then Section 72 refer to the rules of such secondary contracts. Is this section indicating that the insurance may reduce my rights or remedies to recourse to full compensation if I had been offered and purchased such insurance?  Is it beneficial to include this in the letter of claim (and subsequently reference both Section 57 and 72 in the MCOL?) although it might not be pertinent in my case?  Perhaps this is just to reinforce that in general EVRi and other couriers are taking such liberties with their customers so it is to send a message that they are breaching both sections? I made a few minor edits to the letter of claim but mainly grammatical type stuff and to keep consistent font, black colour, but the edits you provided are included and are extremely helpful and are putting me in a good position to email and post the letter to EVRi this week and get the ball rolling. Thanks. Evri letter of claim.pdf
    • Thank you for getting back to me I will do my best to get hold of the claim form tomorrow  When I spoke to MCOl on friday I asked for the extra 14 days so penty of time Onlymeagain
  • 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

UKPC ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - vehicle on site during restricted no parking period - Rom Valley Retail Park, Romford *** Claim Dismissed with Costs awarded***


Recommended Posts

However, if it can be improved - why not?

I see you've been looking at other WSs.  You need a little introduction at the start about being a Litigant-in-Person.

In Insufficient Signage/Exhibit 1 is it necessary to show the close-up of their signs?  That's almost showing the signage as better than it is.  I would leave out your 2nd, 4th and 5th photos.

In Penalty flesh it out a bit.  Add that the Claimant will witter on about the Beavis judgment but that your case is distinguished, Beavis dealt with a car park during opening hours when there was an interest in limiting the time cars could stay.

Again in Prohibition flesh it out.  Add some persuasive cases.  There are loads in WSs.

In Abuse of Process/Double Recovery para 14 they have inflated their claim from £100 to £170.  The other costs are allowed.

The rest is superb - 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

sorry the PDF screw up mine

i merged the files earlier but over the last couple of days CAG has been having weird errors and i gave up as i had to go urgently herd sheep for someone.

 

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

Given you usually spend 25 hours a day on the site I think you're let off dx 😉

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 enlarge on Dave's post 58 about the Penalty section. 

there was a famous court case at the supreme Court between parking Eye and Mr Beavis. The Law Lords mused that by charging £100 there was a definite possibility that it was a penalty. The Lords then decided that as PE had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park well run , it wasn't a penalty.

Therefore it follows that as the business was closed at the time of your visit being charged 3100 is a definite penalty as there is no legitimate interest involved. if a PCN is classed as a penalty the case is thrown out.

 

Your one line statement and missing out "legitimate interest"may end up with Judges missing the significance of the situation, Once you mention legitimate interest they will recall the Beavis case and the mention of the Law Lords of the word penalty you strengthen your argument. And it is great that a motorist is talking about the Beavis case rather than the rogues. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

post hidden

please do not put up docx file

all YOUR pers details are in file info/properties - then they'll know you are here.

file save as .pdf (turn off properties in options click box)

the MEGRE everything to one mass pdf, see the online sites in UPLOAD

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

That is a superb WS.

However, I have a few tweaks to suggest.

In (2) "indicating" not "indication".

I think to be consistent with your numbering, in (6) the Beavis case should be EXHIBIT 2.

Do you really need to include over 100 pages of Beavis?  I think that would be likely to annoy the judge.  Just try and find the bit where they decide it was not a penalty due to having an interest in limiting the time that vehicles can stay.

I'll have a look myself for this bit later as it's highly likely to be in WSs from PPCs who think that that paragraph means all their charges are valid always on every occasion.

After your current (7) add this.  It's always useful to refer to a judgment when making a legal point -

8.  In the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6, where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “No parking at any time”, District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.  

In (14) if my maths are right the CPR request should be "EXHIBIT 3".  it is missing from your list of exhibits.

In (16) the two figures should be £100 and £170.  They are entitled to increase fro,m £60 to £100, they are not entitled to increase to £170.  To make it clear for the judge I would write -

16. 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.

17. The Claimant has also invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative.

You also need ot number your exhibits.

The rest is excellent - 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

Thank you FTMDave. I've made the suggested changes and will see if there is any other feedback before posting a final copy.  I would be grateful if you could attached the Beavis judgment as I can't seem to find it.

Do I also need to attach copies of the other judgments referenced in the WS?  And is there an easy way to find them?

Many thank in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, finally, finally found it!  It's this para that talks about the legitimate interest and a two-hour parking limit.

57_extracted_WS Combined excl Ex2 .pdf

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

No, I think you're fine with the exhibits you've prepared.

Exhibit 1 - photos

Exhibit 2 - para 107 of Beavis

Exhibit 3 - CPR request

Exhibit 4 - Excel v Wilkinson

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

WS is ready and I plan to post it tomorrow, 29 April.  The court date is 16 May.

I have just realised that I have a flight abroad on 16 May....not sure how I missed this before....?

What are my chances of winning the case if I don't attend the hearing?  I see I have to inform the court at least 7 days prior to the hearing that I cannot attend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the exact extract from the Supreme Court ruling on parking Eye v Beavis which may, or may not, clarify the position

99.

In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty.

The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss.

The scheme in operation here (and in many similar car parks) is that the landowner authorises ParkingEye to control access to the car park and to impose the agreed charges, with a view to managing the car park in the interests of the retail outlets, their customers and the public at large.

That is an interest of the landowners because

(i) they receive a fee from ParkingEye for the right to operate the scheme, and

(ii) they lease sites on the retail park to various retailers, for whom the availability of customer parking was a valuable facility.

It is an interest of ParkingEye, because it sells its services as the managers of such schemes and meets the costs of doing so from charges for breach of the terms (and if the scheme was run directly by the landowners, the analysis would be no different).

As we have pointed out, deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In practice - forget about the theory - if you don't turn up you have a 0% chance of winning.

However, all is not lost.  It's perfectly possible that UKPC will bottle it when they get your WS.

It may be telling that they have produced no WS.

In post 45 you uploaded part of the court order.  There will be the date they were supposed to pay the hearing fee by which I'm guessing was 18 April.  Give the court a bell tomorrow and see if they have paid.

Edited by FTMDave
Extra info added

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

Posted (edited)

Should UKPC finally decide to go to Court you and your wife should attend and you can state that as you were driving and your wife is the keeper there is no case to answer. 

if they  ask why didn't you appeal, you can truthfully reply that you were unaware of the law regarding the requirement for UKPC to have their PCN compliant with the Law until the appeal time had  passed. And as you have subsequently found out, even when the  keeper denies they were driving, so often their appeal is refused and the keeper is still pursued are pursued as the driver.

of course by the time you admit that the keeper was not the driver you can say who was driving since they only have seven months to  send out a replacement PCN so you are untouchable now.

Edited by lookinforinfo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes travel plans should be changed if possible, as FTMDave says you would definitely lose if yo don't turn up, they have made such a mess of this they shouldlose hands down.

 

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

Posted (edited)

Thank you lookinforinfo.

Unfortunately, on this occasion, I can NOT take my wife to court with me....

With regards to your post #70, do I need to add any of this in my WS?

Also, just to clarify, I am (was) the registered keeper and driver. 

Edited by wv600
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...