Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since. I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
  • 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

CEL ANPR PCN - 16mins stay - 237-259 Greenwich High Road Shopping Centre


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 215 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi, 

I have received a PCN from the above at 237-259 Greenwich High Road Shopping Centre, for pulling over in a car park for apprx 16 minute for buying water and checking on a delivery at Argos Sainsburys.

This is my first time visiting the area unaware of the conditions for parking inside the shopping centre.

I will upload a copy of notice to keeper but before I do do you have any advice on appealing this?

Thank you

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to CEL ANPR PCN - 16mins stay - 237-259 Greenwich High Road Shopping Centre

.............................

 

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]

(must be received within 14 days from the Incident)

 

Please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement 30/07/2023

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 04/08/2023
 

[scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'s

 

3 Date received 08/08/2023
 

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? Yes
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Give answer here
 

7 Who is the parking company? Civil Enforcement Private Company

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Car Park at 237-259 Greenwich High Road, London, SE 10 8NB
 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

BPA
 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

 Notice to Keeper Only.

Copy the windscreen or ANPR section to your thread and answer the questions...

……....

In either case scan up both sides of any letters/tickets in or appeals made out to ONE MULTIPAGE PDF ONLY

 

PCN.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting the info.

So can you work out what the charlatans reckon you did wrong?  Is it a pay car park and you didn't pay?

That seems to be the case from  https://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/carpark/greenwich_high_road/se10/london/?arriving=202308082200&leaving=202308090000

EDIT  From Google Maps reviews, and Google Maps images, it's clear that it is a pay car park - with pathetic signage.

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

It is indeed.

To be honest I didn't know it was a pay car park.

To the contrary I would have paid for my time that I sought to check on my delivery at Sainsburys.

I've always thought that customers can park for up to 2 hours free of charge at any Sainsbury's store.

Can I perhaps go back to the same Sainsburys store and ask them to cancel the ticket on the grounds that I was a customer on the day and that this was simply an oversight on my part?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it, as the car park is shared by various stores.

Don't worry, the fleecers are highly unlikely to do court further down the line, but if they did the pathetic entrapping signage would scupper them in front of a judge.

 

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 FTMDave. I find you inspiring. I really appriaciate the input. Do you think I' got a much better chance of killing this?

I do feel that I was charged for something that was not clear to me  but I have no way of proving it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

worth a try to sainsburys if you have the receipt of shopping or paid by a debit card and have bank statement??

 

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 PCN does not comply with he Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. So the keeper is not liable to pay the charge only the driver can now be pursued. As you haven't appealed they do not know who was driving as anyone who has a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, zafor said:

thanks FTMDave. I find you inspiring. I really appriaciate the input. Do you think I' got a much better chance of killing this?

As dx100uk says, you might as well contact Sainsbury's  https://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-9117  but I wouldn't hold out much hope as it seems to be a little shopping centre rather than a Sainsbury's car park.  Also Google Maps and Parkopedia reviews are full of people saying they've been scammed, including several who paid and broke no rules yet received the demands for money in any case.  Still, it's only an e-mail so why not try?

You talk about "killing" this but there is a problem.  CEL are well known to us, they are one of the most crooked of the private parking companies.  From Google you can see that they have put just one sign at the entrance that they hope the motorist misses, and inside the car park no signage whatsoever, because the whole thing is a scam to catch motorists out.  It's obvious they won't accept any appeal and then the "independent" appeals level which was once half decent has got worse over the years and likely would find against you too.

So you either pay or are in it for the long haul.

We obviously hope you choose the latter and will be glad to help.  We generally say to ignore their bilge but when they formally threaten court to tell them you know their case is pants and taking you to court would leave a large hole in their wallet.  They then generally crawl back under their stone.  Although of course there are no guarantees.

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

land registry time.

 

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

I take it you went to the store today.  Did you get photos of the fleecers' rubbish signage?

I thought you were only going to e-mail the CEO.  If I'd known you were going to visit the site I would have suggested to take the photos.

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 am contemplating to just pay now and my best plan of action would be to pay the smaller fee rather than hundreds of pounds later on. I see that the notice states "payment was not made in accordance with notified terms", which I believe ia a common reason for it being issued.

I also notice that the letter doesn't specify a grace period if there is any???

Link to post
Share on other sites

You evidently haven't been reading other threads. They are never going to give you any clues in their letters about grace periods, or anything else.

You certainly wouldn't be in a minority, if you just throw the towel in and contribute to the millionaire lifestyles of the owners of these "businesses".

It can take some staying power to go the whole hog.

Here at CAG, we've got an 85% success rate helping victims to win in court.

Your call.

 

.

  • 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

These cases depend on contract law.

If there are a lot of clear signs, with conditions easily legible, and you don't respect the conditions, then you broke a contract and are bang to rights.

If there is just one sign which the fleecers hope you will miss, in breach of all the industry guidelines, as in this case, then no contract was ever formed, and you're in the right and owe £0.00. 

So you can pay £60.00 you don't owe and the matter will go away.

Or you can stick two fingers up to the charlatans, which will result in deforestation as they send you "scary" letters, make threats of court, and in rare cases even a start a court case - which you would win.

As NB says - your call.

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

2 hours ago, zafor said:

I am contemplating to just pay now and my best plan of action would be to pay the smaller fee rather than hundreds of pounds later on.

The amount will only become "hundreds of pounds" - in reality about £260 - if the fleecers take you to court and convince an unbiased judge that one paltry sign was sufficient signage and that on top of that they have proved you were the driver or complied with POFA 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper. 

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...

And in some recent cases on this forum, they have waited 5 years plus, before they issued proceedings!

They hope you've moved without informing DVLA of your new address and get an easy back door CCJ.

Or, that you can't remember anything and blindly pay up in panic.

Among many others, these are the sort of tactics they use...

'Nuff said...

On 13/09/2023 at 11:09, zafor said:

Perhaphs buying time and ignoring them for now may pay off at the end.

Used to work years ago, unfortunately the advent of POFA 2012 has emboldened them.

 

 

.

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

1 hour ago, Nicky Boy said:

They hope you've moved without informing DVLA of your new address and get an easy back door CCJ.

they do not and cannot re request to the DVLA.

you must write to the PPC if you move within 6yrs, same as yes you should separately write to the DVLA regarding updating the address for each Driving Licence and each Car V5C's.

likewise for any consumer debts on your credit file or which you last paid/used within 6yrs.

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

I appreciate the pointers so far guys.

I can see now that it is Hardly worth appealing the charge as it most likely to be refused even if I was in time.

Does any one know if CE will now most likely pass the debt to a collection agency and if so shall I just wait their next move before hand?

Do these collection firms have any powers at all and will this end up in court eventually?

I prefer to plan ahead but it now seems I'll have to take life as it comes.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't do ANYTHING now until/unless you ever get a letter of claim.

a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF

and have 

ZERO powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT it's type.

only the PPC can ever do court. you IGNORE any DCA letters 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...