Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
    • Thank you for posting their WS. If we start with the actual WS made by the director one would have doubts that they had even read PoFA let alone understood it. Point 10  we only have the word of the director that the contract has been extended. I should have had the corroboration of the Client. Point 12 The Judge HHJ Simkiss was not the usual Judge on motoring cases and his decisions on the necessity of contracts did not align with PoFA. In Schedule 4 [1[ it is quite clearly spelt out- “relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—(a)the owner or occupier of the land; or (b authorised, under or  by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land; And the laughable piece of paper from the land owners cannot be described as a contract. I respectfully ask that the case be dismissed as there is no contract. WE do not even know what the parking regulations are which is really basic. It is respectfully asked that without a valid contract the case cannot continue. One would imagine that were there a valid contract it would have been produced.  So the contract that Bank has with the motorist must come from the landowner. Bank on their own cannot impose their own contract. How could a director of a parking company sign a Statement of Truth which included Point 11. Point 14. There is no offer of a contract at the entrance to the car park. Doubtful if it is even an offer to treat. The entrance sign sign does not comply with the IPC Code of Conduct nor is there any indication that ANPR cameras are in force. A major fault and breach of GDPR. Despite the lack of being offered a contract at the entrance [and how anyone could see what was offered by way of a contract in the car park is impossible owing to none of the signs in the WS being at all legible] payment was made for the car to park. A young person in the car made the payment. But before they did that, they helped an elderly lady to make her payment as she was having difficulty. After arranging payment for the lady the young lad made his payment right behind. Unfortunately he entered the old lady's number again rather than paying .for the car he was in. This can be confirmed by looking at the Allow List print out on page 25. The defendant's car arrived at 12.49 and at 12.51 and 12.52  there are two payments for the same vrm. This was also remarked on by the IPC adjudicator when the PCN was appealed.  So it is quite disgraceful that Bank have continued to pursue the Defendant knowing that it was a question of  entering the wrong vrm.  Point 21 The Defendant is not obliged to name the driver, they are only invited to do so under S9[2][e]. Also it is unreasonable to assume that the keeper is the driver. The Courts do not do that for good reason. The keeper in this case does not have a driving licence. Point 22. The Defendant DID make a further appeal which though it was also turned down their reply was very telling and should have led to the charge being dropped were the company not greedy and willing to pursue the Defendant regardless of the evidence they had in their own hands. Point 23 [111] it's a bit rich asking the Defendant to act justly and at proportionate cost while acting completely unjustly themselves and then adding an unlawful 70% on to the invoice. This  is despite PoFA S4[5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9[2][d].  Point 23 [1v] the Director can deny all he wants but the PCN does not comply with PoFA. S9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN only quotes the ANPR arrival and departure times which obviously includes a fair amount of driving between the two cameras. Plus the driver and passengers are a mixture of disabled and aged persons who require more time than just a young fit single driver to exit the car and later re enter. So the ANPR times cannot be the same as the required parking period as stipulated in the ACT. Moreover in S9[2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, 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 will note that in the PCN the words in parentheses are not included but at the start of Section 9 the word "must" is included. As there are two faults in the PCN it follows that Bank cannot pursue the keeper . And as the driver does not have a driving licence their case must fail on that alone. And that is not even taking into consideration that the payment was made. Point 23 [v] your company is wrong a payment was made. very difficult to prove a cash payment two weeks later when the PCN arrives. However the evidence was in your print out for anyone to see had they actually done due diligence prior to writing to the DVLA. Indeed as the Defendant had paid there was no reasonable cause to have applied for the keeper details. Point 24 the Defendant did not breach the contract. The PCN claimed the Defendant failed to make a payment when they had made a payment.   I haven't finished yet but that is something to start with
    • You don't appeal to anyone. You haven't' received a demand from a statutory body like the council, the police or the courts. It's just a dodgy cowboy company trying it on. You simply don't pay.  In the vast majority of these cases the company deforest the Amazon with threats about how they are going to divert a drone from Ukraine and make it land on your home - but in the end they do nothing.
    • honestly you sound like you work the claimant yes affixed dont appeal to anyone no cant be “argued either way”  
  • 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

Parking Eye PCN Claimform - Goodmayes Hospital, IIIford , Goodmayes Hospital, Barley Lane, Ilford , IG3 8XJ


Recommended Posts

Cheers Dave, just having a look now! 

I would have thought that they could just simply cancel their claim as it is invalid??

I have already read through this Dave?

I noted the following :

" I am not seeing all these threads you mentioned with the N180 replys, the very closes one I have found is the below but this has no N180 reply on it:"

I am in the same position, am I doing something wrong??

As it stands I think I am just waiting for a court issued N180, and then once I receive this I do the following :

no to mediation

1 wit you

the rest is obvious.

3 copies

1 to the court

1 to their sols (minus email/phone/sig) (in my case ParkingEye?)

1 for you records file

I believe I then wait until I have received the Notice of Transfer of Proceedings explaining that it has now been transferred to the county court for allocation. Then I am waiting for n157/allocation to be sent from the court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

add not suitable to papers only hearing as issues are complex and need oral examination.

 

  • Like 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

Reapstar,

It can be a steep learning curve,  but you're getting there. The more you find out for yourself, the better. It "sticks" in the old brain cells better. 

It'll stand you in good stead if it ever actually gets to court. You'll be the one presenting your case...

Just keep reading.

I've learnt a hell of a lot just reading around this forum. 

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

Hey Dx, I don't understand what you are saying here "add not suitable to papers only hearing as issues are complex and need oral examination." ?? Please kindly explain, thank you.

Yes Nicky Boy, the process is definitely starting to become clearer, I think some people are quicker at picking it up than others, I have noticed though that many posters seem to suffer the same confusion whilst trying to navigate this site, the information needed is most certainly there, its just not easy to find.

I have already been to court once over one of these, with the help of the wonderful people here who share their valuable time helping people, hopefully it will result in a win again, I'm just tired of having to deal with these clowns. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there's a section asking if the case is suitable for a hearing on the papers only. Obviously you say no, 'cos the fleecers lie and twist things in their WS.

Then you explain why not suitable using DX's little spiel...

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

Oh ok, that makes sense now! Thanks Nicky :) 

Just received a beg letter offering to pay only £70 to forget about it.

Imagine someone owing you money then taking you to court for it because "it is owed" and "we are in the right", then they offer to reduce it massively if you cough up before it goes to court. 

This should be an insult to the court worthy of punishment, no?

Edited by Reapstar
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they have realised that they cannot win and are trying to recover their costs .


"We are now in receipt of new information and in an effort to bring this matter to a conclusion without further cost to either party" they will accept £70 to finish it lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

na.. one of a dozen or so std lines they rotate around and use in these threat-o-gram we are all powerful begging letters but we'll win in court twaddle letters

you'll see the same letter in 99% of PE claimform threads here already

dx

 

  • Like 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

This will be due to the hospital intervening.  At work now.  More in a mo.

  • 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

I have seen it before, I just find it amusing how they can go to the effort of telling the court that £185 is owed yet they are willing to settle for only £70 if im willing to not go to court. It's just laughable and annoying because it is wasting everyone's time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be doing a bit of 2+2=5 here, but from past experience I reckon this has happened.

The hospital has been pretty decent and has put pressure on PE.

Had that been done at the start they would have cancelled the invoice.

Now however that there is a court claim they will have squealed like a demented piglet that they have paid out "costs" and so "cannot" cancel it but will accept a much smaller amount.

Now £70.00 is better than £185.00.

But £0.00 is even better than £70.00.

Legally you owe £0.00 because they rely on signage to form a contract with the motorist, and there was no damn sign.

However, the big problem here is you moving abroad and your mum being the RK.  Is she up for learning a couple of quick legal arguments, especially the signage, and explaining them in court?  Because that is the alternative to accepting the fleecers' offer.

  • Like 1
  • 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

That sounds pretty reasonable, she is 70 years old and it will be a great burden and stress for her that she doesn't need, this is what angers me, they are attacking an elderly woman that is not in the position to be able to defend herself, these people are despicable.  

It was a genuine appointment, it wasn't someone attending site to engage in commerce. If I was just a random person using the parking for my own benefit then I would appreciate the action against her but as mentioned it was a genuine appointment that got delayed due to NHS issues. 

I feel sorry for people who are unaware of CAG and get emotionally bullied into coughing up, to me that is the same as robbing people on the street and he reason they get away with it all the time is because people end up agreeing to pay. 

There is no crime committed when person A agrees to pay person B's demands. If person A does not agree to pay and the money is taken by force then, that is considered robbery, but if handed over by agreement. No robbery. Same as Tax basically. That is why when street people rob other people on the street they call it "taxing" them. 

Why do I see like this and others see it as genuine legal above board business?

 

This is the response from the CEO :

 

Further to our correspondence below.  This has now been investigated by our internal Estates department and the car parking agents, Parking Eye.  I’m afraid to inform you that as the ticket dates to May 2022 it is now out of the Trust’s control and is being internally reviewed by Parking Eye.

 Normally Estates have the ability to cancel tickets for the Goodmayes site, however the PCN has now exceeded the point of reminders and would have gone to court or possible debt collectors. When Estates attempted to cancel, the response from the parking eye system was:-

 “Cancellation request has been aborted, a pending request for this case already exists”

 I realise this is not an ideal response, however I’m afraid from a NELFT’s perspective there is nothing more we can do to assist.  Please do contact Parking Eye to resolve this issue further.

 Again, I am sorry I cannot be of further assistance, and I wish you the best of luck in having this resolved satisfactorily.

As far as I am concerned this is a direct contravention to their statement

"Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (such as when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to work beyond their scheduled shift)."

I wonder why they are ignoring their own mandate

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right of course.

What is PE's deadline for you to accept the £70?

I'm thinking that you might as well use the time before the deadline to keep fighting with the CEO, you've got nothing to lose.

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

This is definitely along the lines of what Dave said earlier.

Having seen some contracts, there is usually a clause allowing cancellation by the client (in this case, the hospital), but only within a certain period , or before "recovery" commences. The reasoning? Because the fleecers start to "incur costs"... huh, yeah!

Agree with Dave, plug away with the CEO, again quoting the "Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (such as when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to work beyond their scheduled shift)." from their own Government "mandate". (Good word, better word than "guidance").

If all else fails and, due to your personal circumstances, you really want this out of your hair, possibly offer the fleecers (via hospital CEO, so he's aware) to cover their actual costs of £35??

  • Like 2

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

Thank you for the input guys, having to pay £35 for someone's greedy mistake is just as infuriating as having to pay £185.

I will reply to the CEO's office and reaffirm that their mandate is clear and that they are obliged by their own orders to waive any charges due to the delay being outside of the drivers control. 

I'm not sure if you have noticed but I may come across as a bit blunt sometimes 😛 unintended of course, how does this sound :

Dear Sarah, 

Thank you for your reply.

I appreciate that the event occurred back in 2022 but your Agent has only just decided to proceed with action against me. 

This is clearly outside of my control and was based upon their own decision, they are aware of the rules they are obliged to follow, one of which clearly states the following :


"Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (such as when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to work beyond their scheduled shift)."

As this is government mandate, not guidance, it should be relatively straightforward to cancel the invalid invoice in order for your Agent to avoid incurring any further unnecessary costs and any further undue alarm, distress and harm to me.

Please kindly note that under this particular circumstance as defined in the above mandate, your parking agent has a legal obligation to waive their erroneous and invalid charge.
 

I request that you kindly instruct your Agent to cancel their invoice without any further delay.

 

Kind regards, 

 

(it wont allow me to turn bold off on some txt?)





 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wooops, I was just drafting a letter, but you beat me to it, more in a mo!

  • 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

Alongside the fact that the fleecers have only just initiated legal action, it might be an idea to mention that you gave them the option to cancel the charge back on 03/08/2022.

(When you sent your "snotty letter").

  • 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

That is superb.  I've suggested some extra bits in red -

Dear Sarah, 

Thank you for your reply.

I appreciate that the event occurred back in 2022 but your Agent has only just decided to proceed with action against me.  I did not ignore their demands, I replied to their Letter of Claim on 3 August 2022 so they could have cancelled the charge then. 

Not only do Estates normally have the ability to cancel tickets for the Goodmayes site, you always have the ability.  Simply use a phone or a keyboard, contact Parking Eye and call them off.  You are the organ grinder.  They are your agents.  You are in charge.

The court action is clearly outside of my control and was based upon their own decision, they are aware of the rules they are obliged to follow, one of which clearly states the following :

"Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (such as when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to work beyond their scheduled shift)."

As this is government mandate, not guidance, it should be relatively straightforward to cancel the invalid invoice in order for your Agent to avoid incurring any further unnecessary costs and any further undue alarm, distress and harm to me.

Please kindly note that under this particular circumstance as defined in the above mandate, your parking agent has a legal obligation to waive their erroneous and invalid charge.

Parking Eye are a member of the British Parking Association.  The BPA's Code of Practice is quite clear about the importance of signs, and especially entrance signs, point 19.2  https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf  I once again attach a photograph showing there is no entrance sign.  Parking Eye are out to entrap motorists and Estates are letting them get away with it.

Parking Eye have paid the £35 claim fee to start the vexatious court action. That is the limit of the extra costs they have incurred.

I request that you kindly instruct your Agent to cancel their invoice without any further delay.

 

Kind regards,

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

How about this modification for second to last para?

You may or may not be aware that Parking Eye have written to me offering to settle the outstanding PCN by payment of £70.

This is to say the least, disingenuous. Parking Eye have paid a £35 claim fee to start the vexatious court action. That is the limit of any extra costs they have incurred.

  • Like 2

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

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...