Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Savers are pouring money into cash Isas as they look to protect the interest on their nest eggs from tax. They put more than £11bn into cash Isas in April.View the full article
    • The stock ended the trading day at nearly $136, up 3.5%, making it more valuable than Microsoft.View the full article
    • More from the Second Sight guys in the Law Gazette. Post Office Inquiry: Second Sight accountant accuses lawyer of conspiring to pervert course of justice | Law Gazette WWW.LAWGAZETTE.CO.UK Second Sight accountant found compelling evidence in two cases that evidence was withheld, public inquiry is told.  
    • Why have there not been arrests yet? Waiting for the end of an inquiry which seems designed to drag on forever is a feeble excuse "the Post Office “was constantly sabotaging our efforts” to seek the truth and used claims of legal professional privilege – a type of confidentiality which covers legal documents – “to justify withholding documents from us”. "Aujard had said the state-owned body “would not hesitate to take legal action against me” under a “draconian” non-disclosure agreement (NDA)" "Henderson became concerned after reviewing the case file of Jo Hamilton, .. Henderson said the Post Office’s decision to charge Hamilton did not seem to be supported by its own internal security report, and there was evidence that “potentially exculpatory material” had not been disclosed to her at trial or subsequently. “I regarded this as either professional misconduct or, potentially, criminal conduct,” he said."   Horizon IT scandal investigator tells inquiry Post Office was ‘sabotaging our efforts’ | Post Office Horizon scandal | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Ian Henderson, looking into possible miscarriages of justice, said he came to believe he was dealing with ‘a cover-up’  
  • 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

UKPC/DCB Legal Windscreen PCN Claimform - 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER


Recommended Posts

Well done Intrepid,

UKPC/DCB Legal Windscreen PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER **Claim dismissed, counterclaim dismissed** - Page 7 - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

I am fighting the same claim from UKPC, 

different alleged parking violation date, same place at Martlets, now awaiting a court date. 

There are a lot of others similarly caught out. 

I have challenged DCBL on several points but think I might just leave things as is and let the Judge decide if it gets that far.

I will do a bundle, maybe a skeleton. 

The problem is with these scamsters is that they rely on people giving in and the law of averages means that although you and others won or UKPC discontinued, there are a host of others who paid.   

My feeling is that they are paying £50 for a legal rep, to attend and they have no right to speak for the landowner who is Kames Investments. 

My case is no contract as no signage that was visible to indicate I had entered a UKPC area.

Photos were taken after the ticket issued too in my case and the parking attendant was on site saw us mistakenly buy NCP ticket. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

SeldomSeen, the antics of the attendant make your case even stronger than Intrepid's, as legally the attendant should have "mitigated" the loss and told you you were parked in the wrong place.

However, every case is different, as dx says, please start your own thread.

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

  • 2 months later...

Dear @Intrepid

I am fighting the same claim, relying on the same defence. Is there anyway you would be able to pass me their claim number against you and your name if it's not too much to ask. A short statement would be great if possible. 

I am about to go back to court over another spurious nonsense, the claimant having already lost once this year against me and I am pretty well sick of defending. I'd rather the parking clowns pulled out because the judges will soon think I live in the hearing centre at Brighton!   

The problem with the MCOL system is that it encourages bad behaviour from aggressive companies hoping that defendant's will simple pay up. With the parking clowns, it's a numbers game, they have plenty that pay up to afford to chase us over an alleged transgression of 5 minutes or so parking over which they have lost nothing but they will cost the defendants many hours work in preparing a defence, half a tree in paperwork and lost time for the defendant. 

When will the courts realise this is bad behaviour and bar them from clogging up the court system! Rant over!

Just a thought, you can make an official claim though ICO.

It doesn't cost anything, if ICO upheld your claim then perhaps you could mount an action.

ICO  could also fine them, not sure how effective ICO is but I think it can stop them from using the DVLA database.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SS, if you need help with your case, please start a new thread of your own rather than hijacking Intrepid's. Hopefully they will comment on that.

I've edited your last post but one to show some paragraph spacing, please could you do that in future posts? :)

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not hijacking, I am simply asking for his/ her help and details on this case this thread is relevant for me to reply to.

I have also posted on the GDPR issue, again concerning this case not mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would strongly discourage Intrepid from sharing any personal information. Users of the forum know absolutely nothing about each other.

Seldom Seen is a very recent registered user, who appears to be reluctant to start a thread. That's fine if they want to use info from other threads to go it alone it alone, but they should certainly not be approaching other users.

The forum relies on input from users to function, but Seldom Seen, seems not to want to contribute in any way.

  • Like 2
  • I agree 2

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

Unfortunately Nicky, one cannot roll up at court and simply show a forum post of someone claiming they have had a case dismissed for parking in the same car park .

One needs evidence that the court has already dealt with the matter, Ideally that is in the form of the judge's transcript of the ruling or at least a copy of the judgement.

For that reason, the parking clowns know they can keep throwing in the same claims and scamming motorists.

Good that Intrepid has seen the case through to court and won but its not in the "overriding objective" of the court to go over the same matter time and time again.

There are websites where people via private messaging have stood up against unfairness, given me their names and legal correspondence and offered help, to include a specialist lawyer that offered his help for free. 

I have never paid any parking charge in part due to these people. 

Unfortunately at this time I have bigger fish to fry than this claim so it must sit on the backburner.

I don't have time to post up the mountain of papers.

If Intrepid is indeed intrepid and pm's me, no need to disclose any private info,

I will send over my claim form to him/her unredacted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He just seems to want a transcript.

He's not asking for private advice, he just needs the claim number and parties name to apply for a transcript.

hardly seems bad....

  • Like 1

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SeldomSeen said:

I have never paid any parking fine in part due to these people.

it is NOT A FINE.....this is an extremely important point to understand

no-one bar a magistrate in a magistrates criminal court can ever fine anyone for anything.

Private Parking Tickets (speculative invoices) are NOT a criminal matter, merely a speculative contractual Civil matter

hence they can only try a speculative monetary claim via the civil county court system (which is no more a legal powers matter than what any member of Joe Public can do).

Until/unless they do raise a county court claim a CCJ and win, there are not ANY enforcement powers they can undertake other than using a DCA, whom are legally powerless and are not BAILIFFS.

Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authorities etc were decriminalised years ago - meaning they no longer can progress a claim to the magistrates court to enforce, but go directly to legal enforcement via a real BAILIFF themselves.

10'000 of people waste £m's paying private parking companies because they think they are FINES...and the media do not help either.

the more people read the above the less income this shark industry get.

where your post said fine it now says charge

dx

  • Like 1

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

Thanks dx100uk! ....you are correct. I'm working on the "bigger fish" bundle for the courts (not to do with parking) !  2 solid days into the bundle and the deadline looming so I am sleep-deprived! 

I'm happy to share my files on UK Parking Control/DCB Legal, but not until settled, for the same reason that I am not trusted to be them on this site!  I've already identified a major issue in their claim,  these guys are on a roll. 

Is anyone else getting the automated calls saying are you so and so? If you say yes the call is then referred to some call centre to DCB Legal...they then know you are weak because you are willing to talk to them over their silly claim!  They prey on the poorer amongst us and that is wrong.

Honeybee will be on my bonnet saying I must start a new thread

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive made a thread for you

post up here if you want any help.

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to UKPC/DCB Legal Windscreen PCN Claimform - 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER

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...