Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A full-scale strike at the firm could have an impact on the global supply chains of electronics.View the full article
    • 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.  
  • 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 
        • 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

Welcome Finance - This company needs to be banned.


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4586 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 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Difficult to read because very small. Does it say "Certificated Bailiff"?

 

A search on Certificated Bailiff

didn't give any results....

 

Also says "Police informed" - is that checkable?

 

ive uploaded a pdf file above the thumb nail...you can see it better..

 

i phoned the police and he did inform them this morning that he had clamped the car...they werent interested they said it was a civil matter...great arent they!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, me being numpty, clicked the thumbnail, not the link to pdf. Is a certified bailiff same as certificated?

 

Also, you may want to blank out your name....

 

ye im trying to but cant get the hang of the uploading with out thumbs nails etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok zaidey

 

they have confirmed repo so they have terminated the agreement

 

let the fun begin

 

ill start posting on your thread over the weekend

 

plan a sunny vacation

 

you are going to be able to afford it

 

all on welcome me thinks

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive uploaded a pdf file above the thumb nail...you can see it better..

 

i phoned the police and he did inform them this morning that he had clamped the car...they werent interested they said it was a civil matter...great arent they!!!!

 

 

Yes, civil matters are no good for their targets, regardless a crime is being committed!

 

Still looking at the certified/certificated issue - maybe tomtubby could help on that one - she's the expert here...

 

And with postggj on side... let battle commence!

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok zaidey

 

they have confirmed repo so they have terminated the agreement

 

let the fun begin

 

ill start posting on your thread over the weekend

 

plan a sunny vacation

 

you are going to be able to afford it

 

all on welcome me thinks

 

your music to my ears....

 

its so nice having you guys and girls as support..

 

when you get into these situations it feels like your on your own with very little help out there..but thanks to you guys i feel better..i really mean it thanks:smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

just curious here, what reason did the bailiff guy give for unclamping the car?

Found that surprising as in my experience once your car's clamped they're not exactly willing to unclamp it without good reason! Especially since he wont get whatever fee Welcome has promised him as he has not repossessed the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

basically said he rang his headoffice...he had a notice of repocession that was dated 28 july and apparently gave 7 days notice to act....how can it be dated 28july and give 7 days to act ?????? i did ask for a copy but he said he couldnt give it to me..

 

ive never had a notice of repo or termination or default notice..

 

so anyways his office said they have spoken to a welcome manager and his decision was to call off the repocession..

 

?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

just curious here, what reason did the bailiff guy give for unclamping the car?

Found that surprising as in my experience once your car's clamped they're not exactly willing to unclamp it without good reason! Especially since he wont get whatever fee Welcome has promised him as he has not repossessed the car.

 

 

Emmilou, you've hit the nail on the head. He followed orders then realised later that it was illegal (most likely) and that would be bad for him, legally and businesswise.

 

Zaidey, I hope you get the result you deserve. I've PM'd Tomtubby re the bailiff status - she is incredibly busy but her opinion is gold regards bailiffs.

 

Postggj is the Welcome killer - between them you will be Welcomes worst enemy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive checked out the name

 

i dont think he is a baliff

tom tubby will confirm that

 

it seems its just a repo firm this p&a

 

we will have to move on this zaidey

 

welcome are on its last rights and fading fast

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive checked out the name

 

i dont think he is a baliff

tom tubby will confirm that

 

it seems its just a repo firm this p&a

 

 

Thats what I'm thinking. If so, Welcome would be jointly liable for him misrepresenting his status (as his ultimate employer)

His notice states Certified Bailiffs - hopefully Tomtubby can clear up that one.

Just an extra rock to throw....

Link to post
Share on other sites

try this link

 

http://i588.photobucket.com/albums/ss323/zaidey_photos/reponotice028jpg2-1.jpg

 

ive also regested this with the fos and they wrote to welcome yesterday ikll post the letter the fos sent to me to prove this in dispute with them

 

http://i588.photobucket.com/albums/ss323/zaidey_photos/fosletter029jpg2-1.jpg

Edited by zaidey
Link to post
Share on other sites

try this link

 

http://i588.photobucket.com/albums/ss323/zaidey_photos/reponotice028jpg2-1.jpg

 

ive also regested this with the fos and they wrote to welcome yesterday ikll post the letter the fos sent to me to prove this in dispute with them

 

 

Step 1 - pass the buck...

 

 

Compliance department.... hmmm, wonder what their role is....

 

I would absolutely refuse to deal with local branch. You complained to WF compliance, they may need to deal with Fleetwood LCU (what is LCU?) but that is their problem, not yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Step 1 - pass the buck...

 

 

Compliance department.... hmmm, wonder what their role is....

 

I would absolutely refuse to deal with local branch. You complained to WF compliance, they may need to deal with Fleetwood LCU (what is LCU?) but that is their problem, not yours.

 

lcu is local collections unit

Link to post
Share on other sites

lcu is local collections unit

 

 

Yes, what I thought.

 

As I said, you complained to WF Compliance. You must immediately write back confirming You require a response from compliance, not local branch.

You need to send the telephone and doorstep letters - all communication in writing.

 

As postggj says, keep the big guns under your hat for now, take a few days to consider.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi sillygirl1,

 

That's interesting.

 

The office, I was told this week is on the second floor of Centre Link House at 307 High Street, Sutton, Surrey.

 

I sent it by Recorded Delivery so I hope there is someone instructed in the building to collect their mail or maybe it's redirected to Pentonville Jail .....:lol:

 

Nite

 

Voda

 

 

 

Be aware here that the Sutton office is a 'front' - they apparently only visit it two or three times a week to collect post and the phone no (so I've been reliably told) goes to a 'field person' in the area. I go past their office daily and the ground floor is empty, and there is a large 'for sale or to let' sign on it....
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4586 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...