Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi welcome to the Forum.  If a PCN is sent out late ie after the 12th day of the alleged offence, the charge cannot then be transferred from the driver to the keeper.T he PCN is deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch so in your case, unless you can prove that Nexus sent the PCN several days after they claim you have very little chance of winning that argument. All is not lost since the majority of PCNs sent out are very poorly worded so that yet again the keeper is not liable to pay the charge, only the driver is now liable. If you post up the PCN, front and back we will be able to confirm whether it is compliant or not. Even if it is ok, there are lots of other reasons why it is not necessary to pay those rogues. 
    • Hi I received a Parking Charge letter to keeper on Monday 15/04/24, the 17th day after the alleged incident. My understanding is that this is outside the window for notifying. The issue date was 08/04/2024 which should have been in good time for it to have arrived within the notice period but in fact it actually arrived at lunchtime on the 15th. Do I have to prove when it arrived  (and if so how can I do that?) or is the onus on them to prove it was delivered in time? All I can find is that delivery is assumed to be on the second working day after issue which would have been Weds 10//04/24 but it was actually delivered 5 days later than that (thank you Royal Mail!). My husband was present when it arrived - is a family member witness considered sufficient proof? 1 Date of the infringement  arr 28/03/24 21:00, dep 29/03/24 01.27 2 Date on the NTK  08/04/2024 (Date of Issue) 3 Date received Monday 15/04/24 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012?  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?  n/a 7 Who is the parking company? GroupNexus 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Petrol Station Roadchef Tibshelf South DE55 5T 'operating in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice'  
    • lookinforinfo - many thanks for your reply. It would be very interesting to get the letter of discontinuance. The court receptionist said that the county court was in Gloucester 'today' so that makes me think that some days it is in Gloucester and some days its in Cheltenham, it was maybe changed by the courts and i was never informed, who knows if DCBL were or not. My costs were a gallon of petrol and £3.40 for parking. I certainly don't want to end up in court again that's for sure but never say never lol. Its utterly disgusting the way these crooks can legally treat motorists but that's the uk for you. I'm originally from Scotland so it's good that they are not enforceable there but they certainly still try to get money out of you. I have to admit i have lost count of the pcn's i have received in the last 2 yr and 4 months since coming to England for work, most of them stop bothering you on their own eventually, it was just this one that they took it all the way. Like i mentioned in my WS the the likes of Aldi and other companies can get them cancelled but Mcdonalds refused to help me despite me being a very good customer.   brassednecked - many thanks   honeybee - many thanks   nicky boy - many thanks    
    • Huh? This is nothing about paying just for what I use - I currently prefer the averaged monthly payment - else i wouldn't be in credit month after month - which I am comfortable with - else I wold simply request a part refund - which I  would have done if they hadn't reduced my monthly dd after the complaint I raised (handled slowly and rather badly) highlighted the errors in their systems (one of which they do seem to have fixed) Are you not aware DD is always potentially variable? ah well, look it up - but my deal is a supposed to average the payments over a year, and i dont expect them to change payments (up or down) without my informed agreement ESPECIALLY when I'm in credit over winter.   You are happy with your smart meter - jolly for you I dont want one, dont have to have one  - so wont   I have a box that tells me my electricity usage - was free donkeys years ago and shows me everything I need to know just like a smart meter but doesnt need a smart meter,  and i can manually set my charges - so as a side effect - would show me if the charges from the supplier were mismatched. Doesn't tell me if the meters actually calibrated correctly - but neither does your smart meter. That all relies on a label and the competence of the testers - and the competence of any remote fiddling with the settings. You seem happy with that - thats fine. I'm not.    
    • Evening all,   So today, I was sent an updated offer that includes the £12.60 I spent on letters, but they have declined to add the interest at £7.40. They have stating 'We acknowledge your request to claim interest to date, however, this would be at the discretion of a trial judge if the claim did proceed to a trial hearing.' I think I am content with this outcome, and pushing this to a trial for a total interest of £15.30 throughout the claim does not make sense to me.   What are people's thoughts? I am sure our courts have better things to concentrate on?
  • 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

Parking Eye ANPR PCN Claimform - Barnet hospital EN5 3DJ


Recommended Posts

that letterssays nowt about YOU having to do anything with it.

good you've checked MCOL

yours is on the way.

i just cant understand why every time at every step you get SOOO confused..it's not like you've not had several claims already...:noidea:

but you could prepare by:


https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track/#comment-5088148


3 copies

no to mediation 

1 wit you

Suitability for determination without a hearing? no (that the issues are so complex they need to be argued orally')

the rest is obv

1 to the court

1 to their sols (omit phone/sig/email) if no sols send to claimant

1 for your file

 

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

Sorry if I’m misunderstanding,

but page 1 of the letter in my post #74 reads to me as needing to be responded to by both parties by 5/2/24.

I can’t see anywhere that this is just a copy of what was sent to the claimant and only applies to them.

This is cause of my confusion.

It states at the top of the letter that if this isn’t complied with the court can strike out the claim or enter a judgment.

My reading of the link sent above is that C1 needs to be completed to say it’s not suitable for small claims track and it all needs to be filed with the court by 5/2/24.

With the upcoming holiday that means completing it this week. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit confused too because I thought both parties completed an N180. The form you received the other day has the same date as MCOL says the form was sent out.

While we're waiting for clarification, why do you think it's not suitable for the small claims track please?

HB

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its to both parties and both must comply file and serve by said date.. If the court has not attached a blank DQ for you to complete we have copies here in the Library to complete and submit.

 

  • 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 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

Thanks. Sorry I mistyped in post #78 and meant to say "no" to mediation and "yes" to small claims track.

I am just unsure about suitability for determination without a hearing and if we say no which reasons to state.

Other than that, all is clear and complete. 

AJJM

Link to post
Share on other sites

read all the post in that n180 thread...:frusty:

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 have read everything that I could see on there and, maybe it's me, but I am unsure what to put here.

I think we should answer  "No"  but do I just say that there are factual disputes, without listing them at this stage?

I'm sorry but we really don't want to mess up at this stage. Maybe this is not the point at which to list them but if we do need to list them, this is what we  have so far :

1. There was clearly no intention not to pay for parking as the driver paid an amount that they thought would more than cover the time period required.

2. The PCN does not comply with PoFA as they did not ask that the keeper paid the charge Schedule 4 S9 [2]  [e] and there is no mention of the parking period - just an arrival and departure time. This is not the same thing as the elderly patient had to be collected from the A&E entrance and this all took time. I submit that the keeper cannot be pursued for the amount allegedly outstanding - only the driver is now liable and anyone with a valid motor insurance policy can drive that car. Courts accept that the keeper and driver are not necessarily the same person. I took this from post #11 so  please confirm that this is all correct?

2. Having checked the hospital website, after getting the claim forms, it stated that extra time could be purchased after departing the carpark. This is not mentioned on any signage in the carpark. It is possible that this was not an available option on the relevant date and that it has been included more recently, in response to the government guidance.

3. I contacted the helpful people at the Royal Free hospital parking team and they said they couldn't intervene as PE told them that judgement had been entered against me and I quote 

Parkingeye have also advised that the “PCN has gone to default so at this stage there is nothing we can do as the court have ruled in our favour”.  Unfortunately, if this matter has gone to court, we would be unable to take any further action.

 This was blatantly untrue information by PE and I submit they were trying to stop the hospital from helping out.

3. The signs which offer paybyphone also offer pay on exit, but this is in very small type and the signs are high up.

4. Sign type 4a (in PE docs) that states "additional car parking time can be added at any time" do not appear to be on display in the car park. I visited the carpark myself in Jan 24 following the receipt of these documents and I could see no signs of this nature in the carpark, despite looking thoroughly. If they were not obvious on a visit specifically to confrim the signage, they wouldn't be obvious to someone in a rush to see their elderly mother in hospital.

              

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've made it red for you now

goto post 3 here

 

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 from your original post that you were not the driver but you are the keeper?

if that is the case then you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Act so only the driver is liable to pay the debt and the keeper cannot be pursued. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I understand that I need to include that there are factual disputes and also it is complex as advised above and in the N180 DQ advise thread. However, the box for information about the nature of the factual disputes is quite small. I'm looking for pointers as to how much detail I should include here.

In answer to post #86 my partner is actually the keeper but the driver's name has not been disclosed.

One more update is that I received another email from the hospital parking people yesterday and I quote:

 I regret to advise that Parkingeye have refused to cancel the parking charge notice due to the stage that it was at (it had increased to £205).   They have advised that as a good will gesture they have reduced the charge to £70 and have sent a letter confirming this.  

am sorry that I was unable to assist further

So PE have now changed their answer from telling the hospital that the judgement had gone to default and the court ruled in their favour to "the stage it was at". I think this is more evidence of them bending the truth and I will reply to the hospital to that effect. I think it's good that the hospital clearly wanted to cancel this ridiculous charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ajjm said:

However, the box for information about the nature of the factual disputes is quite small. I'm looking for pointers as to how much detail I should include here.

Leave them blank.

7 minutes ago, ajjm said:

One more update is that I received another email from the hospital parking people yesterday and I quote:

 I regret to advise that Parkingeye have refused to cancel the parking charge notice due to the stage that it was at

 I think it's good that the hospital clearly wanted to cancel this ridiculous charge.

Good stuff for your witness statement. PE refusing to comply with a request from the land owner...

  • 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

Thank you Nicky Boy for clarifying that I don't need to include the factual disputes. This was what I was, perhaps rather clumsily, asking for info on before - I had read the threads advised.

I have now replied to the hospital parking people:

Dear Dee,

 
Once again I would like to thank you for your efforts trying to help with this. It is just a pity that Parking Eye are so economical with the truth. 
 
In your email of 21 Dec, you informed me that they had told you the following :
 
Parkingeye have also advised that the “PCN has gone to default so at this stage there is nothing we can do as the court have ruled in our favour”.  Unfortunately, if this matter has gone to court, we would be unable to take any further action.
 
This was a blatant untruth which they clearly now admit, given what they are telling you. PE could stop this ridiculous court action right now, should they wish to. They just increase their charges willy nilly. To charge £70 as a "goodwill gesture" is laughable.
 
I will be fighting this in court, if it comes to it, as they have not complied with all the legal requirements,  but I do hope that you and your team will look in to the sharp practices of this company that runs your parking system.
Thanks again for your help
 
 
 
Edited by ajjm
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...