Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Russia’s economy has been cut off from the global financial system - but it is still growing. Why?View the full article
    • Well done. Are you able to tell us more about how it went on the day please? HB
    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: Defence - 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
  • 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

MET/CST ANPR PCN Claimform - occupants left carpark - (346) SOUTHGATE PARK STANSTED CM24 1PY. **CLAIM DISCONTINUED**


Recommended Posts

That one looks OK to me.

More important is the content and for that, a read through your own thread often throws things up from comments made by others.

Dave will probably suggest a few headings later tonight. He's a hard working chap during the day.

One thing that I've spotted with a quick review is that their POC does not mention anywhere that the defendant was the keeper of the vehicle at the time. (In fact everything BUT!)

This alone means that they can only take action against the driver, and I don't think you've told them who that was?

Sorry cross posted with HB.

Here's a link to the successes forum...

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347084-ppc-successes-no-questions-please/page/17/#comment-5251318

 

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

I really hope mate they drop it before it goes to actual hearing as it is not sustainable for them to pay solicitors to try to win odd 300£ off of you .

I still have no idea why they drop mine.

With your knowledge and the fact there was never any mention of driver compliance I am pretty confident there is no way they can achieve anything anyway . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lostthebrick said:

have been reading up on WS formats for defendants, and will post a draft for review soon. 

Well done on wanting to get a WS draft done so early.

I will indeed pop in with suggestions when I knock off work.

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)

OK, after reading from the start, your sections need to be.

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS - a brief description of your stay in the car park, your visit to both Starbucks and McDonald's, your attempt to respect the T&Cs, your being a genuine customer, your getting the PCN, etc.

NO KEEPER LIABILITY - MET haven't even tried to follow the times stipulated in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.  The judge should throw the case out on this point alone.  Add that POFA deals with "relevant land", which South Gate Park is not as it is covered by airport bye-laws, and you put the Claimant to strict proof that it is a non bye-law area.  Add Nick's point three posts above.

INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE - their rubbish signage as you pointed out in post 28.

BREACH OF CODE OF PRACTICE - the BPA CoP (para 9.5) prohibits predatory behaviour, yet this is what MET are doing.  There is only one entrance and one exit to the whole Starbucks-McDonald's-whatever else is there area.  A motorist presumes it is one car park.  They do not notice the invisible line dividing South Gate Park car park from McDonald's car park because it is invisible.  MET's behaviour has been shown up as a scam in the national press and on national TV.  They have done nothing to make it clear to motorists that here are two car parks despite having years to do so because the whole point of their operation is predatory behaviour, to entrap motorists.  You go into the ins and outs here in post 28.

NO LOCUS STANDI - any holes you can find in their contract.  LFI has started in post 32.

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE - they don't have planning permission which is a criminal offence.  You can ridicule CST Law's excuses.

ABUSE OF PROCESS - the Unicorn Food Tax the PPCs add in every case.  This section is standard in all WSs.

Edited by FTMDave
Typo
  • 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

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks FTMDave (and others).  This is really helping draft a knock-out WS.

I'll work on it over the next few days and look to post something for your review/critique probably later next week, assuming the they still want to proceed with this nonsense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

RE Illegal Signage and the CST letter.

a] neither they nor Met have said they don't need planning permission

b] neither they nor Met have admitted they do have pp

c] regardless [or irregardless as my son annoying says] of the lack of pp and where the responsibility in obtaining it , until the pp is in place, the signs should not have been erected. So they signs are there illegally, not unlawfully, so therefore a criminal offence.

Although the Government Private Parking Code of Practice is not in force as yet the Government did ask the private parking community to bring into use as much of the Act as possible prior to it going into practice. It would appear that MET have turned a blind eye to the Act even when  there is already legislation in place .I am referring to  Town and Country Planning  [Control of Advertisements ] Regulations 1992. I know the private parking companies do not like Regulations to get in the way of them making money  but over 30 years to get this right and still haven't.

The IPC Code of Practice V9 states "25.1 The Code complements the relevant legislation and related guidance, which will define the overall standard of conduct for all Operators. Operators must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses."

As Met has therefore failed to comply with 25.1 it should mean that they are unable to receive data from the DVLA

As further proof of Met's unwillingness to implement the new Act I refer to

3.2 Signs and surface markings – adjoining parking premises

Where different terms and conditions apply to adjoining stretches of controlled land where there is no physical segregation, signs and/or surface markings must be used by the parking operator within the controlled land for which they are responsible to delineate clearly between these premises and alert drivers to the terms and conditions applying.

You would have expected  that Met would have already amended the signage at the two adjoining car parks in Stansted since they have caused so much confusion that there was a video issued on youtube.com  

Joe Lycett CHALLENGES Met Parking's Tickets at Confusing Car Parks | Joe Lycett's Got Your Back

8Hki9IaaEDV3ZK7gH0nJj34yFUV_lKOe9G6DIsRc
If you include all that above, I doubt that Met will have the gonads to go to Court .
2.18M subscribers
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well good news arrived in the post today...  they chickened out of continuing their claim against me. 

I didn't think they had much of a leg to stand on, especially after reading the posts on here. 

I've attached the notice. 

I'll pop a small donation to your site,

thank you for everyones help and encouragement.  

NoticeofDiscontinuance.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to MET/CST ANPR PCN Claimform - occupants left carpark - (346) SOUTHGATE PARK STANSTED CM24 1PY. **CLAIM DISCONTINUED**

well done 

thread title updated.

:yo:donation 

we are free

we don't get paid

but try telling our ISP Provider or server hosts that

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

Well done !! 
 

Same as me great result ! I just wonder why they carry on additional month with you as they knew it’s not gonna get them anywhere 

 

it’s a double victory!! I wish we could all meet and have a pint 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe their whole plan is that people will not want the hassle of a court claim or fall foul of a default CCJ for missing a deadline.  They never plan on going through with the court case.  I read somewhere that they have a 90% success rate with this tactic.

This site was amazing for their help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect you are sorry you didn't get your day in Court.🙂

It is always a good result when you don't even have to go to Court to get your win. Great result. And thanks for your donation. This Forum helps so many people who have problems not just with the parking rogues so it is important that they are able to continue  their work through the financial help of members like yourself.

  • I agree 1
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...