Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I found that the parkin attended has a car with CCTV camera on it, however as I stated earlier, it seems that he did not take video of my car otherwise they would have stated so in the SAR. parking car .pdf
    • The rules state that "approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances"  I was not a threat. I was not present. I did not drive away. I think he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements justifying issuing me a PCN by post therefore the PCN was issued incorrectly and not valid.  What are your thoughts?  
    • I have also found this:  D.2 Service of a PCN by post: 54) There are some circumstances in which a PCN (under Regulation 10) may be served by post: 1) where the contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances) 2) if the CEO has been prevented, for example by force, threats of force, obstruction or violence, from serving the PCN either by affixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle 3) if the CEO had started to issue the PCN but did not have enough time to finish or serve it before the vehicle was driven away and would otherwise have to write off or cancel the PCN 55) In any of these circumstances a PCN is served by post to the owner and also acts as the NtO. The Secretary of State recommends that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention. Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations. This from London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.  The question is what is an approved device? Certainly, he had the opportunity to place the ticket on my car and I didn't drive away.  I looked further and it seems that an approved device is a CCTV camera - It seems that the photos taken were not actual film but images and it is not clear if they are taken from a video or are stills. I'm guessing if it was moving images then the SAR would have stated this.    From the Borough of Hounslow website: "There are two types of PCN issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which governs parking contraventions. The first is served on-street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, who will observe a vehicle and collect evidence before serving the PCN either by placing it in a plastic wallet under the windscreen wiper, or by handing it to the driver. The second is a PCN served by post, based on CCTV footage taken by an approved device, which has been reviewed by a trained CCTV Operator."   From Legislation.gov.uk regarding approved devices: Approved Devices 4.  A device is an approved device for the purposes of these Regulations if it is of a type which has been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets requirements specified in Schedule 1. SCHEDULE 1Specified requirements for approved devices 1.  The device must include a camera which is— (a)securely mounted on a vehicle, a building, a post or other structure, (b)mounted in such a position that vehicles in relation to which relevant road traffic contraventions are being committed can be surveyed by it, (c)connected by secure data links to a recording system, and (d)capable of producing in one or more pictures, a legible image or images of the vehicle in relation to which a relevant road traffic contravention was committed which show its registration mark and enough of its location to show the circumstances of the contravention. 2.  The device must include a recording system in which— (a)recordings are made automatically of the output from the camera or cameras surveying the vehicle and the place where a contravention is occurring, (b)there is used a secure and reliable recording method that records at a minimum rate of 5 frames per second, (c)each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter, and (d)where the device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location from which it is being operated. 3.  The device and visual counter must— (a)be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and (b)be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period. 4.  Where the device includes a facility to print a still image, that image when printed must be endorsed with the time and date when the frame was captured and its unique number. 5.  Where the device can record spoken words or other audio data simultaneously with visual images, the device must include a means of verifying that, in any recording produced by it, the sound track is correctly synchronised with the visual image.
    • Hearing took place today.  Case dismissed with costs awarded. Neither UKPC or a representative turned up.  Apparently they messaged the court on 7 May asking for their case to be considered on paper.  Never informed me, which was criticised by the judge as not following procedure.  I was really annoyed as I would have preferred for the case to be thrown out before the hearing, or at least face them in court and see them squeal.   They are just playing a numbers game and hope you blink 1st!   Ended up having to change my flight, but  the costs awarded softens the blow. Was asked to confirm it was my signature on both the witness statement and supplementary statement.  Wasn't asked to read them, said she could see my arguments made and the signs were insufficient and no contract formed. Took maybe 10 mins in total.  Judge did most of the talking and was best for me just to keep quiet or confirm any statements made. Happy to have won as a matter of principle and have costs awarded. Maybe not worth all the time and hassle for any newbies or the technologically challenged.  But if you are stubborn like me and willing to put in the time and effort, you can beat these vultures! I big shout out to everyone who helped on the thread with their advice and guidance, special mention to FTMDave, thank you sir!  Really appreciate everyone's efforts. All the best!
    • I plan to be honest to avoid any further trouble, tell them that the name should be changed to my official name
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

ICY -v- Abbey


ICY
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5067 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

  • Replies 624
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Lula and Icy i think its become a lucky dip at abbey these days. the quicker that they get it in their heads that we are not going away and they stop playing the delay games the better it will be for both sides.

but i do feel sorry for that mrs kirkman, she must be hating her job at present.

Link to post
Share on other sites

course you can

 

the abuse of process is basically that the banks are using the court system to try to delay and even put people off claiming so they get to keep our money

And them submitting defence ect when they have no intention of actually defending

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am writing this email as a final offer of settlement before the case appears before the court, I am making this offer in an effort to reduce the costs to yourself before I prepare the bundle, which as you will be aware will also incur you additional costs. I am aware of the large amount of claims which you are currently dealing with and to assist your workload, I believe it would help all concerned to settle this matter out of court.

It is well documented that you have no intention of ever going to full hearing, shown by the fact that you have settled an extremely large number of claims at the last minute before going to court, and it would be beneficial to all parties, including the court system that this matter is dealt with out of court.

You will be aware that the courts are now starting to dismiss with the allocation questionnaire, I have received notification of the AQ being dismissed in this case. My claim amount as of today stands at £4663.79 including court fees and interest, I am prepared to settle this matter for the sum of £4300 fourthousand three hundred pounds. I am sure you are well aware this figure is rising on a daily basis, and will increase with the cost of completing the bundle, including photocopying costs, ink costs, the cost of time to prepare the bundle, further court costs and transport and postage costs. As you can see settling this matter now, would be mutually beneficial. For any avoidance of doubt refusal to settle will not stop the legal action against you, I shall be following the legal process to the end.

This settlement offer is valid for a period of 7 days, after this period has expired, the matter will continue to be dealt with by the court system.

I am hoping we can come to an amicable agreement on this matter.

I look forward to receiving your prompt response.

 

SENT THIS TODAY! GOT FOLLOWING RESPONSE:

 

Without prejudice"

Thank you for your email.

 

I am happy to look at your claim, but to do so ahead of its proper place must be of a significant commercial advantage to Abbey. This is the only way that we can be fair to all of our customers. Unfortunately, your offer is not sufficiently commercial. Should you wish to reconsider your position I am more than happy to have discussions with you.

 

Kind regards,

 

Inga

 

WHAT THE HELL DOES IT MEAN? WHAT DO I DO NOW?

 

 

:-|

Link to post
Share on other sites

She's playing hardball with you ICY.

 

Stupidity is the best name and description I can use for it.

 

Carry on then........ get the order that asks for Court Bundles to be submitted prepare yours - stick the FULL amount in - then send it in.

 

Then approach her again again stating that you will be applying for costs following your unreasonable behaviour.

 

Did you send your offer as "Without Prejudice"?

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if you could stick another email up in reply to hers stating that you think it would have made commercial and common sense not to incurr further costs, interest and possibly a judgement against yourselves. As I can see that you are not commercially minded, I will be minded to disclose all our attempts to achieve an amicable settlement of my claim to the Courts and apply for a "Wasted Costs Order" :grin: :lol:

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a cheeky moo.She obviously wants you to lower the amount you'll accept. Stick with it ICY and as previously said you'll hit her with the wasted costs and the AQ cost etc etc..

Glad

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got the following email from inga

 

"Without prejudice"

 

Dear Sir,

 

With respect, at best I have calculated your claim at £1842.00. I therefore

can't see how a proposed settlement of £2000.00 is justified. I am prepared to

increase Abbey's offer to £1783.93. However if this is unacceptable, I am unable

to assist any further.

 

Would you please let me know how you would like to proceed.

 

Kind regards,

 

Inga Kirkman

 

I dont know what to do, i almost sent her an email accepting, but stopped myself, wish i knew how long it would take to get to court, that would deff help me decide, been a long time since anyone has said to me heres nearly 1800 quid, i was quite tempted, ideas please, help me out here guys and gals, i think i need voices of reason lol

 

come on angels whats your views

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think its the same inga kirkman.....

 

Garland Hawthorn Brahe - Personnel Sydney | Inga Kirkman

 

its amazing what you can find on google ;)

[FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=4][COLOR=blue]Reka [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=4][COLOR=blue][URL]http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/93120-reka-abbey-court.html[/URL][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [URL]http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/101308-t-cs-nov-1998-a.html[/URL] [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=4]Abbey *WON IN COURT* £2775[/SIZE][SIZE=1](awaiting payment) [/SIZE][/FONT] [B][FONT=Tahoma]Warrant of Execution filed 22/06/07[/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Tahoma]***Warrant Issued 22nd June 2007***[/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=red]PAID IN FULL [/COLOR][/FONT][/B] [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcAaoRr8H5c[/URL]

Link to post
Share on other sites

how much would you have got if it went through small claims?

[FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=4][COLOR=blue]Reka [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=4][COLOR=blue][URL]http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/93120-reka-abbey-court.html[/URL][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [URL]http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/101308-t-cs-nov-1998-a.html[/URL] [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=4]Abbey *WON IN COURT* £2775[/SIZE][SIZE=1](awaiting payment) [/SIZE][/FONT] [B][FONT=Tahoma]Warrant of Execution filed 22/06/07[/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Tahoma]***Warrant Issued 22nd June 2007***[/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=red]PAID IN FULL [/COLOR][/FONT][/B] [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcAaoRr8H5c[/URL]

Link to post
Share on other sites

ooo wait till gary sees this, he will be in bits lol how common can a name like inga kirkman be?

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...