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

NPE ANPR PCN Hire Car (TAXI) - No Permit - Locton Estate, London, E3 2LP


Recommended Posts

Hi folks

I'm fighting a parking charge on private land in my capacity as a London minicab driver.

They've been sending the usual letters from them and later their attack-dog debt collectors.

I've found that a subject access request tends to back these PPC's off when you eventually send one as they realize its too much trouble and expense to continue to pursue.

I sent a SAR back on 16th Dec 23, one to the PPC and another to their debt agency and they totally ignored it and sent the usual letter chasing their money.

I contacted the online chat help with the ICO who told me by ignoring the SAR they were essentially breaking the law and to submit a complaint to them regarding the PPC. 

I sent a strong letter to the PPC (attached ), a couple of weeks passed and they sent the SAR back saying an administrative oversight was responsible for them missing the original deadline.

my question is,

do they have a legal leg to stand on now pursuing the parking charge since missing the SAR 1 month time limit?

Shall I send another  letter such as the one attached I'm thinking of sending?

Many thanks in advance

do they have a legal leg to stand on pursuing this parking charge

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The parking company have a statutory obligation to reply to the SAR.  If they don't, you can sue them.

However that has no connection whatsoever with whether their parking invoice was legitimate or not.  They are two separate matters.

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

Is this a new case or one of your old ones going back to 2022?

Either way you might be in line for a bit of compo from the rogues.

How are the other PCNs going? Are they cancelled or still being negotiated?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news about the old ones. If you need any help with the new one you only have to ask. And of course that goes for the old ones too.

In fact it might help if you filled out the questionnaire-

PS I liked your letter to the PPC [Smart?] re their lack of providing an SAR though it was a tad politer than I would have sent.🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 sorry for the delay in replying to this one,

I've attached all correspondence in relation to this parking charge to this message.

Just received latest communique last week from the debt agency threatening court as the next step.

I know the drill, a strongly worded letter to the PPC is usual prior to receiving a claim form right, ignore the debt agency?

have a look,

 

Kind regards

 

2023-12-16 My SAR request + chaser + GDPR broken Claim.pdf 2023-10-16 PCN Final Reminder+3 Chasers..pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a Letter of Claim so can just be ignored.

Thread title updated.

Did they send the original PCN with the SAR?  It would be useful to see it.

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

I'll see if I still have it,

I've been a bit lax with these parking charges lately not come to you guys straight away with the original PCN, need to be more on the ball going forward

Ok yes it was included with their SAR pack, please find attached

Regards

 

2023-09-14 PCN - Notice To Hirer incident 2023-08-24.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to NPE ANPR PCN - No Permit - Locton Estate, London, E3 2LP

please

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

Wow that is the best Notice  to Hirer I have seen. If they did what they say they have complied almost completely with the requirements of PoFA. I seem to remember me asking you on another of your threads if your car was hired and you said it wasn't. Have you changed your car since?

Because the rules on hirers is different from  non hirers as it were, if the PCN is compliant then even if you weren't the driver on this occasion you are still liable as the hirer so  more difficult to get a defence going. 

They stated in the NTH that they had included the original PCN as well as the hire agreement etc. Did they include all that? 

Please confirm they included everything they said and if so could you please post the original PCN that was sent to the Hire Company which may be deficient.

There may be a couple of things on the NTH that we could quibble over.

They did include a "period of parking" which is not usual but if it was ANPR times rather than the actual times that may be a  defence. Another thing is the reason for issue. Most signs tend to say" Permit Holders Only" rather than Vehicle not registered on Permit database. Lastly I noticed that the address is a PO Box which may be covered by The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

there is a requirement for there for documents to have a geographical address and a PO box number does not comply with that description. Ergo the PCN is in breach of the Regulations and you are not therefore bound by it. There has been no case about it yet so may not work but always worth a try. Especially as NPE may decide not to risk  going to Court over it.

Of course we still have possibly permit holders only being prohibitive and so unable to offer a contract and the contract with the land owner may have points that you can win on also.

Interestingly their accounts are a year overdue which means they will be/have been fined for that. Ironic huh- they pursuing you while in arrears themselves.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Date of the infringement 24/08/2023

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 14/09/2023

3 Date received Approx 17/09/2023

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Y

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes CCTV Pics

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Yes, See above posts

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Yes, see above

7 Who is the parking company? National Parking Enforcement, NR7 7BT

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Locton Estate, London E3 2LP

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IAS

all documentation uploaded

Ok got the original PCN issued to the hiring company - my taxi firm, please find attached

Yes my vehicle is hired from the company I worked for, making me the hiree right rather than the hirer.

I'll get in touch with the parking dept and try and get a copy of the original PCN which would've gone to them initially.

Interesting what you said about being in arrears etc.

Regards for the info

regards

 

2023-08-30 NPE PCN-NTK.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

It'll be something to the effect of: 

"I am in receipt of your letter before claim

I was awaiting a passenger as a licensed cab driver on the Locton estate who subsequently cancelled the pickup after me waiting a while and will fight this in the small claims court if necessary.

Plus I have friends who are experts in contractual law and make it their business to defeat these spurious PPC claims. 

So issue the claim form or go forth and multiply, up to you"

Link to post
Share on other sites

not really....

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

what solicitor is the PAPLOC from?

then just search xxxx snotty letter

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

What an absolutely rubbish LoC asking you to pay someone else!

As you've corresponded with them before let us have a read through your thread from the start, then we'll suggest something.

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)

I've looked through all our old NPE threads, and as far as we know they have never had the bottle to do court.

There are no guarantees of course, but when it comes to put or shut up they definitely tend towards shut up.

How about something like -

 

Dear Jonathan and Julie,

Re: PCN no.XXXXX

cheers for your Letter Before Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea that you actually expected me to take this tripe seriously and cough up.

I'll write to you, not some uninterested third party, thanks all the same, because I am supposed to have this "debt" with you.  Not the manager of the pub you last went to, or your next-door neighbour, or the exes you had before you got together or anyone else.  That's just a basic point of contract law which you obviously don't get..

Go and look up Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd, saddos.  Oh, while you're at it, go and look up your Subject Access Request obligations - we all know how you ballsed that up way back in January to March.

Dear, dear, dear - you couldn't resist adding your £70 Unicorn Food Tax, you greedy gets.  Judges don't like these made-up charges, do they?

You can either drop this foolishness now or get a hell of a hammering in court.  Both are fine with me.  Summer is coming up and I would love a holiday at your expense after claiming an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 

That should show them you're not afraid of them and draw their attention to their having legal problems of their own with the SAR.  If they have any sense they'll crawl back under their stone and leave you in peace.  Over the next couple of days invest in a 2nd class stamp (all they are worth) and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

Edited by FTMDave
Extra info added

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, I like the cut of your jib - I'll go with that and obtain proof of postage.

Encouraging that NPE have never followed through and seem to blowing hot air, let's see where they go after this

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Northmonk

forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA.

Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant.

First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period is exactly that -ie the time you were actually parked in a parking spot. 

If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either.

So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a]

In S9[2][f] the Act states 

(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;

Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..."

As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant.

Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act.

Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA.

Second S14 [5] states "

(5)The notice to Hirer must—

(a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer;

ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail.

I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks for that, well spotted and all duly noted.

Yes they did eventually submit those docs to me after a second letter advising them I was contacting the ICO to make a formal complaint for failing to comply with an earlier SAR that they brushed off as an "administrative error" or something.

When I sent the letter telling them I was in contact with the information commissioner to lodge the complaint, the original PCN etc quickly followed along with their excuse!

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...