Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other!
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
  • 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

CB Vs CapOne + CI, Advice ?***WON***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5909 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 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Right a little update for you.

I've just come back from visiting my folks, and what did I find but a bog off letter from Cap1.

Now why do they respond to my SAR at my new address yet still respond to my prelim at my old address.

 

Any way it was a typical "four weeks investigation" letter, so time for my LBA.

Must admit to being slightly surprised by their response considering I'm claiming back to 2000.

Oh well their losse.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What planet are these people on.

Just received a letter at my home address saying that they can't find an account for me at this address.

Well that's hardly surprising as I've moved.

Now EVERY letter I send to these people has my account number and previous address on it, didn't stop my SAR, so this is obviously a new stalling tactic from them.

Oh well, time to resend my LBA and give them another 14 days.

What complete planks !

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Curleyben. . . i blame their parents..

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received from my folks another nasty gram from RED.

I guess they don't know how to read DISPUTE.

 

Now this was the "we'll take legal action and make you bankrupt" one.

 

So what the hey, I decided to call them.

Freephone number for Lowell found (0800 0270 194), well they ARE both in the same building.

Was passed around a bit untill I ended up on the desk of " Jonathan.

I answer the "security" question correctly, well might as well and gave J a choice;

Either

1/ Conduct this call in an Adult and professional manner

OR

2/ Rant and rave and get nasty straight off.

 

This kid had his head screwed on right and chose option 1/, good for him.

After making it VERY clear that I didn't acknowledge any debt to RED, I gave him a quick update on what had been happening and the fact RED where still ignoring my dispute.

J informed me that the outstanding debt had been adjusted to about £70.

Fair enough I thought Cap1 have obviously been listening to some of my claim.

I then explained to J that I am pusuing Cap1 for ALL the charges AND CCI (had to explain that one to him) and I will be taking them to court over it.

J asked what value I was claiming.

Well over 20 times the figure he gave me, I replied.

 

I was then put on hold for a bit as J talked to the organ grinder (Teamm leader), when he came back he said that this debt was still due and RED would pursue it.

I then explained that acording to Cap1's S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) this debt becomes Stat Barred in about 6 months and if RED wants to take a legal route with me I'll tie them up in red tape so that it does. (A simple CCA will do that nicely)

Off J goes to the organ man again and returns to inform me that RED will be returning this account to Cap1 and won't be actioning me again.

Of course I requested this in writing.

 

So Curlyben strikes again and makes another DCA take their ball home.

 

So

DCA's - 0 CB - 6 !!!!!

 

Who's next ;)

  • Haha 1

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Oooops kind of lost track of time with this one.

Well LBA all done and dusted and NO response.

Slightly surprised as I didn't get an Udy missive.

 

Oh well time to get my N1 sorted out and get this baby filed ;)

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well another nice letter from Cap1, saying that they ahve done nothing wrong and they will only refund £132. Well we'll just have to see about that, wont we ;)

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I've been very lax on this one.

I offered Cap1 a compromise, but they turned it down.

Oh well all looks good for the courts ;)

 

Right so time to get moving again.

Now as this account started in 2000 should I mention anything about the limitations act in my POC, or just keep quiet.

The responses I've had from Cap1 haven't said anything about this, so I'm inclined to not mention it at all in my POC, but will do if it comes up in their defence.

 

Comments ?

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read this thread over again from start to finish and glad to see Red realised the debt was going to be Statute Barred before they could go down the Bankrupycy route. Sounds almost too simple and nice for the Clownell Group an Red are supposed to be the scary bunch. Anyway I doubt wheyher they had any more than a photocopy of their application form

Link to post
Share on other sites

ODC, it's Cap1 so ALL they would have is the mailer application from I filled in from 2000 ;)

 

Red couldn't call a bankruptcy on this anyway as they where only chasing £200, but its not the amount but the principle of the thing.

After all I wouldn't be pursueing Cap1 for the charges if Lowell hadn't approached me in the first palce.

 

Their lose really, but what fun :D

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

ODC, it's Cap1 so ALL they would have is the mailer application from I filled in from 2000 ;)

 

Red couldn't call a bankruptcy on this anyway as they where only chasing £200, but its not the amount but the principle of the thing.

After all I wouldn't be pursueing Cap1 for the charges if Lowell hadn't approached me in the first palce.

 

Their lose really, but what fun :D

I realise they have no mission of going down the Bankruptcy road anyway because if the debts under 750 quid they cant. What amuses me is the way they threaten to do this to everyone even if the debt is for a couple of hundred quid. Surely Clownells should realise that if you are not prepared to deal with them or Hampton Wick you are hardly going to deal with yet another trading style of Lowells

What a sad bunch of losers. They have spent more on postage and telephone calls than what they say I owe them for a debt which I know is Statute Barred and even if it were not they havent got the paperwork for it. They made a huge mistake ringing me to work to threaten me. I pretended I was the company owner and sent them packing.

  • Haha 1

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

*Update*

 

Well I've been a right lazy bottom with this and kid of left it simmering, but I got a couple of letters from the Clowns so that has spurred me on.

 

So too a nice jaunt to my local court with my 4 pages worth of N1, 3 times, paid the nice man and filed my claim.

 

So now the waiting begins.

 

Must admit I'm NOT going to my local court on a Friday again as it's sentencing day. There was SIX armed police, 8 motorcycle cops as well as a whole load of others. Made me feel a little uneasy I can tell you.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right received my court paperwork in the post this morning.

Cap1 are deemed served on the 19th August, which is nice seeing how that's Sunday !! ;)

 

So the waiting now starts.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well this morning I received a letter saying Cap1 will repay;

ALL Charges

ALL interest on the account

s69 8% interest

Court Fees

so in total just over £900.

Ok so this wasn't the CCI total I was claiming, but a result anyway.

 

So where does the DCA come into it.

Well in July 2006 this account was sold to our friends Lowells.

Yes they ARE the owner of the account so

In order to apply these refunds, I have had to contact Lowell Portfolio and ask them to refund the above amount. As you only had an outstanding balance of £70ish, I have arranged to send the credit balance of £850ish to you via a cheque. You will receive this within the next 14 days

 

So a dodgy Cap1 account they bought has ended up costing them OVER £850 !!!!!

 

I would love to of been part of that conversation ;)

 

I can't wait for the cheque as I'll scan it for everyone's amusement.

 

Now that's a RESULT in anyone's book !!!

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in all honesty as they have offered to repay what they have, then court would simply be about CCI and nothing else.

I'm not that confident arguing just for the interest and nowt else.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's great . . . well done.

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...