Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Turn casual moments into unforgettable dates – choose the best casual dating site! Actual Girls [URL=https://matchnow.life]Super casual Dating[/URL]
    • nope  and  neither dx
    • Ok Thank you DX will do just that . will keep you up dated.
    • dispute it with whichever cra provider is now showing it. simply state the a/c is from 2015 and was defaulted (date) and should not have re appeared. probably getting ready to sell it on. dx
    • Hi Caught Shoplifting at John Lewis - Retail loss Prevention/Other shoplifting allegations. - Consumer Action Group Thanks a lot for commenting this experience of yours. I do understand this might be something that you are not willing to talk about anymore but the same exact scenario happened with me today at John Lewis. They took my name/ address/ a picture of me holding a signed banned letter. the only questions I've got are... will I be contacted by the police will this be recorded as police caution or criminal record?  I would really really appreciate if you could let me know how it went.  I am so so so ashamed of myself and am really making changes in my life I feel like I've lost myself for a period of my life but anyways it would be really great to hear back. Thanks 
  • 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

ParkingEye ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - New Directions Holdings, Lambourne Crescent, Llanishen, Cardiff, CF14 5GL ***Claim Discontinued***


Recommended Posts

Cheers Dave.  Yeah I know exactly what you mean, it's tempting to go full nuclear on them and tell them exactly why they're talking bobbins.  

If I did that though, it'd probably run to 4 full pages.  And I get what you mean about keeping it for the witness statement later on.

I'll make the tweaks you suggested for now, and wait for a couple of weeks before posting in case anything else crops up that might be fun to stick in there. 😈

Thanks

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Morning folks.  

Looks like the snotty letter didn't work.  I now have a claim form, deets below;

Name of the Claimant :  Parkingeye Ltd

Claimants Solicitors: None given

Date of issue – 11 Sept 2023

Date for AOS - 26 Sept 2023

Date to submit Defence - 13 Oct 2023

 

What is the claim for – 

1. Claim for monies outstanding from the Defendant in relation to a Parking Charge (reference xxxx/xxxx) issued on 27/05/2023. 

2. The signage clearly displayed throughout New Directions Holdings Main, Llanishen, Lambourne House, Lambourne Cres, Llanishen, Cardiff, CF14 5GL states that this is private land, managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and that it is subject to terms and conditions, including authorisation being required for parking, by which those who park agree to be bound (the contract). 

3. Parkingeye's ANPR system captured vehicle XXXX XXX entering and leaving the site on 23/05/2023, and parking without authorisation. 

4. Pursuant to Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, notice has been given to the registered keeper, making them liable for the Parking Charge payable upon breach.

5. As no response was received, an alternative service address was obtained and further correspondence issued (CPR 6.9(3)).

 

What is the value of the claim?

Amount Claimed  £120

court fees  £35

legal rep fees  £50

Total Amount  £205

 

AOS is being submitted this morning and the CPR 31.14 request is being printed out and posted today.  Are we still going with the "bare bones denial" defence for now?

Cheers

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

defence is 13th oct.

thats a strange POC, is that all of it seems to be some missing 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

HB is spot on.

There is just one slight difference.  PE are the one company that don't include Unicorn Food Tax.  However, recently they have thought up a different wheeze of claiming legal representative's costs although they are representing themselves.

Therefore keep the defence as is, except change (5) to -

(5)  The Claimant is abusing the court process by claiming legal representative's costs.  The Claimant has no legal representative and is representing themselves.

Just to be super sure.  The two boxes on the upper left-hand side.  They both have PE's name, right?  No solicitor?

  • Like 2
  • 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

  • dx100uk changed the title to ParkingEye ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - New Directions Holdings, Lambourne Crescent, Llanishen, Cardiff, CF14 5GL

Hi DX and Dave

DX - Yes, that is the entirety of the POC, word for word.

 

Dave - Correct, the addresses given are both ParkingEye.  The addresses themselves are slightly different but are blatently the same place.

Claimant is;

ParkingEye Ltd, 40 Eaton Avenue, Matrix Business Park, Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA

The second address given (for sending documents) is;

ParkingEye Ltd, 38-40 Eaton Avenue, Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA

Edited to add rather than submit a second post. 

Could I leave #5 as it is because the original PCN amount was £100, and the amount being claimed before fees is £120, with no explanation for this (admittedly small by PPC standards) extra charge? 

Then add the legal representative unicorn feed tax as #6 and renumber the existing #6 to #7?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that that £20 is interest?

Is it exactly £20 or something like £20.19?

Do they mention interest anywhere?

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

The 20 quid appeared in the LBC further up thread. They apparently added it for sending out the LBC as part of their "recovery costs". 

  • 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

Well spotted CD and NB!

Then yes, the defence should be -

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.   

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

6.  The Claimant is further abusing the court process by claiming legal representative's costs.  The Claimant has no legal representative and is representing themselves.

7.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

  • Thanks 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

  • 1 month later...

Very interesting!  That's my evening reading sorted for when I finish work.

I see for a start they have redacted the grace period.

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

Yep, that was the first thing I noticed, plus the "consideration period".  As this was a sub 10 minute "stay" I can see that being something extremely relevant to bring up if it goes as far as a hearing.

I'm not sure if the other party on the contract was the landowner or just a managing agent.  I presume I can do a land registry search to find that out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The PPCs sometimes redact how much they are charging the client, for example, but there is no reason, zilch, for redacting the consideration and grace periods save for wanting to hide information that would scupper their case.

I can see them bottling before court and indeed you having a GDPR claim, but best of course to plan for the worst.

This one company c/o another company looks dodgy too.

Forum regular LFI is an expert with contracts and I'm sure will note more.

 

  • 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

Cheers Dave.  I suspected as much.  

Would I have any grounds under the civil procedure rules to demand sight of a copy of the contract with that information unredacted?  I suppose even if I wrote back to them requesting that information and they refused, it wouldn't look particularly good on them if it did get as far as a hearing.  If I was going to make a claim under GDPR would that be a new claim or could I file a counter-claim under this existing one?

New Directions Holdings are the company that occupies the building, I can only presume that Ty Glas Management is some kind of managing agent and not the building owner.  This further fists their case if it's true as they likely have no locus standi to bring this court claim in their own name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd leave the contract as is, it's in your favour!

 

The advice is usually NOT to counterclaim.

Not sure of the reasons, but when one of the other regulars answers... we'll both learn something!😁

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

42 minutes ago, Cardiff Devil said:

If I was going to make a claim under GDPR would that be a new claim or could I file a counter-claim under this existing one?

A separate claim ...Part20 counter claims are for when you have suffered monetary loss in connection to the claim. In this instance you are wanting disclosure as evidence in support of the claimant's claim.

Disclosure is covered under CPR 31 unfortunately this does not cover Small claim Track claims as disclosure is decided by the court in its directions.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31

Sooooo the way around this is to state in your initial defence that the claimant is put to strict to provide and disclose evidence etc etc and then reinforce this in further detail within your witness statement.

The court should then impose within its directions that the original documents are served which the claimant relies upon in support of its claim.

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I've understood the forum policy correctly, the advice to not counterclaim is because a fair proportion of claims the PPCs bring are absolutely hopeless and they have no real intention of putting them before a judge.

However, they issue the claims anyway in the hope that the motorist will be terrified of the idea of court when the claim form turns up, and will give in and pay.  After all, it's worth a shot for them, a roboclaim only costs them £35.

When the motorist does fight back though they discontinue before the court date.  Sure, they lose £35, but presumably lots of other mugs are paying and indeed paying £70 Unicorn Food Tax on top.

But if there is a counterclaim, then there is a huge disincentive for the PPC to discontinue the case, as the counterclaim would continue.

So the conclusion is that it's best to keep the two separate.  Firstly beat the PPC's case.  Then later go after them for GDPR or similar.

  • Thanks 2
  • 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

42 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

Part20 counter claims are for when you have suffered monetary loss in connection to the claim.

You can never have suffered monetary loss on a speculative parking claim 

  • Thanks 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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the advice for the time being is not challenge the "consideration period" being redacted on the contract, and wait and see what PE decide to do?

If they crack on with the case, bring it up in the witness statement, and if they bottle out before the hearing, submit a claim under GDPR?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, although I'm not convinced a separate claim under GDPR is the way forward if they were to Discontinue. Providing the defence/statement is applied and considered correctly  and if the Judge disregards or does not even consider your witness statement as we have had in a couple of claims recently then ask him why not ? speak up as its due process within the Legal Judicial system that all statements are considered.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just chucking a vague idea out there.

How about writing to Ty Glas Management Ltd, saying you had business with New Directions Holdings Ltd, but arrived just after they had closed.  You therefore drove away after just a few minutes.

You have received a £100 parking charge from PE and you would like to know how long the consideration and grace periods are that are mentioned in the contract, as PE are hiding these from you.

They might be daft enough to let on.

As I say, just an idea.

 

  • Thanks 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 might indeed be worth a try.  I've checked them out on Companies House and they have a single director, no other current significant staff listed.  Just checked their accounts and they're basically a dormant company.

The one bit that did pique my interest was, under Nature of Business (SIC) it states; 

  • 68320 - Management of real estate on a fee or contract basis

So that pretty much confirms my suspicions that they're just some kind of managing agent and not the actual landowner, meaning that the contract they provided wasn't really worth the paper it was printed on.  Doesn't explain how their accounts are basically dormant.

They don't have a website that I can see or any kind of contact details posted online but I'll keep looking and see what I can turn up.

Edited by Cardiff Devil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes how can a dormant Company act of or satisfy a contract?

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

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...