Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • 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

Missed scan threatened with social services!


Jhawc24
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6273 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

I am really concerned about a letter my son's girlfriend has received. She is 32 weeks pregnant. She missed a recent scan appointment - basically they did not have any bus fare to get there. She received a letter from the hospital with a new appointment which states if they miss this one then they will have no alternative but to refer the case to social services!

 

What's that all about? I know the pregnancy has not gone easy some of the tests showed up problems, plus she's rhesus negative and needs to have injections. They have had to attend regular to have more scans than normal, including having to travel into Birmingham for a specialist scan. All has been well thankfully apart from the baby being a little small. Please note there has been no issues such as drugs or alcohol abuse - she even packed in smoking!

 

This is the first appointment they have missed, this letter causes serious concern and obviously upsetting for them. Is it a standard letter or is there something more sinister going on?

 

Any advice taken kindly, regards Joan.

First letter to halifax sent rec del 26/4

Data Protection Act letter to capital one sent rec del 26/4

Halifax 1st offer dated 5/5

Capital One ack Data Protection Act request rec 6/5

Request for repayment to Capital One 2/8

LBA sent 22/8

Court proceedings issued 13/10

Settled in Full 9/11

Donation made 14/11

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see there is much to worry about.

 

Think you will find that in light of all recent child protection press, hospitals are being over cautious.

 

Unless of course there is something in either of their pasts which would necessitate social service involvement.

 

At the end of the day, the hosptial have a duty to protect the unborn child and they would do this by bringing it to the attention of the local social services.

 

BTW, can the hosptial not assist with travel to ensure they get to the appointments. Most hospitals have patient transport. It might be worth them asking...

PINKPETAL

 

Lloyds TSB (1) Statements received

LLoyds TSB (2) Statements Received

LLoyds TSB (3) Statements received

Halifax Credit Card (1) Statements received

Halifax Credit Card (2)

SARS request Sent

RBOS (Halifax) Credit Card (3) SARS has Elapsed, on 54 days now

Barclaycard - Goodwill offer of £264.00 :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the replies.

 

Firstly, re patient transport - I actually work for the ambulance service so I know the criteria to be able to use it. Unfortunately she wouldn't qualify. Money has been tight because she is now on maternity benefit and he (my son) has lost his job - which means he has to find another job and does not get jobseekers. To claim back travel expenses they need to be on certain benefits which neither of them get.

 

They are both 21yrs and there is nothing in their past that would warrent social services. In fact she has qualifications in early years child care.

 

When they go for new appointment next week they are going to raise the issue with the department. Gizmo you are prob right about putting it in writing - it may be worth raising this issue with PALS.

 

Regards Joan

First letter to halifax sent rec del 26/4

Data Protection Act letter to capital one sent rec del 26/4

Halifax 1st offer dated 5/5

Capital One ack Data Protection Act request rec 6/5

Request for repayment to Capital One 2/8

LBA sent 22/8

Court proceedings issued 13/10

Settled in Full 9/11

Donation made 14/11

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with Pinkpetal -- it's probably something that they've introduced in letters to "cover themselves".

 

Very best wishes to you, your family and the new arrival.

 

jaxads x

jaxads

 

Halifax - £2281, successfully refunded all charges after LBA letter & telephone call.

Have been offered the difference between the £20 and £12 charges from Capital One -- am sending LBA for remainder.

GE Money - Received settlement of £441, being total charges requested. No interest though.

CCA'd Bank of Scotland / Blair Oliver Scott to produce CCA Agreements on two Credit Cards - well in default, although still chasing payment!!!

EOS Solutions "ceased action on account" on behalf of a friend.

 

All in all, quite busy at the moment and enjoying every minute of it
:eek:

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just ask, You mention that it is a 32 week scan which is not a "normal" scan time and usually indicates that the hospital are monitoring the baby - is that the case ?? Did they not phone the hospital to let them know they would not be able to attend ?

 

Hosptial's are going to be cautious and refer cases if there is cause for concern, now if there a probelms with the unborn and parents do not attend for appointments, that is just cause for concern. Please remember that social services deal with other issues apart from child abuse, so a referal from the hospital may or may not be beneficial in some cases.

 

Have they checked their eligebility for other benefits ?? and is there not a community car service in their area??

 

Just a thought....

 

Anyway... hope all goes well and that the little one arrives safely

 

X

PINKPETAL

 

Lloyds TSB (1) Statements received

LLoyds TSB (2) Statements Received

LLoyds TSB (3) Statements received

Halifax Credit Card (1) Statements received

Halifax Credit Card (2)

SARS request Sent

RBOS (Halifax) Credit Card (3) SARS has Elapsed, on 54 days now

Barclaycard - Goodwill offer of £264.00 :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of getting transport to hospital, this can be done on medical needs as well as financial ones. It might be worthwhile contacting the hospital, explaining the situation and asking them that as they are so concerned, wouldn't it be more prudent to arrange transport for her?

All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I cannot see that your daughter in law has anything to worry about. Did the letter relate specifically to her with the referral to social services or is it something they have on all missed appointment letters.

 

Scans are not compulsory so the fact that she just missed an appointment (for the first time) shouldn't be raising alarm bells for any other reason other than the "was the appointment hard to attend" type of concern.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scans are not compulsary.I never hadthem with two of mine (due to my brothers wife having a little girl that was born with practically no lungs, and deformed arms and legs-and she had been scanned regularly).

My daughter also has a very rare genetic syndrome witha high incidence of cancer (long, long story) anyhow the upshot of this was that the incompetent imbeciles in charge of her care did not scan her as the protocol for this syndrome dictates .

They responded to my eventual letter of complaint that "ultrasound had never been proven as an effective means of detecting tumours".

In the end (another long story)I got a written apology for fourteen of the points I had made.

Upon recepit of that I then thanked them very much and reminded them that my daughter had until she was 21 to sue them over their negligence (statistically this may not happen in life expectancy).

I did have scan for second baby, who they also told me was going to be another big baby, ahem 5lbs 4oz at birth.

Didnt bother for third child as couldnt see point.

Found out when he was six months old (genticst appointment "lost" for five years) that syndrome was genetic and autsominal dominant with and that I was the carrier. (which meant that my other two kids could have had syndrome as well)

Im sure this is very distressing for you daughter-in-law, as she has already been labelled a bad parent before the child is born.

I would ring and ask if this is a standard letter.

There are cases ironically such as my daughters, where the appointment is made and the parents dont take child, through neglect, religious reasons etc.

This then does become a child protection issue (except where the doctors cant be arsed in the first instance).

The key here is to keep hospital informed if you are not going to be able to make appointment and I would definitelyagree that your daughter should ask if there were any schemes available as transport is difficult (especially sitting on a bus when you are 32weeks pregant).

Good luck to you all, and I hope everything goes well for son and daughter-in -law with new baba1

Link to post
Share on other sites

they'll want you to have a 32 week scan because as you said the baby was said to be small. they will keep an eye on growth to ensure its getting enough to eat (placental function)

 

Yes they will want that but scansare not compulsory, implying they will involve social services means that they have other concerns, as social services have no powers to make someone go to a scan unless it is part of a partnership agreement already drawn up, as a result of other concerns.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be too brisk but, in our hospital if we have a client that "fta's (fails to attend) at least 3 times then we have to send out a midwife to the house to find out why.. this often will uncover any problems there may be, and maybe we can offer help to remedy.we consider that its the mothers responsibility to ensure she attends. as a midwife l am not allowed to send or arrange any ambulance transport unless they are in labour. l have never heard of a letter of this manner being sent. naturally s/s take an interest in clients who constantly refuse to attend but this is invariable due to child protection issues. we also expect the mother to have access to phone credit, nappies and sanitary pads!!

the lady in question does not sound like the typical child care concern candidates..

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, ps.

all tests as you say correctly are completely volentary = we cannot force any mother to undergo any test or procedure against her will.

if she doesnt wish it, l usually spend a long time to ensure she is fully informed of pros and cons , l want her to say she chose knowing full information (informed consent)

Link to post
Share on other sites

naturally s/s take an interest in clients who constantly refuse to attend but this is invariable due to child protection issues.

..

 

Not neccasarily - not attending a scan does not automatically flag concern - and unless there were other underlying past issues a referal of this nature would not receive any sort of priority.

 

we also expect the mother to have access to phone credit,

It may be expected and advised - but not enforceable.

 

the lady in question does not sound like the typical child care concern candidates

 

There are no typical cases - and it would be hard to assess concerns on a forum such as this with a few lines of information.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...