Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Ok just an update sent my DQ recorded delivery, received by court 18/07/24, nothing yet showing on mcol. Deadline is Monday 22/07/24. Hopefully shows on before
    • So, the two child benefit cap is going to (rightly or wrongly) be a big issue, with the care of kids undoubtedly taking second place to political point scoring  ... Some think that parents should be responsible for kids, and the state pay as little as possible else the parents will just use having kids (which they then neglect) as a means of income for them to spend on fags and booze. Some think that benefits should be effectively there for anyone whatever the circumstances.   So what do people think might be some sort of solution?   I think that both those stances are extremes,  and you can be sure of just a few things 1. Neither or any approach fits all affected. There are some who will abuse the system, just as there are some left in genuine desperate need. 2. None of its the kids fault, and how they are treated will have a large impact on our nations future.   So, despite the claims of 'it means only rich people can have kids' which is rubbish, I think the cap should stay. ... BUT that free school meals should be introduced for all state school kids:   Which would * ensure our nations children kids get fed at least one meal a day with the funds intended for that * be a significant incentive to go to school for the poorer kids at least - keeping many off the streets and away from bad company * almost certainly reduce problems and increase productivity in the classroom from irritable hungry kids (per stats)   Not a perfect solution by any means - but seems a positive move to me.    
    • and more positive change From next year, mobile phone, paid television and broadband companies must inform customers of any price rises at the point of sale. The changes, ordered by Ofcom, will come into force on 17 January and mean that any mid-contract price rises must be given “in pounds and pence” and in a “clear and comprehensible” way.   Taken a change of government to do it after years of bluster about it eh?   Mobile phone companies banned from hiking prices mid-contract based on inflation WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK The new year plan ensures providers are transparent on prices at the point of sale  
    • Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? It depends which country, I imagine. Most UK banks want proof of address and ID, probably more. If your friend/partner can use the house address and provide bills that could help. You would need to look at various online banks and see what their requirements are. Or there are expat accounts but I haven't looked closely at how they work. Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage) I'd have thought the DWP would pay to a new account, as long as the person they're authorised to deal with asks them and provides details. The international pensions people in Newcastle are pretty helpful.
    • HB - he has certainly given me a challenge ! I set a plan in motion. A refinance plan that would have enabled me to take time to sell one asset and sort out another for him.   The bank account blockage has hindered the plan.  His partner seems to think I can do everything w/o paying anyone for anything.  I don't mind helping - but it's not normal to clear out 2 properties, organize storage or sale of possessions, get properties ready for sale/ rent - w/o being paid.  He has the money to pay for things and services - and for my help - but the blockage prevents that. If the refinance plan could still be actioned then at least I would have some time to sell one asset.  Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage)
  • 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
      • 162 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

Jones v Euro Car Parks (useful information within)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5937 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Folks,

 

Food for thought -

 

Back on the 30th August I was the keeper of a vehicle subject to Euro Car Parks placing an INVOICE on the windscreen.

 

The invoice bore the words 'Parking Charge Notice' and declared that removal of the notice and interference with it was probibited. The invoice also bore a note that stated that were it not paid that the issuing firm would seek to obtain the keeper's details from the DVLA.

 

This all sounds very official.

 

Of course councils and the Police are perfectly entitled to issue PENALTY CHARGE NOTICES (referred to in the Road Traffic Act as PCNs) and the keeper is liable under law. However, private companies do NOT have this same privellege. There is no statute giving them powers to issue instruments such as is allowed for the police and local authorities under the RTA.

 

The law governing the issuing of private parking enforcement companies' INVOICES (for they are not PCNs) is the law of contract. That said the parking companies and the DRIVER ONLY of the vehicle enter into a contract when the driver parks in the car park. The keeper is NOT LIABLE unless he/she was the driver. Therefore if you get one of these I advise you NOT to declare the driver and challenge the company to prove whom was driving the vehicle. Should they be unable to do so then I suggest you give them some strongly worded advice (the last word of which may or may not be 'off'). Do NOT under any circumstances declare the driver. You are under no legal obligation whatsoever to assist private parking enforcement companies to compile evidence against you.

 

Now if for some reason the firm is able to prove you are the driver then ask them for a breakdown of their damages. As you have entered into a contract with the parking company the invoice will be for a breach of said contract. Should they seek to charge £50-£70 then they must show that such damages were suffered. Of course this is a ridiculous notion for what is often an overstay of a few minutes. Thus these chargespenalties are unenforceable at common law. Should these firms take you to court (if it gets that far) use this as the cornerstone of your defence.

 

On the other hand I have found another way to combat them.

 

Should you have the time search for SECTION 40 of the ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1970.

 

This is an obscure piece of of legislation governing the conduct of companies collecting debts. Clearly as private parking companies believe you owe them a debt they will be governed by the act.

 

This is the jist of the protection it offers you:-

 

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

 

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

© falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

 

Paragraph (a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise legal) for the purpose of :

 

(1) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(2) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

 

It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

 

I have contended the following:-

 

Euro Car Parks' invoices are given the appearance of a Penalty Charge Notice. The reference to it being prohibited to interfere or remove the invoice is a direct attempt to mimic tickets/PCNs as detailed by the Road Traffic Act. As is the reference to the firm's intention to obtain the vehicle's keeper details. people associate these acts with official bodies who are entitled by statute to declare a) that interference is prohibited and b) that the keeper is liable. Thus I believe the invoices issued by private companies that take on the appearance of PCNs are contrary to Section 40 (d) of the AJA 1970.

 

Further to this should you speak to any representative of the parking enforcement company and they make efforts to mislead you that they have any statutory authority of indeed any specific lawful authority to issue these tickets beyond the law of contract then they commit an offence under Section 40 (b) AJA 1970 by intimating that your non compliance is a criminal matter.

 

Unhappy with Euro Car Parks' unwillingness to prove that I was the driver or justify their damages I have told them I shalln't be paying. I have also told them that to continue to harass me will be met by action taken through the Information Commissioner's Office (for processing my data without permission), to the civil courts (should they be silly enough to let it get there) and to the police for offences under the AJA 1970 and harassment. Continue they have and so true to my word I complained to the police. While the police were initially unwilling to pick up the ball and run with it, a few choice words later and an explanation that the AJA 1970 deals with criminal matters and they are taking the case on.

 

I urge you all to do the same. If these companies harass you or commit offences under the AJA 1970 then please report them to the police. The behaviour of these firms has been frankly disgusting for some time. It's time that a Uk public, armed with knowledge of their rightful legal protection take action.

 

parking companies threatenning to bring in debt collectors?

 

You may care to look at the Director of the OFT's report for January 2000. It states that there will be no basis for companies' involving debt collectors unless this provision is a strict and express term of a contract between the parties. Do the parking enforcement companies declare this on their signs? No they do not. If this is threatenned, complain to the OFT and again to the police. They have no lawful right to take this action against you.

 

I hope this information is of some use to you.

 

Jones v Euro Car Parks begins......

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

I have had a threat of legal action from a firm called Civil Enforcement Ltd

of Nottingham.The allegded offence was parking in a public road in the vicinity of Gatwick airport! Has anybody had dealings with these shisters?

Needless to say they have bitten off more than they can chew with me.

I may take action against them along the lines you have out lined above

when I've finished with the RBS.

Regards Pavi

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course councils and the Police are perfectly entitled to issue PENALTY CHARGE NOTICES (referred to in the Road Traffic Act as PCNs) and the keeper is liable under law.

 

The keeper is NOT LIABLE unless he/she was the driver.

 

Very good post that sum up the position on private parking tickets very nicely.

 

To be totally pedantic:

 

The Police may not issue a PCN. Police and Traffic Wardens can only issue FPNs - which are a criminal offence. I know that this does not alter the thrust of your post, but too many people still muddle criminal and de-criminalised parking.

 

The keeper can be liable in contract law if the driver was acting as his/her agent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to applaud petej2811 for that excellent piece of work and for that post.

 

However, I just have one little niggle which I hope will be proved to be unjustified.

 

In digging up old/obscure legislation, and 1970 isn't really that old anyway, I am always a bit concerned that such legislation hasn't been subsequently repealed by some more recent or perhaps some consolidation legislation as sometimes it is easy to miss this.

 

Like I said, I have never wanted to be proved wrong as much as this one, but in situations like this it pays to check and then double check or even triple check.

 

Good luck, ya know we're all behind you.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to applaud petej2811 for that excellent piece of work and for that post.

 

However, I just have one little niggle which I hope will be proved to be unjustified.

 

In digging up old/obscure legislation, and 1970 isn't really that old anyway, I am always a bit concerned that such legislation hasn't been subsequently repealed by some more recent or perhaps some consolidation legislation as sometimes it is easy to miss this.

 

Like I said, I have never wanted to be proved wrong as much as this one, but in situations like this it pays to check and then double check or even triple check.

 

Good luck, ya know we're all behind you.;)

 

 

That's a very good point indeed, and I had that thought too.

 

It's very difficult to find a proper chronological reflection of the law as it relates to something specific in the public domain. I've had a look on LexisNexis and Westlaw as best I can (and this is very obscure legislation) and ultimately found the best reflection of the staus of this law, such as it is, to be on debt advice web sites.

 

If you look for The Administration of Justice Act 1970 on google then you'll find a lot of lints to debt advice sites, some from well respected authorities, that refer to the AJA 1970 being current. The local cops seemed to be happy it was current too although it didn't appear on the Police National Legal Database.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi Pete.

I know you’re busy at the moment but if you find the time to view my post I would be most appreciative. I am desperate for a defence . I’ve read some of your defence input on this site and believe you’re top of your class.

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/139163-defence-help-please.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Bernard Skintlebinger

The origin of the ideas for arguments, many of which remain untested in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and many that have been tested and quite successful too

 

i note your comments over the site and suggest that if you are unable to find something constructive to say then you refrain from posting

 

i am not suggesting that we should be censoring your posts if the offer a genuine arguement but comments like the one i removed a few minutes ago are what i refer to

Link to post
Share on other sites

The origin of the ideas for arguments, many of which remain untested in court.

 

Which argument would that be:

 

That penalties in contracts are unenforcable?

That consideration is required for a contract?

The Unfair Contract Terms Act?

 

or any other of the well founded legal principles?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...