Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Preliminary hearing to determine whether there is a contractual relationship between parties - according to the hearing notice.
    • I had forgotten that the fleecers had already played a lot of their cards in the WS they made opposing your set aside application (post 12 for anyone looking in) so that means we can already tighten things up.   Obviously the paragraph numbering will now take one hell of a beating, but that can be sorted out later.   Observations in blue, changes in red.     IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD    CLAIM NO: XXXX   HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT) VS XXX (DEFENDANT)   Date: 3rd May 2022   Witness Statement   1. I Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. 1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX. 1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE  This is likely to be one of your aces so will need a lot of work once you get photos.  The fleecers have also shown a plan where they claim there are signs (their WS post 12, PDF page 15 which you need to confront).   2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (the bank statement proof exhibit 1).   3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   3.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   3.1. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it was likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   4.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   4. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.     UNFAIR TERM   4.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit XXX) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   5.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   6.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    7.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   5. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.  Is this really in the PoCs? - you need to look and find out.    The rest of your section is about the use of POFA at airports which is completely irrelevant.    Adapt LFI's suggestions re POFA and keeper liability -   First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail.   The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   PROHIBITION  This deals with no stopping cases.  Yours in not no stopping so it is completely irrelevant.   LOCUS STANDI   You have quoted a different contract in a different place with a different PPC.  You need to read and try to find holes in the contract they produced (post 12, page 15 of the PDF for anyone looking in).   Adapt LFI's suggestions -   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   8. After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   LFI's suggestion -   They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS  I've cut some bits out as the CoP hadn't been published when the fleecers went after you.  Are you sure the Unicorn Food Tax in the PoCs is £60?   9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”   9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. 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.’’    9.5. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. 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 recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye 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...''    9.6. 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.   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.
    • Can you just remind us what is meant to be happening tomorrow
    • Thanks for your reply, we returned home to find the lock tampered with and it had been broken into. Our alarm system had gone off and we have the log of which systems within the house had been triggered showing they had been in the house. There was a letter left from a supposed bailiff addressed to a complete different property. The letter said they had been acting on behalf of SSE energy company. Our home and street are clearly signed, we have no idea how they have managed to mistake our home for the other property! SSE told us not to call the police and they would get back to us within 48 hours, no explanation or apology. We contacted the police anyway and got a crime number. Thanks 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

SHOULD I ACCEPT? BOS credit card


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5380 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 received an offer from BOS which is less than half of what I am claiming.

They state they will refund me the difference between the £12 and £25 and this is their full and final offer.

I sent a partial acceptance letter and they still came back and said this is their final offer.

Should I accept this :-|

RBS

13/10 - Prelim sent, 19/10 - Sod Off letter recvd, 27/10 - partial offer received, 27/10 - rejection letter sent, 3/11 - SETTLED IN FULL

Cheltenham & Gloucester (ERC's)

21/11 - Prelim sent, 26/11 - sod off letter recved, 2/12 - LBA sent, 10/12 SETTLED IN FULL!!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello and nice to meet up with you!

 

I noticed that you have posed the exact same question on the RBS Forum, with the same offer details ie bank assuming £12 charge and offering you the difference?

Is this correct and both banks are offering the same type of settlement?

If so, this sounds like an apparent change of tactic.

Please expand and confirm.

Many thanks.

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, nice to meet up with you too!

 

yes, I have claimed for both banks and they are both coming back with roughly the same response!!

 

Another tactic.

 

I have sent partial payment letters to both, and they have both came back with the same, our offers stands as final settlement blah blah!!

RBS

13/10 - Prelim sent, 19/10 - Sod Off letter recvd, 27/10 - partial offer received, 27/10 - rejection letter sent, 3/11 - SETTLED IN FULL

Cheltenham & Gloucester (ERC's)

21/11 - Prelim sent, 26/11 - sod off letter recved, 2/12 - LBA sent, 10/12 SETTLED IN FULL!!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. This sounds, on the face of it, like a change of offer tactics. I will refrain from mentioning colusion at this point!

 

Would you mind typing in both offer letters please. One for HBOS and one for RBS, on your thread there. This would allow further consideration by our experts!!

 

If this turns out to be the case, I am wondering why, at this stage, 2 seperate banking groups have suddenly started what appears to be a new offer tactic. I have no experience of RBS but a fair bit within HBOS and HBOS used to offer

 

refusal- our charges are fair

50%

100%.

 

Please post this info when you can.

 

Thanks Kenny:)

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest both offers should IMHO be rejected

 

The OFT DID NOT say £12 was fair, that is the benchmark they used as to when they would be involved. The charges are still unlawful

Whatever I post is my opinion and should be taken as such, an opinion. While it is what I believe and is offered in good faith, it should not be taken as a statement of truth

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest both offers should IMHO be rejected

 

The OFT DID NOT say £12 was fair, that is the benchmark they used as to when they would be involved. The charges are still unlawful

 

Thanks Isiris, quite well aware of that.

 

However, Alison has 2 separate offers at the same time from 2 different banks. One from HBOS, one from RBS.

 

On the basis of what Alison has indicated, it appears "on the surface", that their offer process may have changed and they (HBOS & RBS) are both now referring to £12 being fair (as written in those 2 offer letters) and are offering the difference in higher charge applied. That seems a change to me. Anyone else?????

 

I think there might be some mileage in getting the wording in both letters so that it can be considered. I never suggested she accept it and I made no reference to OFT saying it was fair!! Clearly, I know its not!!:(

Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

[email protected].

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi

Sorry about the delay, I am starting a uni course soon and head all over the place.

 

The letter from BOS first was:-

Thank you for your letter.......

I am sure you will appreciate that like other organisations we incur costs for administering your account for late/unpaid payment of overlimit situations. The Bank believe it is fair to pass these costs on to the accounts affected, rather than absorb them into other areas of our organisation, penalising all our other customers as a result.

 

HBOS clearly outlines our charging policy in the T&C's that apply to your account. In addition, we are committed to complying with the bankind code, which sets out standards of good banking practice for banks and building societies follow when dealing with personal customers.

In view of above, I regret to advise I am unable to refund the charges in question as they were applied to your account as per your original agreement."

 

I sent a letter back stating I disagree blah blah and will pursue through courts if nothing heard within 14 days blah.

 

Got a second letter stating roughly the same with the following added:-

 

As of September 2006 HBOS reduced it's fees from £20/£25 to £12 due to the findings by the Office of Fair Trading and so I am unable to offer you refunds for chages of value £12.

I am prepared to offer you a refund of the charges which represents half the total charges applied to your account over the past 6 years.

.......

 

I have sent a partial acceptance letter and they have 7 days to respond!!!!!

 

WATCH THIS SPACE!!!

RBS

13/10 - Prelim sent, 19/10 - Sod Off letter recvd, 27/10 - partial offer received, 27/10 - rejection letter sent, 3/11 - SETTLED IN FULL

Cheltenham & Gloucester (ERC's)

21/11 - Prelim sent, 26/11 - sod off letter recved, 2/12 - LBA sent, 10/12 SETTLED IN FULL!!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Isiris, quite well aware of that.

 

However, Alison has 2 separate offers at the same time from 2 different banks. One from HBOS, one from RBS.

 

:(

 

You may be "aware" of that but is the original poster. I wasnt reply directly to your reply I was "helping" the OP

Whatever I post is my opinion and should be taken as such, an opinion. While it is what I believe and is offered in good faith, it should not be taken as a statement of truth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

I have had excately the same from Halifax and Mint both offered me the difference between the £12 and £25 as a full and final offer.

 

Not sure if they are thinking that the court case will result in £12 being found fair or not, there was no reference to the OFT £12 from either bank. I am now going through the FOS route, so will see what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...