Jump to content


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


Recommended Posts

You could go for GDPR straight away, but ...

You would actually be suing for distress caused by breach of your GDPR.  Therefore the longer the period of distress goes on the more you can sue for and the worse it will be for them.

If you let on now that you have a copy of the contract that they tried to hide from you then they are highly likely to throw in the towel and discontinue the case, thus reducing the period of distress.  If the final objective is to give them as big a kicking as possible, it would be better for you to let them to actually proceed to a court hearing, as that makes the period of distress longer and the distress worse.

 

  • I agree 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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Dave, that was along my line of thinking also.  I'll let them dig themselves into a grave first.  Hopefully give them a kicking if it goes as far as a hearing then when I win (hopefully with unreasonable costs order added on) I'll drop the GDPR hand grenade on them. 😉

Game on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A chilly good morning to you all.

Came home last night to two letters.  One was the N180 directions questionnaire from the court.  That was to be expected.

The other was from PE, and it contained something I've not come across before, a "Reply to Defence" pack.  This was a fully fleshed out witness statement, forming about 30 double sided pages of guff.  Most of it about PE vs Beavis, plus copies of all the letters sent, the redacted contract and pictures of signage at the site.  I can scan the whole thing up here but as it's a lot of paperwork it'll take me a while.

Cheers

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Second one just sounds like a really long winded version of the standard "you have no chance of winning we'll crush you best to stop now and settle yada yada yada" toilet paper.

Saying that, if they've genuinely sent their witness statement (or a version of it) this early it gives you extra time to prepare!

Definitely scan it up and see what the regulars recommend.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

PE are going through a process of completely changing their approach to court claims.

One is to send this encyclopedia-length load of bilge in order to sap the will to live of the recipient 😉

We've seen it a couple of times recently and what they send is truly tedious.

It's excellent news that they've sent the redacted contract a second time.  That's a second piece of evidence that no genuine mistake was made, they saw the contract, realised you were within the grace period, hid the information from you, and continued with a vexatious case.  Great ammo for an unreasonable behaviour costs order (if they don't bottle at WS stage) and later for breach of GDPR

  • 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

Another thing I forgot to mention is they sent me another letter late last week stating that they would be willing to "settle out of court" for £110 as a one-off gesture of goodwill.  

After I'd stopped laughing hysterically, that went straight in the bin.  

Maybe I should have replied saying "I accept your offer, please send the cheque to xyz".

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that means you pay £110 not them to you.

you should NEVER EVER bin stuff that is or might be subject to a court hearing.

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

That 30 page pack as FTMDave has indicated is another psyop to get someone with a cast iron or good defence to pay up. They will blather about Beavis which is not the killer they want people to think it is, it applies narrowly on its own facts.

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

Hey all.

my N180 DQ form has now been completed and sent back to the court. 

Just the waiting game now until we get told to put together a witness statement of course. 

I fully intend to scan up the entirety of their acre of Peruvian rainforest that was slashed-and-burned in order to produced their "reply to defence" pack.

In the meantime, just to warm your cockles on this chilly day, please see attached for their "gesture of goodwill" letter. 

How nice of them, how philanthropic.  

Cheers

CD

PE-GOGW-Letter_Redacted.pdf

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Cardiff Devil said:

my N180 DQ form has now been completed and sent back to the court. 

you send PR a copy suitably redacted of phone/email/sig didnt you 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

Correct.  Any documents to the claimant I leave unsigned and contact details blank.

Please see attached for the aforementioned trimmed down "reply to defence" pack from PE. 

I removed all the spurious information which was just copies of the NTK and all letters and reminders they've sent, plus copies of my snotty letter and their heavily redacted contract with the "landowner" who isn't the landowner. 

With all that gumph removed it came back in at a rather svelte 13 pages (out of the 71 originally sent). 

Please see attached,

Cheers

CD

 

PE-ReplytoDefence_Redacted.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had the quickest of flick through and see they have lied about the consideration period.  Oh dear ...

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 whole thing is a real giggle...

"The defence does not contain submissions as to why the terms and conditions have been breached"...

Errr, that's 'cos they weren't breached.🤔

The consideration period is "commercially sensitive" and they're under no obligation to reveal it.🤣

Later on, they mention the grace period and claim it's the consideration period.🤪

I understand that this is scare tactics, but surely, they aren't stoopid enough to take it any further....

Surely?

  • Haha 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

To correct myself after reading the whole load of bilge.

They haven't lied about the consideration period.

It's the grace period that they have completely ignored.

There must be a reason why they've asked you to pay half the amount they reckon they are entitled to.

This will all end in tears - for them!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 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

A complete messup that does them no favours'

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

Could you please post up what is left of their redacted contract. They obviously do not want you to see it.

Does seem rather unfair that by challenging your defence they are effectively getting two bites at their WS.

Edited by lookinforinfo
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

Does seem rather unfair that by challenging your defence they are effectively getting two bites at their WS.

The good thing LFI, is that they've said too much and only dug their own hole deeper by saying stupid things that can be used against them.

In the past, I have entered into "letter tennis" with opponents, (not solicitors) with the specific intention of eliciting useful information... It can work.

I found that the more they write, the more mistakes they make.

You just need to be very careful with your own letters, only challenging and asking questions.

  • 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

  • 2 months later...

Hi all, and a belated happy christmas and new year.

Got home this evening to a letter from the court that I've not come across before.  I can scan the whole thing up tomorrow if needs be but I'll just outline it briefly now to hopefully get some context.

At first glance it looked like the bog standard "notice of allocation to the small claims track (hearing)" letter that I was expecting.  But under "Allocation", it states;

Quote

 

1. The court has decided to determine the case upon consideration of the written evidence of the parties without the parties attending court to give any oral evidence.  It does so in accordance with Practice Direction 51ZC, the court believing it to be a proportionate and efficient means of determining the case.

2. If any party objects to the case being determined in this way, they should write to the court not less than 7 days prior to the hearing date providing brief reasons why they think such a determination is not appropriate. Such correspondence will be placed before the judge on the date and at the time listed for the hearing of the case who will then reconsider whether the case should be determined on papers or whether the case should be re-listed on another date when the parties can attend court to give oral evidence.

 

The rest of the letter is pretty standard stuff.  Except with the hearing date, it states "The parties must not attend the court building".

On the DQ I specified that I objected to the case being heard on paper evidence only, I can't remember the exact wording that I used but it was something along the lines of;

Quote

"The Defendant objects strongly to these proposals.  
The Defendant denies that the matter is relatively straightforward.
The issues in dispute include uncertainty about the terms of the claimant's contract with the landowner, among others.  
As a litigant in person, the defendant would be seriously disadvantaged against the claimant, a multi million pound parking company that inevitably will have a team of solicitors on the payroll to prepare its documents.  The defendant also requests the opportunity to question the claimant regarding its witness statement and other documents."

Am I right in thinking that I want to STRONGLY object again to this hearing going ahead "on the papers", and push for a normal hearing instead?

 

Thanks

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes!

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

The backlog could be easily reduced by PE withdrawing their idiotic claim!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...