Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Bookmakers use betting on political events to entice new customers, and say it is growing.View the full article
    • 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.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Lets see what the others think

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

There are two companies involved. Ty Glas is the dormant company and New Directions Holdings is the other company. ND  has a turnover of £47 million and aa operating of just over £2 million so all the financial dealings are done through ND.

I looked at the contract to see who signed it and it was apparently  signed by Leanne Jones who is the group facilities manager for New Directions. whether that includes New directions holdings ltd and whether she can sign on behalf of them as she appears to be on the recruitment side of New Directions ltd is a question that may need to be asked.

Also if a company with  a dormant account should be co signing a contract especially one where there is a fair amount of redaction.

Below are details of what a dormant company is and what it can and cannot do though interestingly the company is listed as "Active" even though their accounts are quoted as dormant each year.

however it does raise the question why it would be involved in a financial transaction with ND and Parking Eye. One would think that TY Glas must be earning something somewhere in the deal. Perhaps a phone call  to the tax man  questioning what is going on........................

Although I would be writing to them first to see if they could find a way to cancelling your PCN.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ty Glas seems to be the name of the development.  That ties in with Ty Glas Management and New Directions Holdings both having addresses in Lambourne Crescent, but apart from that no apparent connection between the companies in terms of present or past directors, etc.

You could write to Ty Glas Management at their snail mail address and query the consideration and grace periods.

As LFI has sussed out that the contract was signed by Leanne Jones of New Directions I would normally suggest also writing to New Directions Holdings, but there is always the danger that they might get uppity and query what the nature of your business that afternoon was, and you can't really reply that it was teaching the GF to drive!

  • 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

Philip John Saunders the director of Ty Glas is also a director of eight other companies as recorded below

FIND-AND-UPDATE.COMPANY-INFORMATION.SERVICE.GOV.UK

Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

So no doubt whatever money he is making  through Parking Eye is probably going through one of his other companies. I do not know that much about dormant companies but it would seem strange that a company which is declared as being active despite their accounts being described as dormant, is able to jointly sign a contract  where money should be going to that company  but doesn't appear to.

Edited by lookinforinfo
spelling
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies folks.  A bit of an update for you.

I just tried calling New Directions to see if I could speak to Leanne Jones to find out what the secretive consideration period is that was worthy of redaction.   I was informed that she'd left the business but she offered to pass my details on to her replacement for a call back. 

In the meantime I asked about the consideration period but the receptionist wasn't aware, obviously.  To her credit she did try to cancel it on their ParkingEye webpage but it said something like "Cancellation request pending manual review" 

I reckon because it's passed the point of court action they won't allow it to now be cancelled, although the fact that they tried to cancel it on my behalf could be useful ammunition in the witness statement further down the line. 

I'm awaiting a call back from the new Facilities Manager to see if I can figure out this information.  I reckon the consideration period on the contract is 10 minutes, so that's why they've redacted it because they know it'd sink their case at the first hurdle.  As Dave said up above it's not confidential or proprietary information so there's no logical reason whatsoever that this should have been redacted.

I'm actually kicking myself now that I didn't think to contact them sooner, all of this could have been avoided.

Oh well, onwards...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems strange that New Directions have replaced Leanne yet are still recognising her in the same position in their advertisements.

WWW.NEW-DIRECTIONS.CO.UK

“Everyone has a part to play in mitigating climate change and minimising our environmental impact wherever we can. We take our responsibility in caring - ND Recruitment Services

If I was the new Group facilities  manager I wouldn't be happy about that..........

Edited by lookinforinfo
  • I agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good move to get on to New Directions.

I was a bit loath to suggest it as I was worried that they might enquire too much about what you were doing in the car park at that time!

As you say, it can be only good news for your case that ND attempted to get PE to cancel the ticket.  From previous cases I think they have some sort of portal for clients where cancellations can be done automatically, but that doesn't work once it gets to court stage.  The poor dears only make around £9m profit per year (that after paying their top directors huge salaries), so realistically you can't expect them to suck up the £35 it cost them to start the court case.

Good luck with the new Facilities Manager.

  • 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 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

Unfortunately I won't be able to speak to the new FM until Monday at the earliest as it's half-term at the moment in Wales and she's apparently off on annual leave.

Hopefully I can get her to confirm the consideration period and I can then tell ParkingLie to Foxtrot Oscar.

One other thing that we haven't touched on that PE didn't address in their CPR 31.14 response was planning permission. 

Am I right in thinking that this is a legal requirement to erect the equipment to run an ANPR camera if it's on a pole and not attached to the existing structure, lack of planning permission could potentially rule their use unlawful? 

I've had a look at the building on Google Maps and the latest pictures of the building are from 2019 when the building was still occupied by MotoNovo.  Obviously this predates the date the contract was signed with New Directions, so it's not there. 

I also just checked on the Cardiff Council's planning permission portal and there's no application been made or granted for a pole mounted ANPR camera for those premises.

Cheers

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Devil,

As you say, planning permission is obviously required.

It is a criminal offence, but invariably councils very rarely, if ever, actually prosecute offenders.

(Probably too busy chasing thimgs like buildings and extensions without PP).

Unfortunately, as I understand it, no serious weight has been given to lack of PP by judges in parking cases.

However, it's still worth using, if only as an indication of how PE ignore such things and generally run their business.

 

D'you want to go to the trouble of reporting PE's "infraction" to the council?🙂

Don't know whether them or the landowner would catch any flak generated...

  • 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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Nicky

I was considering reporting it, but everyone I've spoken to at New Directions has been very decent so far and I've no desire to land them in any trouble.  ParkingEye on the other hand I couldn't give a toss about, as they're very naughty people.

When I speak to the New Directions Facilities Manager next week I might just casually drop into the conversation that over the course of my investigation I've discovered that ParkingEye don't appear to have obtained planning permission for the erection of the ANPR camera system, and that they might want to have a word with them about it.  Might just stir things up a little bit without going down a formal route. 

Thanks

CD

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hey all.

I got the full unredacted contract sent over from the new facilities manager at New Directions but unfortunately the "consideration period" was only five minutes, not ten as I expected, so I can't cosh them with that one.  

I've had a read through and one of the things I did notice, from what I can see there's no specific clause in there that allows ParkingEye to take county court action in their own name for charges issued on this land.  It's defined in the definitions on page 3 but not really referred to anywhere else.  I know of another case that was tossed out because this right was not explicitly defined in the contract (VCS v Ibbottson).

I can post it up for people to review if it's not going to land me in hot water.

Thanks

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the part where PE are allowed to take motorists to Court

11.2.4.

enforce Parking Contracts, including requesting details of the keeper of any vehicle breaching a Parking Contract, where
there is reasonable cause; issue Parking Charge Notices; and collect sums owed in accordance with any enforcement
approach agreed between the parties, which shall include, unless otherwise stated, the option to recover via Debt
Recovery and / or Legal Action;

Sorry it doesn't appear too clearly.

 

As I said earlier the PCN is not compliant so you as keeper only is not liable to pay the ticket.

 

   

 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

The big thing to me is this part...

"A consideration period of at least 5 minutes (for the driver to consider whether to stay and park or to leave the Car Park without parking) will be allowed, and a grace period of at least 20 minutes will be added, to the purchased time,"

So, at least 5 minutes consideration and at least 20 minutes grace period, which is added to the purchased time. (Purchased time was 0:00).

This gives at least 25 minutes total.

 

No wonder the naughty PPC redacted that part of the contract!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on Nick.  The 20 minutes is allowed even during the no parking period, which is when CD was there -

Time Limit: 0 Hours 0 Minutes plus a grace period of at least 20 minutes

So, CD, there is no way PE can win.  This makes your case extremely atypical, we never see cases where the PPC has sued blatantly against the terms of the contract - and to boot the person being sued has been able to get hold of the contract!

How to proceed depends really on what you want to achieve from this.

1.  If you just want the matter to go away you could write to PE and tell them you've got your hands on the contract which they had hidden from you and they'd better discontinue sharpish.

2.  You could even make your letter a Letter of Claim for distress due to breach of your GDPR, but with the proviso that you won't sue if they discontinue sharpish (but in that case you would really have to sue if they didn't play ball as otherwise you would be shown up as a paper tiger).

3.  If you want to enjoy humiliating them, let the matter proceed to court, thrash them, then sue for distress due to breach of GDPR.

It depends on how much time you want to dedicate to the case and how much you want to enjoy toying with the PE mouse.  Have a think about it.

  • 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

Whichever way PE go they can't winn its how bolshie you want to be with them that Contract is dynamite to their case..  as FFTMDave says that 25 minutes total would apply 24/7.

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

Cheers all

I'm happy to take them all the way to the hearing and give them a bashing, then follow it up with an application for an unreasonable costs order. 

Hopefully this will be open and shut, taking this claim to court when they knew they had no rights to do so. 

I'm more than happy to pursue a GDPR claim in there as well for obtaining my details from the DVLA when they knew they had no grounds to do so. 

I'm the pettiest person going. 

They've poked the bear now. 

On 17/11/2023 at 12:20, FTMDave said:

3.  If you want to enjoy humiliating them, let the matter proceed to court, thrash them, then sue for distress due to breach of GDPR.

This. 😈

My defence was submitted to the court back on the 22nd September.  Am I right in thinking this then gets sent to the claimant, and they have roughly 6 weeks to pay the hearing fee in order to proceed, at which point I should get the directions questionnaire? 

Otherwise if they don't pay the hearing fee the case gets autostayed and they then have to pay an additional fee to "un-stay" it, which they can't claim back even if they were to win?

I only ask because I haven't heard anything since and there are no updates on MCOL since 22/09/23.  Is it possible they may have bottled it and given up already?

Cheers

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

the claim is progressed by the claimant sending in their DQ n180, but if theres no mention of the court even sending them out on mcol claim status then...

 i would not start cheering that the claim is auto stayed until at least 2mts as northants bulk always has delays .

 

  • 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

Not sure, but even if PE don't take it further, I think you could still pursue them for GDPR breach.

Because, they've already comitted the breach...?

I'm sure others will comment on my ramblings...

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

17 hours ago, Cardiff Devil said:

I'm happy to take them all the way to the hearing and give them a bashing, then follow it up with an application for an unreasonable costs order. 

Hopefully this will be open and shut, taking this claim to court when they knew they had no rights to do so. 

I'm more than happy to pursue a GDPR claim in there as well for obtaining my details from the DVLA when they knew they had no grounds to do so.

Understood CD!

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

Will wait for you posting any developments.

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

On 21/11/2023 at 09:32, Cardiff Devil said:

  I have a sneaky suspicion that this isn't going any further.

Well I checked MCOL again this morning and it turns out I was wrong;

Case Stay Lifted on 21/11/2023

DQ sent to you on 21/11/2023

DQ filed by claimant on 21/11/2023

Looks like they're going to chance this one after all.  

Not sure when the right time would be to drop a GDPR claim on them.  Would it be better to wait until this claim is squared away or should I hit them with it sooner?

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...