Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That is different to my PCN issued by Highview. I am not by any means an expert so I would leave it to the experts to check what I say and maybe delete this if it is not helpful. My thoughts on this are In the PoC they state you are liable as Driver or Keeper. Firstly, I would challenge that .... are they pursuing you as Driver or as Keeper? They don't know who the driver is, as stated on the NTK and, they don't know if you didn't tell them, so I would think that they can not pursue you as the driver. The NTK is not fully compliant with POFA 2012 as LFI stated but specifically, and correct me if I am wrong, Section 9 [2][f] states that:   Section 9 (2) The notice MUST— (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 (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;   All the applicable conditions under this Schedule (Schedule 4) are NOT met, specifically warning the keeper as in (f) .... As far as I can see, the creditor has NOT warned the keeper on the NTK, as they MUST do in accordance with S9 [2](f). So, as far as I can see that prohibits them from having the right to recover from the keeper.   I put it to you M'Lord, given the facts stated, the creditor does not have grounds to pursue the Driver, nor the Keeper!! 😂🤣😂 Maybe that's why you've not heard from the courts, what does it say on MCOL ?
    • at the time, if both owners signed a voluntary charge it can not be a restriction k.  but it looks like one? as above ..... if you re mortgage with the same lender is doesn't need paying if you re mortgage with a new lender then most probably you will have to settle it.
    • The move comes after Tesla reported a sharp fall in its deliveries in the first three months of 2024.View the full article
    • please dont post up unredated court docs!! done now... it looks like: you paid for then cancelled a PC from mac group ltd however the PC still got delivered but not to you. you got issued a court claim but totally ignored it. DCBL HCEO Bailiffs attempted to enforce the CCJ...they failed..you had moved. The Claimant was Granted Permission by the Court to Serve A Statutory Demand and latterly did so. you had attempted to set aside the Original CCJ but failed to attend it's hearing and it got struck out you subsequently have have received a statutory demand for the CCJ sum. you applied to set that aside there was a hearing on 18th Apr which you did not attend. ...............   not quite sure but i think thats the story. ............. same as your other thread.. stop worrying about the house.. you ought to deal with this at some point as if the claimant does go for and manage to you BK. it might not be good. have a think about things , it might pay you to look toward putting an N245 variation to the court and offer a very low £PCM to the court, esp if you have little to no income etc like on benefits/pensioner etc...you might even get it all done for free as there is a small charge for the N245 process.        
    • you've applied to have it set aside and then you've not complied with the Judge's order for your set aside. You'll need to apply to have that order stayed on the ground you were a LIP and didn't understand it. Make it clear you now understand it and you ask that an order be made in the interim to stop all enforcement and any other action.
  • 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

New Generation Parking PCN - Claimform - parking outside of marked bay - Appeal refused - Malpas road shopping centre, Newport, Wales.


Recommended Posts

It's absolutely essential to see what they are accusing you of (the original PCN) and what if anything you have let slip to them (your appeal).

Please post up anything you have.

As for the rest ... get a SAR off today to New Generation, 2nd class stamp, free Certificate of Posting.

Yes, I know you are sending a CPR request to DCBL, but, belt & braces, we need to get our hands on this info.

Please learn for the future not to throw away paperwork when you're in legal dispute, it makes it ten times harder to defend yourself and you have to play catch-up later.

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

On 20/02/2024 at 21:04, TT98 said:

Date to submit defence - 15/03/24

your defence is already in the court sticky further down as nickyboy said.

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

This is the full appeal & response : 

You reported that you were the registered keeper but is not prepared to state who was driving at the time the parking charge was issued.

You reported that you are being held liable for the parking charge.
You completed the appeal on 09/02/2023 18:19:20.

Upon arriving at the shopping centre The driver attempted to park in the disabled bay, which at the time was encroached by another vehicle already parked well outside of their bay, not displaying a badge.

Due to the nature of the visit, the driver was required to park promptly and exit the vehicle, whilst displaying the blue disabled badge.

Upon appealing, apparently the only thing that matters in this case is the sign post stating the parking bays must be adhered to at all times.

Without any recognition for the fact the driver was physically not able to park elsewhere & correctly displayed their blue parking badge 

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 16/02/2023 15:02:06.

The Operator Reported That...

  • The appellant was the driver.
  • The appellant was the keeper.
  • The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
  • ANPR/CCTV was used.
  • The Notice to Keeper was sent on 15/12/2022.
  • A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
  • The ticket was issued on 09/12/2022.
  • The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
  • The charge is based in Contract.

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

The vehicle was not parked fully within the confines of a marked parking bay whilst parked in one of the carpark that we manage.

Signage displayed throughout the site states "Vehicles to be parked within the confines of a marked parking bay".

As the vehicle was in breach of the terms and conditions that are stated on the contractual signage throughout the site, a Parking Charge was issued. 

As stated in the NGP initial appeal: 

Arrived on site with a disabled passenger & as is visible in photo, we were unable to park in the disabled bay due to the other vehicle in the photo encroaching the disabled bay, meaning my passenger could not physically get out of the vehicle if we had parked between the marked lines.

Please see photo for proof of blue badge & photo of parking on the day.

Blue badge was displayed whilst parked. 

>> We would just like to clarify that upon receiving their appeal, we reviewed the CCTV footage from the date in question and at no point did a passenger leave the vehicle nor is the keeper mentioning these facts to this IAS appeal. 

We note that during the appeal process that we were provided with a disabled badge, but not the full badge showing whose badge this belongs to. Nevertheless the driver failed to correctly park within confines of the bay. 

However for the IAS adjudicators viewing only we have attached a file titled "PCN ...." This file shows the events that occurred with the driver on this date. 

Please see file titled "Malpas Road Shopping Park" which shows what the signage looks like onsite. 

Please see the file titled "Vehicle Location" which shows where the vehicle was parked and where the signage was located near by. 

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

A number of images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. 

The signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on private land and that vehicles must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked parking bay and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice.

I can see from the photographs provided that the Appellant was not parked within the confines of a marked bay, which the Appellant accepts.

Whilst I appreciate the circumstances raised by the Appellant, mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. Simply by parking outside of a marked bay the Appellant breached the displayed terms and conditions and as such I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed. 

Currently appealed .....

Issued on 09/12/2022 by New Generation Parking Management Ltd to vehicle registration

Originally rejected by operator on 02/02/2023

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a favourite scam of the private parking companies.  Do nothing at all about a vehicle parked badly in the full knowledge that other vehicles will have to park badly as a result, so they have excuses to issue their PCNs.

It's predatory behaviour and forbidden by their own Codes of Practice.

This puts you in a great position legally.  No, you shouldn't be trying to strike a deal with them.  Legally you owe them nothing!

Appealing was a waste of time, but you didn't out the driver - well done.

I understand you have photos of the incident.  Yes, please upload them.

The SAR should produce the rest.

 

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

Just reread the appeal.  You're right LFI.

This shows yet again why appealing to the PPC's kangaroo court is a dreadful idea.

Anyway, let's see the photos.

 

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

Have definitely learnt my lesson and will refrain from appealing anything like this in future, will send all photos I have available, thanks everyone 

 

car _merged.pdf

Edited by Nicky Boy
Files merged
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the photos.  A few things.

1.  For the regulars.  Do we think an attendant took these photos or was it CCTV?  They are taken from up a height.

2.  For the OP, it was the car with reg. ... 3 HRG that stopped you parking in the next bay, right?

3.  For the OP, was there any reason you didn't park between the lines in the furthest right bay before the lamp post?  I ask as you can be sure the other side will pick up on this to try to beat you.

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

Even though I’m not a regular I can confidently say these were taken with CCTV as there is no elevated platform the attendant could have reached to take these photos, I don’t believe parking attendants are ever present at this site due to its size & the time of night makes me think it is even less likely. 


The HRG reg was indeed the vehicle obstructing my access to the bay as it was present before I arrived 

The open bay next to where I have parked may be my downfall here, I perhaps should have used that space but had in mind that another car may use the disabled bay I had intended to use, therefore limiting access to the passenger side of my vehicle, being forced to park outside of the bay themselves.

I will also admit I didn’t even realise at the time how desperate these parking companies had gotten and had no idea parking fines were issued for parking outside of marked bays 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

The way the court system works, with fixed costs included in the claim, means you have nothing to lose by fighting on.

Give in now and you pay them their claim.

Lose in court and you pay them their claim.  So why not fight?

In fact were you to lose in court it's highly likely that the judge would increase the amount by their £25 hearing fee but then decrease it by disallowing the £70 Unicorn Food Tax they have just made up and added to the claim.

It was however a mistake not to park in the far bay.

But what about their negligence in allowing a disgracefully-parked vehicle to stay where it was and prevent your BB access?

In any case, there is a long, long way to go before court.  A lot of these companies start a court claim in the hope that the motorist will wet themself and give in.  If a case is robustly defended and a decent Witness Statement produced, a good 20% of the time they drop the cases.  We'll support you all the way.

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 to you both.  I'd guessed it was CCTV, but the creeps who sneak up and take photos of the vehicles also use time stamps.

BTW TT98, what you have received is not a fine, you can never be clobbered for the statutory consequences of not paying a fine - because it isn't one. 

It's an invoice, and they have the same right to sue you as you have the right to sue anyone as a layperson who doesn't pay you for an invoice.  It's just a simple civil matter about a "debt".  Nothing worse.

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

well hidden i cant see one.

 

NP20 6WB.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

10 hours ago, FTMDave said:

3.  For the OP, was there any reason you didn't park between the lines in the furthest right bay before the lamp post?  I ask as you can be sure the other side will pick up on this to try to beat you.

 

9 hours ago, FTMDave said:

It was however a mistake not to park in the far bay.

Dave, don't think you've noticed, but the furthest right bay is not actually a disabled bay! (No yellow hashes on the far side).

OP was obviously entitled to a disabled bay, but couldn't possibly have parked to give himself enough space to open both doors without encroaching into the "standard" bay, so it makes no odds how far he crossed the line.

ps It would be interesting to see the rest of the row of disabled spaces.

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

Are we sure about this Nick?

In dx's photo there is a car parked in that far bay (the one next to the lamp post).

Do the yellow hashes have to be on both sides for a disabled bay?  Is not one side enough?

I confess I know absolutely nowt about disabled parking and Googling has got me even more confused!!

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

the two end spaces do not have yellow boxes bothsides, the other on the far right end is against a kerb, only box is on passenger side

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

Yes dx, you're right.

New pic attached. You can also now see the camera. (Taken from the road rather than the older Google pic in the car park).

What a ridiculous situation!

As Dave said, it's not really clear whether yellow hashes are required on both sides of a space, but common sense dictates that they should be on both sides.

If not, it means that you must park forwards or backwards, depending on markings... But, if you need to access the boot for a wheelchair, you have to pull in forwards to use the hatched area at the rear.

Also, what if driver and passenger are disabled?

Bay Pic.pdf

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 all, just an update,

I am planning on going ahead with my defence & fighting as you’ve said, have nothing else to lose now!

Have received these letters from DCB legal in response to what I’ve sent them, included in the pack were the all of the photos I’ve previously uploaded to this thread, my vehicle, signs & site map.

Along with my appeal. 
 

 

 

latest letters.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

next time please redact PROPERLY and put everything in ONE PDF.

read upload

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

post hidden 

you MUST remove all ref numbers and PCN NUMBERS!! and ID numbers

you keep leaving them on every page you upload.

do you want them to find you here?

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

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...