Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
    • Incorrect as the debt will have been legally assigned to the DCA and they are therefore now the legal creditor. Read up on debt assignment.   Andy
    • Thanks Man in the Middle and everyone it's greatly appreciated form was filled in online yesterday now just have to wait and see
    • Hi,    I'm almost done. One question is should I include a header with " Claimant's Trial Documents" or something similar and include a copy of my WX from the trial since that has the claim form defence and documents that were relied upon at trial so that the judge can see that? or should I assume they will already have those documents on the file and so simply include a short statement of case to show the case I intend to prove at the appeal should permission be granted. Since I've made a shorter concise statement of case setting out what I intend to prove at an appeal hearing I'm thinking maybe removing the header of "Documents/Exhibits for use for Permission to Appeal   " since the permission to appeal focuses on the grounds of law and so I'm thinking of just having   Appellant's documents Statement Of Case Skeleton Argument    Then a seperate category named Trial Documents Claim Form Defence Claimant's Witness statement Exhibibts to Claimant's trial witness statement   I'm wondering you think would be better, only because I don't reference a single exhibit in my appeal statement of case since I am just explaining the undeveloped points of law around why the judge is wrong since the  statement only focuses on permission, not the outcome of the appeal so there is no reference to any exhibits?   Or should I just remove exhibits and not add trial documents or exhibits on the understanding the judge will already have the trial documents and that if permission is granted I then include them in my appeal bundle.   Thanks   N/B My statement of case doesn't have the claim form or defence or any witness staements in. it is simply a short 4 page document setting out the claim history and the points I intend to prove at the final appeal hearing should permission be granted.
  • 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

Yes Yes Yes **first Win From Kensington!!!!!!!!!!**


Louisk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5895 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 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi thanks Bona that would be very useful to know if we have a different argument in this regard.

Many thanks

Catherine

xx

:D :D :DMoney in account £13216.66!!!!

GMAC - stmnts rec'vd letter requesting £1662 refund of chrges MCOL on line being issued for ERC

SPML - issued MCOL on 21.11.06!

Kensington - statements received letter requesting £2455.55 refund of charges issuing MCOL for ERC

MBNA - refund £341 offered-sent letter requesting refund of £3846.59 charges!!!!!!

Capital One-going to issue MCOL for £1243!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Louisk - didn't you do well!!

I noticed from your impecable groundwork at #42 from Melanie Johnson "I also announced on 26 January that the Treasury would set new benchmark, CAT standard (cost, access, terms) mortgages for variable and fixed or capped interest rate mortgages. Although voluntary, these will provide a yardstick to help borrowers make better informed, confident mortgage choices and avoid products which have in some cases caused detriment in the past. It is expected that CAT standards will be finalised shortly, following discussions with the mortgage industry.

The FSA will embark on a formal consultation process in the early summer and will consult on detailed rules for mortgage regulations towards the end of the year. Unauthorised mortgage providers will need to apply to the FSA by the middle of 2001, and the FSA expects to have the new regime in place by the third quarter of next year. The Treasury is in frequent contact with the FSA to discuss how these matters are progressing. However, it will be for the FSA to decide whether to initiate investigations into particular areas or firms in the mortgage market, once it has the powers to do so.

In the meantime, all mortgage lenders in the non-status market have to comply with the guidelines issued by the Director General of Fair Trading in November 1997. These guidelines include the need for transparency in all dealings with potential and actual borrowers, and to ensure they do not engage in unfair business practices. Failure to comply with the guidelines could call into question a firm's fitness to hold a consumer credit licence."

Any idea what the actual outcome was on the 'transparency' aspect?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest DEATHLORD

has any one any more infor on the ecrs when there is a repo case, as I believe and by talking to a d/j that this puts a new light on it as you have broken a contract? and I have writeen before but no one has asnwer WHAT is the ecr for as if the Ken have said and I qoute,

ERC additionalintesetis changed in accordance with the mortgage terms as varied by the offer of mortgage' so what is it please some one ohhh tell as I fully believe its a: loss of profit or b: loss of interest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fantastic News!!!!!!!!!!

 

Congratulations

 

:D :D :D

 

I've changed your title to something more fitting.

I too hope those legal costs hurt.... it won't be the last they waste on defending claims!

 

Well done to you!

 

I'm thrilled!

 

 

 

Hi there..

 

first of all ,thank you very much for all the info that you provide on these forums ...my dilemma is as follows as far as the Mortgage comapnies are concerned;

 

how they can even contemplate of challenging any of us in Court when they know full well that;

 

1-they are covered by the same rules and regulations as the banks- and

credit card companies-as clearly indicated in the Customer Contract

regs...

 

2-they have charged us all along fees ,penalties and defaults well above what it costs them ,clearly they have been making huge profits-as much as up to 2000pct in most cases!as we all know that these silly letters etc..cost between 49 to 99 p each to produce!no wonder they do not want anybody else to know their cost disclosure!!!

 

so is there any reason why we may not take them to court.???..surely any even averagely intelligent judge would see through them at a stroke and

award the decision in our favour,specially when the media also gets hold of this sad story!

 

please enlighten us with your wisdom..

 

tks and God bless.

r.d

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1-they are covered by the same rules and regulations as the banks- and

credit card companies-as clearly indicated in the Customer Contract

regs...

 

The cheeky buggers have well written contracts with legal indemnity clauses and have big teams of barristers :D

 

2-they have charged us all along fees ,penalties and defaults well above what it costs them ,clearly they have been making huge profits-as much as up to 2000pct in most cases!as we all know that these silly letters etc..cost between 49 to 99 p each to produce!no wonder they do not want anybody else to know their cost disclosure!!!

 

Tell me about it! Silly letters tend to cost a tad more than 99p, The lassie from the whistleblower said about £2.

 

so is there any reason why we may not take them to court.???..surely any even averagely intelligent judge would see through them at a stroke and

award the decision in our favour,

Again, legal indemnity clauses, barristers, sneaky brained people!

Have a look at the threads were the judges have stuck claims out - however Tamadus and Mrs Foot seem to be leading the way with good judges at the minute

 

specially when the media also gets hold of this sad story!

I have written to every single magazine and newspaper in the county. I was in contact with the BBC ,as many on here will remember, the BBC thought it was too big a story to deal with.:(

 

Dont worry Rubber duck we will get them in the end its just going to take some planning. A lot is going on off the forum and when its time we will be told how to get them.

 

That's my tuppence worth.:D

 

Over to Zoot for more expert opinions!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deathlord I believe that if there is a repossession case erc's may not be chargable I also have been saying this for some time in my case I am getting legal opinion in the next week or so If all goes well I will be going for 13grand inerc and penalty charges but want to be clear on my gorunds first

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tell me about it! Silly letters tend to cost a tad more than 99p, The lassie from the whistleblower said about £2.

 

 

She said no such thing. Do not fall into to the trap that so many have.

 

The reporter suggested "a couple of pounds maximum?"

 

and the Whistleblower confirm "Maximum"

 

A lie oft told becomes the truth.

 

Clearly these letters and our defaults do have a cost, but it is still far short of even £2.

 

Data processing is cheap, somewhere in the order of between 0.2 to 0.6 of a penny per record or between £2 and £6 per thousand records if done by an external company - and remember, these companies also make a profit on that too. The banks do it in-house and therefore enjoy cost savings there.

 

Then, if the bank send a letter (many do not) the paper and the envelope have a cost, as does the postage. Paper is around £3 per thousand sheets and white DL window envelopes are £11.49 per thousand from a well known stationery supplier, so it is doubtful the banks pay anything like this for their paper and envelopes.

 

So the total cost per letter? Approximately 1½ pence for the paper and envelope, 34 pence for postage and maybe ½ a penny to process the data. They are printed, folded and inserted by machine at a cost of a fraction of a penny each again, as the process is fully automated.

 

Still a long way short of the mythical £2 that was in fact, suggested by the reporter initially and then also stated by a junior manager at Barclays.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I appreciate that, but in fact what was stated was that it costs a maximum of £2 in some cases but in a great many cases much less than this as the process is almost entirely automatic.

 

There simply are not armies of operators sitting hunched over terminals keying in data all day to manually pay or decline cheques or DD's. Only in a small minority of cases does a person actually do anything - the vast majority of bounced payments are automatic.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

There simply are not armies of operators sitting hunched over terminals keying in data all day to manually pay or decline cheques or DD's.

 

 

LOL the images you've just put in my head with that!!!!!

 

 

It was 1 in the morning and I read rd's post as 9p not 99p. I do not remember the whistleblower word for word but I do remember reading Yoda's thread's about it. Regardless, I am not here to have my head jumped apon for trying to be nice and offer simplified advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, I am not here to have my head jumped apon for trying to be nice and offer simplified advice.

 

LOL - I am not jumping on your head, but don't you see? According to the law the banks must only charge us the actual cost of each breach, they must not make a profit - even at £2 they are making a profit, we must not lie down so easily.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do see that! :D Its one of the reasons I am a member of CAG! Also one of the reasons I am trying to finding away to successfully claim ERC's back as well as trying to get media interest in them.

 

Must go, have a bank to tell off for sending statements to the wrong address.

 

 

Sorry for the hijack Louisk!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The cheeky buggers have well written contracts with legal indemnity clauses and have big teams of barristers :D

 

 

 

Tell me about it! Silly letters tend to cost a tad more than 99p, The lassie from the whistleblower said about £2.

 

 

Again, legal indemnity clauses, barristers, sneaky brained people!

Have a look at the threads were the judges have stuck claims out - however Tamadus and Mrs Foot seem to be leading the way with good judges at the minute

 

 

I have written to every single magazine and newspaper in the county. I was in contact with the BBC ,as many on here will remember, the BBC thought it was too big a story to deal with.:(

 

Dont worry Rubber duck we will get them in the end its just going to take some planning. A lot is going on off the forum and when its time we will be told how to get them.

 

That's my tuppence worth.:D

 

Over to Zoot for more expert opinions!

 

 

Tks a lot for the info so far..one sticky poit for the intelligent barristers though...

does it matter how much of a legal indemnity clauses that they may have when what they do is plainly illegal hence the original contract is null and void??as they were supposed to deal with us honestly,with care...where??? i have not seen that at all from any of these big boys ...People like kensington deal with people who did have their problems in the past and trying to get back on track..but not only by charging higher-up to 50 pct more!-on their mortgages,they also punish them with all kinds of heresy,inuendo and superficial codswallop!..they are the first ones to breach their own contract anyway by delaing with us in a dishonest way!! please tell me which judge is gonna listen to them,except when striking claims out as a result of making mistakes on the procedures governing the technicalities of the mechanism of courts,not on the fundemental issue of dishonesty and lack of care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your spot on there Rubber Duck. Kensington took us to court last September and the judge threw it out. He actually said to us "If you need any further assistance please feel free to contact the court". Thier representative could not supply the relevant documants whne asked to by the judge, she asked us if we had them! Like we're gonna supply her documents to help her case against us, stupid woman. Anyway, Kensington are getting their own back, since last Septmerber (7 months) we have had no fewer that 5 interest rate rises on our mortgage. It's now upto a staggering 9.45%(4% higher that BOE base rate) These people are parasites and we are desperate to get them out of our lives, but it cost us...............about 4 grand (ERC).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your spot on there Rubber Duck. Kensington took us to court last September and the judge threw it out. He actually said to us "If you need any further assistance please feel free to contact the court". Thier representative could not supply the relevant documants whne asked to by the judge, she asked us if we had them! Like we're gonna supply her documents to help her case against us, stupid woman. Anyway, Kensington are getting their own back, since last Septmerber (7 months) we have had no fewer that 5 interest rate rises on our mortgage. It's now upto a staggering 9.45%(4% higher that BOE base rate) These people are parasites and we are desperate to get them out of our lives, but it cost us...............about 4 grand (ERC).

 

 

Hi there..

i suggest.please please please,do not ditch them until you are free to do so..so they get no fees for early exit..they do not like that!..all in all even if you have to change to another company,the changeover fees etc is gonna cost you around 1500-2000 pounds..so save that and wait until you can leave without any punishment from the Draculaland!that is exactly what i am waiting for..ready in June -july sometimes...

but whatever happens i want everybody to sue them..the more the merrier...as the numbers starts to increase believe me their will to defend anything will be on the wane..then Bingo!They know we are right..but just delaying the inevitable so they can draw more interest from our funds in their hands...but not long now!

keep the faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gang,

 

Well surprise, surprise Kennsington have still not paid up. In fact thay added a further £730.91 to my account in February - at least this time they had the decency to call them 'Solicitors Costs' all of this in direct violation of the tomlin order.

 

Wrote a letter to their solicitors giving them 7 days to sort it, reply from solicitor states ' administrative oversight ' 14 days later still waiting for ' administrative oversight ' to be corrected.

 

Question is ---- Is it time to send in the baliffs ? (oh I really hope so ),

 

I know kensington have some nice fancy offices in the Paddington area, what a dream it would be baliffs - newspaper reports - TV news crews - victims of kennsington - all there to see justice being done, what a show it would be, if it kicks off your all invited !

 

Advice please

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ Edmund Burke

 

Total unlawfully taken £3247 (NatWest)

Data Protection Act Sent 05/05/06

Full Response Received 15/06/06

Prelim. Sent 16/06/06

LBA Sent 30/06/06

MOL claim Started 26/07/06

Defence and CPR18 received 26/08/06

AQ Sent 15/09/06

Cobbets Offer Half 18/09/06

Offer Rejected 19/09/06

Court orders Stay 26/09/06

objection sent 29/09/06

Mission Accomplished 9/10/06 :-D

 

Total unlawfully taken £650 (Kensington)

MOL claim Started 26/07/06

Offer received 17/08/06 rejected.

Defence received 26/08/06

Court orders Stay 18/09/06

Objection Sent 23/09/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gang,

 

Well surprise, surprise Kennsington have still not paid up. In fact thay added a further £730.91 to my account in February - at least this time they had the decency to call them 'Solicitors Costs' all of this in direct violation of the tomlin order.

 

Wrote a letter to their solicitors giving them 7 days to sort it, reply from solicitor states ' administrative oversight ' 14 days later still waiting for ' administrative oversight ' to be corrected.

 

Question is ---- Is it time to send in the baliffs ? (oh I really hope so ),

 

I know kensington have some nice fancy offices in the Paddington area, what a dream it would be baliffs - newspaper reports - TV news crews - victims of kennsington - all there to see justice being done, what a show it would be, if it kicks off your all invited !

 

Advice please

 

 

Dear Louisk....

 

please..pleasse..please..do it!

i ,and the thousands of others are waiting in hope!..pleaseeeee!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, 21 days and still no money! Do you think they would wait that long for you to pay up?

 

of course not.!

 

can you also imagine the noise that it will create in the media and the industry as a whole??..hopefully afterwards we can take them on,on our own terms...at the end ;we need mortgages,they need a return for their money,as long as we are all honest with each other...there is no problem,is there?...this whole issue is not of earning a decent profit for these companies-as shown by them so far!-but how much they can squeeze us for!..similiar situation happened with car companies for so many years now..they toe the line!(they are still making money on over-priced spare parts now, but this is another issue for another day!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can any1 answer this,

 

I had an account with the dreadful kensington and thankfully I paid it off but did rack up a serious amount of charges if I no longer have the account can I still claim back £50 per month arrears fees etc, does any1 know. they are the worst biggest bunch of w**kers i have ever had the misfortune to have become involved with and now im going to try and get my own back against them and their equally as unplesent assosiate Derbyshire home loans, can any1 offer any guidance on what fees are applicable if at all. and can I claim if the account is closed???

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes yes and yes! Have a look in Zoots sricky Mortgage FAQS I seem to remember there being a list of claimable charges in there.

 

As long as its small claims size you should be fine, they haven't managed to use their legal indemnity clause in the small claims but as you can see from this thread, they do try!

 

Send off your SAR and get all the details first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...