Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’. Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time. You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID. You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email. <<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • now read my post again carefully.. dx  
    • Thanks. I often use this free site  https://www.sejda.com/compress-pdf  for work to compress PDFs. If it's no good, as you say, split it, and we'll do the biz at this end tomorrow. Knackered here - more in the morrow.
    • This is the covering email response (all personal details removed) - the pdf with all the info is 8mb - too big to upload - I'll need to split it and redact it tomorrow. Dear, We write further to your recent correspondence. We note from this that you have submitted a Request for Access pursuant to Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). We wish to confirm that the response provided below, and via the enclosed documents, concerns the Parking Charge referenced above. This data is provided on the basis that we note that you have already been identified as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in relation to the dates of 22nd August 2023 and 11th September 2023 and therefore we can be satisfied, to the standard required, that the data collected and processed in respect of that vehicle on that date is personal data pertaining to you. We can confirm that your name and address were provided by the DVLA on 26th August 2023. This data was provided as you were identified as the registered keeper of vehicle in respect of a breach of the parking terms and conditions that took place within Mary Street, Carlisle on 22nd August 2023 Parkingeye can confirm that we issued a total of 5 items of correspondence to yourself to date prior to any further recovery or legal action. The address used was the address as held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. As no response was received to any of the correspondence sent, Parkingeye contacted a tracing agent to obtain any potential alternative address. To which end, an alternative address for yourself was provided and further items of correspondence were sent. Please note, whilst Experian are a credit referencing agency, no credit check has been undertaken in relation to this Parking Charge. We only utilise their tracing service in order to obtain alternative contact details. For clarity, personal data sent to our tracing agent is done so via an encrypted transmission route, therefore we do not hold physical copies of the same. The categories of personal data we send to them is your name, address and vehicle details. As Parkingeye did not receive any response to the correspondence sent, we entered into legal proceedings on 8th January 2024 in order to recover the outstanding sum owed for the Parking Charge and further costs were incurred. We can confirm that your name and address were provided by the DVLA on 15th September 2023. This data was provided as you were identified as the registered keeper of vehicle in respect of a breach of the parking terms and conditions that took place within Mary Street, Carlisle on 11th September 2023 . Parkingeye can confirm that we issued a total of 5 items of correspondence to yourself to date prior to any further recovery or legal action. The address used was the address as held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. As no response was received to any of the correspondence sent, Parkingeye contacted a tracing agent to obtain any potential alternative address. To which end, an alternative address for yourself was provided and further items of correspondence were sent. Please note, whilst Experian are a credit referencing agency, no credit check has been undertaken in relation to this Parking Charge. We only utilise their tracing service in order to obtain alternative contact details. For clarity, personal data sent to our tracing agent is done so via an encrypted transmission route, therefore we do not hold physical copies of the same. The categories of personal data we send to them is your name, address and vehicle details. As Parkingeye did not receive any response to the correspondence sent, we contacted our recovery agent in order to recover the outstanding sum owed against the Parking Charge. For clarity, personal data sent to our recovery agent is done so via an encrypted transmission route, therefore we do not hold physical copies of the same. The categories of personal data we send to them is your name, address and vehicle details. We can confirm, in line with s.(1)(h) of Article 15, that no automated decision-making or profiling, referred to in Article 22(1) and (4), has been undertaken in relation to personal data in this case. We note that Article 22 states as follows, “The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her”. We can confirm that you have not been subject to such a decision and that the processing falls outside the scope of Article 22. Any automated checks undertaken by Parkingeye in relation to ANPR data will only result in a decision not to issue a Parking Charge. Should the ANPR data we process indicate that a breach of the parking terms and conditions has taken place, any subsequent decision to issue a Parking Charge will require that data to pass through a substantial checking process that includes human intervention. Please note that the UK General Data Protection Regulation provides the following further rights:   •             The right to request from Parkingeye access, rectification or erasure of your personal data; •             The right to request from Parkingeye restriction of processing of your personal data; •             The right to object to the processing of your personal data.   Please note that some of these rights are not absolute and will only apply in certain circumstances. We will review each request we receive in respect of these rights. We do not have to agree with a request but if we refuse, we will still contact the data subject within one month to explain why. You also have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). For further information, please refer to the ICO website, www.ico.org.uk. You may also seek a judicial remedy. For further information about your rights as a data subject, plus information about the categories of data we process, data transfers, the legal basis for our processing, and the purposes of processing, please visit: https://www.Parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/   Yours sincerely,   Parkingeye Privacy Team
  • 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
      • 160 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

Employer/Employee Claimform - "defendant took additional holidays over entitlement before leaving"


voqu
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 118 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

My partner left her job for various reasons. Most of it was bad, non payment of overtime, stress, manager was overbearing etc.

The company has applied for a ccj for overpayment of holidays.

Now the issue is my partner hasn't received a letter before action or official notice that they will be going for a ccj.

She has received an email saying are you going to repay it if not we are taking you to court.

How can we deal with this.

prelim sent 8/07/06 for 2300.00

lba sent 24/07/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

She hasn't said as much the issue I have is they haven't sent an official lba

 

Also she can't work out how much overtime they owe her.

prelim sent 8/07/06 for 2300.00

lba sent 24/07/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • honeybee13 changed the title to Court claim from work (partner)
  • dx100uk changed the title to Employer/Employee Claimform - "defendant took additional holidays over entitlement before leaving"

forget arguing about semantics - times gone for that, a claim has been issued

you must act and acknowledge the claim by day 19 from top right on the form  on the mcol website

she must, once that is done file a defence by DAY 33

either could see her lose by default.

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

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.
[if mcol is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time]
.
 register as an individual on the Gov't Gateway Site
Go to HMRC's login page.
Click the GREEN sign in button.
Click “Create sign in details”
Enter your email address where asked.
You will now be emailed a confirmation code. ...
You will now be issued with a User ID for your government gateway account.
 note down your details inc the long gateway number given, you might need it later.
 then log in to the MCOL Website
.
 select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
.
 then using the details required from the claimform
.
 defend all
 leave jurisdiction unticked
 you DO NOT file a defence at this time
[BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ]
click thru to the end
confirm and exit MCOL.

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

get things settled court wise then we can put you where you need to go get help

but please also answer @honeybee13 question below too

and what date is top right on the claimform please

 

29 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

So does your wife agree with the figure they're claiming or not?

HB

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

Date is 27th October and no she doesn't agree as they owe her at least 20 hours of overtime.

 

In August she worked 2 weeks doing between 2 and 3 hours extra a day.

Edited by voqu
Additional info

prelim sent 8/07/06 for 2300.00

lba sent 24/07/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Topic moved to General Legal Issues Forum.

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

It's not possible to take 'unauthorized leave'  - Leave is granted by a manager and recorded by HR and deducted from your annual leave allowance.

If their claim is based on that then that won't float in court.

If they're claiming she was AWOL that's different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...