Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont panic and wet yourself and offer payment !! Date of issue – 14 june 2024 date for aos - 2nd july  date to file defence - 16th july      other than the CCA/CRP and if it ever gets that far..a witness statement, you send them NOTHING and dont ever instigate comms with them. esp by email.. i would be sending one final email in reply to theirs above. PLEASE NOTE: email is NOT to be used for any comms with regard to our mutual court claim. else they'll be sending a whole forest of faked agreements/documents to you one minute before a court deadline removing your shace to object/pull them apart as unenforceable etc. dx        
    • Unbelievably I can't find it, I will have a really good look for it when I have a bit more time on my day off this week. AS a side note, I emailed them offering a token payment to settle the account and avoid court action, which unsurprisingly they have declined. However their reply states:  A Claim was accepted on 19 June 2024 which means we cannot set up a payment plan just yet. You should have received a claims pack from the Court. We would ask for this to be completed with your offer of repayment and returned to either ourselves or the Court.  You have 21 days for this to be completed and returned in order to avoid a Judgment by Default. This means we would need to receive this by 10 July 2024. I was under the impression it was 19 days from date on the claim form. which was the 14th, which would be 3rd July. Could I use this against them as it seems like they are giving me false information in the hope of getting a judgement by default?
    • when is your mediation? honestly I don't think that the ups case is much use actually because it concerns third party rights BUT  as we know now the contract for packlink is direct and there are no third parties rights at all so you don't need it, and frankly the really helpful one will be from @occysrazor case but I don't know if they have it. expect evris mediation to be a complete fail yes
    • jk2054: I have ensured there's not reference to the third party rights in the updated letter of claim. BankFodder: thanks for the edits and information. I understand the Consumer Rights Act prohibits EVRi's attempts to avoid liability in their duty and care of accepting to deliver my parcel according to Section 57.  They have accepted to carry my parcel even though I have identified it as a laptop and specified the value so they must take reasonable care to deliver the parcel or face the consequences if it were lost as it seems to be in my case! I hadn't originally referenced Section 72 because of EVRi didn't offer any insurance whether free or for me to purchase. I understand that if I were to have any sort of insurance from EVRi then Section 72 refer to the rules of such secondary contracts. Is this section indicating that the insurance may reduce my rights or remedies to recourse to full compensation if I had been offered and purchased such insurance?  Is it beneficial to include this in the letter of claim (and subsequently reference both Section 57 and 72 in the MCOL?) although it might not be pertinent in my case?  Perhaps this is just to reinforce that in general EVRi and other couriers are taking such liberties with their customers so it is to send a message that they are breaching both sections? I made a few minor edits to the letter of claim but mainly grammatical type stuff and to keep consistent font, black colour, but the edits you provided are included and are extremely helpful and are putting me in a good position to email and post the letter to EVRi this week and get the ball rolling. Thanks. Evri letter of claim.pdf
    • Thank you for getting back to me I will do my best to get hold of the claim form tomorrow  When I spoke to MCOl on friday I asked for the extra 14 days so penty of time Onlymeagain
  • 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

Group Nexus ANPR PCN Claimform - Cannon Lane Retail Park, Tonbridge, TN9


Recommended Posts

The PCN was for £85 [the maximum that can be charged according to PoFA2012] then they have added another £70 for damages which they have failed to describe what the damages were. Thus the amount claimed is a penalty and the £70 is around a further 80% more added to the account. 

The PCN was issued under PoFA2012 which means the keeper is responsible for the amount if the  amount has not been paid within 28 days. Schedule 4 S9[f]

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

As it is obvious that the Creditor does not know who the driver was or they would have been pursuing them rather than hedging their bets by trying to pursue the driver and the keeper  they cannot be pursuing the  driver. 

This only leaves the keeper who is the person they should be pursuing anyway when they don't know who was driving. PoFA 2012 is quite clear on this as noted above from Section9 [f]. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@lookinforinfo thanks for that.

That makes sense but what does this mean for me?

Does it mean they will have better chance of success from judge against just the keeper? or will it still boil down to the arguments put forward re the extra amounts added, the signage and any other point I may use in my defence?

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

you do know you dont have to put @(person) in your posts?

everyone that has posted on a thread automatically (like you and this post) gets an alert when is submitted.

you dont have to ping alert by using @

 

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

LFI's arguments are all excellent points that will go in your Witness Statement to undermine their case.

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

Posted (edited)
On 29/12/2023 at 10:43, Hopgarden said:

@lookinforinfo thanks for that.

That makes sense but what does this mean for me?

 

Well the idea is to make the Judge think that they should be pursuing the keeper and not the driver because you as keeper are not liable now as the PCN does not comply with PoFA. They have said that they are pursuing you as the driver and the keeper which the Court does not accept. The rogues have to pick on one and if they pick on the driver they have to show some evidence that the driver is the keeper which is difficult.for them.

That is why we ask not to appeal since the keeper will often give themselves away by saying "I did not see the signs " for example rather than saying "the driver did not...."

So all I have done is give the Judge a little help in deciding why he should agree that the keeper is the rightful person for the persons to be taken to Court.

 

Edited by lookinforinfo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 

Thank you LFI that makes sense.

Just an update. I have received the allocation of small track claim. I have completed the N180 and am about to post. 1 copy to business centre - micky mouse court and 1 copy to claimants sols.

I have received a reply re my SARS request from DCB legal pluis a reply to CPR 31.14 request. They have just sent copies of the threatening letters they have previously sent me a and a copy of lots of pictures of the car parking signs in situ within the said car park.

will keep you uodated

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hopgarden said:

I have received a reply re my SARS request from DCB legal pluis a reply to CPR 31.14 request. They have just sent copies of the threatening letters they have previously sent me a and a copy of lots of pictures of the car parking signs in situ within the said car park.

Is there anything we haven't seen on the thread yet?

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

27 minutes ago, Hopgarden said:

1 copy to business centre - micky mouse court

its not a court as such - it's a bulk clearing centre.

28 minutes ago, Hopgarden said:

1 copy to claimants sols.

dont give them email/phone on their copy

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

No Nothing new, no contracts or planning permissions etc. just lots of pictures of the signs and copies of the demands they have sent previously.

I havent given any contact details apart from address

many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

open

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

Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states 

                  FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY

in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat.

Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there.

For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute"

How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court.

I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hopgarden said:

 SAR request, 

I have also received the Notification of allocation to the small claims track hearing for beginning nov 2024

 

next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf..

we aint got all day to download load single page files

2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf

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

Hi Sorry for uploading them wrong. Im not technical at all and self taught so bear with me as im trying my best.

Thank you for all the info regarding the signs, this was my thoughts as well. Yes they have changed teh signs since this happened Ill ahve to have a look back through and see if when I took the pictures they were already the new ones or I have the old ones. I cant remember off hand.

With regards to Europarks running the site now, Just to make you aware there is another small retail park just across the road and Im sure they are Europarks. The shops within that park are just Aldi and B & M. The site that we received the NTK has a few more shops, Home bargains, The food Warehouse, M & S food and a few others. I put these for identififcation purposes just in case it is the other site that you were looking at.

The main entrance sign is on the bend on the left as you drive in the entrance so when you drive in from the right and turn in you can see it in front of you but if you drive in from the other way as we do then you dont see it unless you know its there and as you say you would have to stop to read it al anywayl. The main thing that always jumped out at us was FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in large letters.

Please find the notice of hearing date attached and an offer letter I received from the vultures DCBLegal this morning, 

 

 

 

N157 Hearing Date 6th Nov.pdf

2024-05-28 DCB Legal Settlement Begging Letter.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that information. I seem to think they have similar names and similar addresses and I thought it was Aldi that was offering the great deal that attracted you to that car park. So we are still stuck with Nexus.

Please do not call DCBL about a settlement figure.The first reason is that they have your telephone number which is not something you want to give to those vultures as you rightly call them. They will then harass you on the phone and try and send you last minute details the day before the case -which they shouldn't do.

And second they are already charging you £60 to £70 more than they should lawfully, to that they will then add the Court costs that they haven't yet paid or incurred and then say that they will give you this great offer of £150 to avoid going to court.Big deal-not. Were it around £50 that would be a better deal but they would not accept that. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that at the start of your thread you said they hadn't sent a Letter of Claim.  And in fact in all the uploaded material there is no LoC.  This is great news.  Even were you to lose - you won't - the judge would chop off a chunk of the money for their non-respect of PAPLOC.

However, I'm a bit confused as you've named the file name as a SAR.  Are you sure about this?  Did you send any other letters apart from the one dx advised which was a CPR request (not a SAR) to DCBL (not Group Nexus).  I'm not being pernickety, this will be important for your Witness Statement further down the line.

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

10 hours ago, FTMDave said:

However, I'm a bit confused as you've named the file name as a SAR.  Are you sure about this?

Second letter in the upload on post 39 Dave.

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

Hi 

I would have only applied for a SARS if advised to do so on here, but Id have to look back through everything and all th eposts to see when and why etc.

But No thinking back Im sure we did not receive a Letter of claim. But will they not claim it was sent and lost in post? Can we request a copy of this?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, in the second letter in post 39 upload, they say they "hold a copy of the letter of claim".

BUT, they didn't include it... Hmmmm!

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

Yes, I noticed that.  Too much of a coincidence methinks!  The OP says they never received a LoC and then in the CPR answer the solicitors say they hold a copy of the LoC but don't include it.

I think the best thing is not to request a copy but use this against them in your WS - you never received LoC and indeed in their answer to your CPR request (included an an exhibit in the WS) they included various documents but not the LoC.

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...