Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • reading the order is quite difficult for me. this is a letter (names and addresses taken out) that i sent in which is what i assumed i needed too.   court.pdf
    • Thanks for the message jk2054   I have just been drafting what I want to say and I think its best to focus purely on the supremacy of contract. The reason being that I dont want the judge to start focusing on other parts of my witness statement when surely just the supremacy of contract section alone should be enough to get this dismissed.    The crux of my defense revolves around the principle of Supremacy of Contract. When I purchased my flat in December 2016, the contract explicitly included ownership of parking spot 112, as delineated in the lease documentation provided in Exhibit 1. This documentation unequivocally establishes my right to use and occupy this parking space. Furthermore, the subsequent exhibits, particularly Exhibit 3, clearly depict the marked boundaries of parking spot 112, corroborating my ownership as stated in the lease agreement. Additionally, the official register of title, presented in Exhibit 4, reinforces this ownership claim. Moreover, I draw the court's attention to relevant legal precedents, such as Pace v Mr N and Link Parking v Ms P, which demonstrate that parking companies cannot override a tenant's right to park on designated property. These cases serve as persuasive authorities supporting my argument regarding the Supremacy of Contract in residential parking disputes. It is my contention that the absence of any contractual obligation to display a permit for parking spot 112 absolves me of any liability in this matter. The claimant's failure to acknowledge my ownership rights in their witness statement further underscores the weakness of their case.
    • I agree with you LFI, a totally wrong decision, I may be wrong but IMO who was driving is irrelevant .... So what if he declared himself as the driver within 28 days? .... I may be wrong but it's my understanding that that just makes him liable for the charge as driver. The fact is, the driver, declared or not, only made the error of entering the wrong vehicle registration number .... The parking was paid for. I think it more likely the judge dismissed because he didn't appeal to the PPC and tell them about the error and confirm he paid giving the chance of rectifying the situation before it got to court. But we can only know if Dave962 clarifies. Pollux, is that a fish like Cod? 😁
    • and more .. As thames water pushes to further rip off captive customers, not get fined for it, and allow more dividends .. for little more than 'aspirations' to do better More detail comes out of the literally and figuratively sh** companies apparently shunting money out of the regulated business to profit/bonus/dividend generating unregulated side companies   "Accounts filed at Companies House show : (Kennets) accounts, filed more than 12 months after the end of Kennet’s financial year, showed that the company made a £1.15m pre-tax profit for the year to 31 March 2023, up from £374,000 a year earlier. Revenues rose to £1.6m in 2023 – up from £1m in "Kennet Properties paid out a £14.5m dividend in the year to 31 March 2023" "Kennet ?takes on? land no longer needed by Britain’s biggest water company before developing it and selling it on, typically for housing or commercial premises. It also received income for the use of sewer networks by third parties for fibre-optic cabling."   Thames Water could raise bills to £627 a year to help fix leaks | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Embattled water supplier promises to invest up to £3bn more over the next five years     Thames Water-linked firm paid £14m in dividends despite concerns over group | Thames Water | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Kennet Properties sells off Thames Water land, whose owner, Kemble Water, has warned it would not be able to pay a £190m loan  
    • I think it will make more sense if you read that the Judge meant the 28 day sentence was on the PCN not the sign. He lost because in the Judge's opinion the registered keeper has the option to declare who was driving on the day. Dave didn't do that so he takes the blame for not making the declaration. A totally wrong decision which can be challenged at a price. There is no guarantee that another Judge will want to say that the original judgement was majorly wrong so may not change it. On the other hand another Judge may say the decision was an absolute load of pollux and reverse the decision and add punitive additions on to TPS for bringing such a hopeless case to Court.  That's why we call it Judge Lottery. To be fair, Judges tend to get it right more often than not. Doesn't make things any easier for Dave.
  • 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

GXS ANPR PCN ONE - Coole and Bevis Aldwick


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 193 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 All

New to this site... Been drawn here due to this parking hell.

I was contacted by Trace (1st i knew of it) about 2 fines,, 1 on 7/6 and another on 21/6,,

Not only was this the first i had heard of the parking infringement but there were no details on their letter stating any of the parking details.. so i didn't know type of car, registration, address.. nothing..

When i eventually got hold of Trace they told me it related to two offences where a young girl could be seen exiting a Red Fiat...

This is a car i lease for my daughter who is a care worker..

So it then became clear that she had unknowingly parked up and been fined by GXS??

The increase in fine to £170 each was the first i/we had heard of it..

Their last letter to me has said they want proof that my daughter is allowed to drive the car under the lease agreement but it won't change anything as i'm the registered keeper anyway.. They also add they will not converse with me further... They asked me to send the proof!!!

My question is has anyone else failed to be informed of the original action??

I still have no record of this so i can't even see the "evidence" against us!

Link to post
Share on other sites

1st it is NOT A FINE , its a speculative invoice for the driver supposedly entering into some fictitious with GXS  by entering the private land GXS might manage on behalf of the land owner if the contract is valid and upto date.

2nd why have you not received anything to date before trace got involved? they usually get involved if the address of the registered keeper on the car's V5C is incorrect? and the RK has moved in recent times and not updated DVLA.

anyway stuff that for now

please complete this

 

i would suggest you get a new topic started for the 2nd speculative invoice 

you appear to have been in extended contact with trace.

can we please have all comms in/out to date posted up to one multipage pdf. read upload<<clickme guide

 

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to GXS ANPR PCN ONE - Coole and Bevis Aldwick

Thank you for your response.

just to clarify, we did not receive any correspondence from GXS in relation to these two charges (maybe they were sent to the leasing company?) the first I knew of the charges was the notice from Trace.. 

V5C is correct and in my name.

I will endeavour to fill the details in of the questionnaire asap

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats interesting you think they must have sent everything to the lease company, as i wonder where they found out their detILS IF THE CAR'S v5c IS IN YOUR NAME (opps caps) . their return to the DVLA for keeper details would not show their details, but yours as the RK.

somethings not right here.

typically these lease companies also think these speculative invoices are fines too, and would have charged you a fee to inform them of your details . 

something is not right here, esp as you've 2 invoices.

 

 

.

 

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

By the sound of it the lease company have not complied fully with the requirements of the Protection of freedoms Act when they received the original PCN.

What they should have done is send  GX your details and the contract you have with the lease company. then GX should send you  a new PCN . That doesn't seem to have happened. If they did not reply within 28 days GX are likely to have said that they are then liable for the charge. that is when the lease company have given them your details.

Strange then that GX have not followed up by sending you a PCN. I suggest that you check with the lease company and find out where they are with the PCN.  Ask them for copies of the two PCNs they received and when they responded to them.  When did they tell GXs that you were the lessee and if GXS are holding the lease company responsible for the charge.

Totally ignore Trace. It has nothing to do with them whether your daughter is insured or not.

Send GXs an sar [you will find it in our library section] and see what information they have on you and what they say they have sent you. do not contact them in any other way apart from the sar.

I take it you have still not received a PCN from them or any other correspondence?

It looks as if the lease company and GXS have messed the situation up between themselves which is good news for you. So no contact with either GXS ,Trace or any debt collector or solicitor  in the meantime. just wait for them to respond to the sar-which may not be for a month. 

In the meantime just relax as it looks as if you will end up in the clear.

Edited by lookinforinfo
Link to post
Share on other sites

The lease company can't possibly be involved.

The DVLA V5C information is all they can possibly have. There is no public database containing the actual owner of every vehicle on the road.

Sounds like they have simply not sent out their usual carp missives.... unless

Mtec, do you ever have problems with mail delivery to your home?

 

.

  • 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

LFI is spot on.  SAR to GXS.  Also try to get the PCNs from the lease company.

Then you can get to the bottom of what all this is about.

Also have a read of this short thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/458110-gxs-anpr-pcn-ntk-coole-and-bevis-bognor-regis/#comment-5212295  You will get an idea of what they will do next - i.e. threaten to drop a nuclear bomb on your home, but in reality all huff & puff, well at least so far.

 

 

.

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 know im being pedantic but please go check the V5C document you hold on this vehicle and ensure it states your name and current address as the registered keeper.

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

really weird.

 

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

On the DVLA database your car should be owned by the leasing company and that is where the original PCN should have gone.

Please check with the leasing company if they have received the PCNs and what have they done about it and when since Trace obviously know you ae involved. or is the car leased in your daughter's name and you are paying?

If the latter is the case has she had any communication from GXS and perhaps worried about telling you.

It is kind of difficult for us to help when we don't know the full picture. 

Things such as 

1] is the car leased 

2] if yes, in whose name

3] have you contacted the lease company  since if it is leased, that is where the PCNs will  have been sent initially.

4] what have they done/ have they advised GSX that the car is leased ; when did they tell them;have they paid the tickets; why haven't they told you what is happening?

Those answers will help help you and us to resolve this without you having to pay GSX.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@LookingForInfo

  

1 hour ago, lookinforinfo said:

On the DVLA database your car should be owned by the leasing company and that is where the original PCN should have gone.

there is no such thing as the OWNER of a vehicle on a V5C nor the DVLA database

confused......

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...