Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

Penfold V Amber Home Loans


Penfold92
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5524 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 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well done Penfold! :)

 

Sounds like you did a superb job in that court room - and had fun! As I know only too well, getting the set aside is almost a formality, but the experience you now have is invaluable.

 

Loved the fact that the judge is giving them only 7 days to produce a defence, by the way! And too right that the judge got annoyed with their lack of response to your claim. All in all, a good result, I'd say.

 

As for your offer, I think a lot of us would do the same to avoid any more hearings and hassle. Plus, if they don't reply positively, it adds more weight to your argument that you have tried every avenue to get this resolved.

 

One thing's for sure, as soon as that 7 days is up, (providing you don't hear from them, of course), get on the phone to the court manager demanding judgement against them!!!

 

Cheers, BAE

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks BAE, I really appreciate all comments and we (the consumers) really need to stand up to the big bank bullies and they are starting to feel it too...

 

Chris, I will make it save as to costs,

 

It was an experience and it is nice to see judge realise that these guys have made a fortune out of all of us. All of us need to stick the oar in if we get teh chance. I still can't believe i sent them the wrong POC's..It was a longer version of what I actually gave the Court, but the judge jumped down this poor guys neck when he said but Mr Penfold sent it to us...he basically said so what? Why have you not got your act together and found out what you were defendning...LOL No wonder they never had a prayer on the costs after that it would have been a miraculous recovery...

 

Prabs

PS Off to bed for well earned rest...

Edited by Penfold92
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Prabs have been away just catching up so defence has to be in by 4.pm tomorrow hope you are prepared to put in an application to have it struch ouif they dont comply

Bona

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bona,

 

they have sent me a two page defence, which is scetchy to say the least. I will not post up as it says nothing new....

 

HOWEVER, the covering letter says that they are in receipt of my last letter and will take their clients instructions...so hopefully their clients will see sense and agree to the settlement, mind you I did give them till Thursday/ Friday I believe to do that so I will give them till then. After that time I will not be so low in my offers...

 

I guess the judge will ask for a response to the Defence next, then AQ's then hearing right? When can I submit the application for more info? And how do I do so? I asked the jUdge to get them to supply the specific figures for charges etc...he said no, but that it would be easier to do as a request for more info and would be cleaner...

 

Does he mean at the AQ stage or before?

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that things now run from the defence being field ie there should be a directions hearing that is when you can ask for further and better particulars if you want to change the anything poc ect you will need to make an application I suapect you wont hear for a bit as the courts are busy but that doesnt stop you asking for more information

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Vogel, you would have thought so and I am sure the striking out of any costs is hurting too...They should have settled before the hearing and saved face and a fair bit too no doubt...

 

Is it a Part 13 request for more info? Or have I got my figures and names wrong again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Penfold,

 

Have you heard if they will accept your offer of settlement, today being their last chance?

 

If not, don't forget that you could also ask for the info you require at the AQ stage, by putting in a Draft Order for Directions. No guarantee it will come off, but it costs nothing.:)

 

BAE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not heard anything yet so I'll leave till Monday morning and wait for Court Instructions...Then yes I will be asking for a breakdown of charges etc as this has an immeadiate outcome on the claim....Anyone feel free to help with the wording...LOL

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Got the allocation questionaire through last week, strange I have not been asked to respond to the defence though...

 

Is there anything specific I should put in the AQ to ensure small claims track? Amount fits and so anything else I can put in to make the Court see it is a straight forward case?

 

Thanks,

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are probably using the streamlined procedure for dealing with it, because they've had so many - I can't remember being required to respond to the defences in mine, neither.

 

If the amount fits the SCT, there's probably not any more that needs to be said. Have you looked at the AQ advice for standard reclaims? I'm sure it's on a sticky somewhere - I'll have a look and see if I can find it for you.

 

Unless they have a very very good reason for not allocating to the SCT, it's almost a given, IMHO.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here is an update for all subscribers…

 

 

 

Received two letters from Optima Legal –

  • Their AQ, standard filled and small claims track as their application for setting aside the judgment said. No notes or anything at all entered in the additional information
  • A letter stating basically that they are watching my thread and I have no way to prove damages and reiterating the Johnson case

Well, we are replying with our AQ (not that we were ordered to do so) and a letter agreeing to withdraw the damages part, if they agree to a more realistic settlement promptly. Their offer was way short and was basically what we asked them to pay prior to Court action back in January.

 

Since then we have had Court costs including the AQ and I had to take a day off work for their application hearing due to their "mailroom" not receiving the Court Claim and then not receiving the Judgment. We stated clearly in our POC’s we would be claiming litigant in person rate for hours spent researching and preparing the claim. We have been damaged by all this since July last year and there are precedence cases to show that damages do not need to be proved, however, in order to be fair (given our previous comments) and get a quick settlement we will over look those to move on with our lives.

 

I know many of you will be very interested in this information as I never realised that our opinions and discussions could be infiltrated and used against us. This is the equivalent to spying or down right underhand tactics IMHO….

 

Still we never wanted this matter to go to Court and only wanted this settled fairly without the need for legal action in the first place, so if they wish to show posts in Court then we will be producing all our 1100 posts to give the Court a true understanding that we are not "vexatious litigants" as the Defence Counsel are trying to say, but more contributing to a growing site that is for the benefit of its members in the form of support and encouragement where large fiancial firms and their bucks solicitors behind them try to fob us all off with "convenient truths"…

 

 

After all if mortgage charges were true preestimates why do none of them want to actually show this in Court? So basically the letter we were sent pre-Court action was a lie! I know it is, after all how can we be charged for a bounced DD when it was mutually agreed in conversations with the Lender? The DD was never bounced as it was cancelled by us and the lender knew this as we called them and discussed this with them. That is just one example and we can recount for each charge and they did nothing whatsoever extra! We asked for the recorded telephone calls to be produced and have they? Nope, why? Because in them I specifically said "we are not going to be charged as long as we call you each month to make payments and discuss right?" We called them every month and made payments as agreed...so where does the arrears charges come in? They were getting interest on the missing payments, what extra work was involved?

They also say how can we claim interest...So being "enriched" by our payments on their "penalty charges" for over a year now does not warrant this? I will leave that to a Judge for sure, because I am pretty sure I know what their view would be on that...

 

It makes me laugh that more and more solicitors and barristers are turning here to get “inside information” when they should simply know whether their clients have a defence or not….

 

In our opinion all lenders who blatantly "cover up" their costs and pretent they are pre-estimate should be held to account! The FSA really is a "toothless tiger" in all this and should have put a stop to this extortion practice long ago...Who is going to suffer in the long run with the "credit crunch"? The consumer of course...what is the knock on effect? The country is going to get into big trouble financially, will the lenders be affected? Probably not...they make their "extra pound of flesh" by eating the heart away form those in trouble or facing financial hardship...

 

Penfold

Edited by Penfold92
Spelling and added a bit
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Penfold,

 

You sound a little dispirited, or tired, by the whole business. We all get like that from time to time but take heart from the fact that their so - called 'solicitor' needs to resort to such sad and underhand tactics. Sounds like desperation to me!

 

To think they can scare you off by such rogue behaviour is laughable and shows them up for what they are, I'd say.

 

[by the way, what is the 'Johnson' case you refer to?]

 

Anyway, good luck and keep up the fighting spirit - you know you can't lose this one!

 

BAE :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BAE,

 

The case is the one Zoot had mentioned earlier in the thread, but the Judge was not interested in it and said it had no relevance in this claim. That aside, we only wanted them to cease processing our personal data and sharing with third parties and they are not. Hence us narrowing the issues and now agreeing to drop that part of the claim, although I have not heard back from them about this as yet, but they wanted it dropped from the beginning so I trust they will write back soon to confirm this is agreed or else I will need to ammend my POC's and incur further costs.

 

Anyway we'll see, AQ's had to be in on Monday so I dropped off to the Court so await EITHER a letter from Optima Legal OR Court Orders to proceed to bundles. I am in the process of putting those together now and can't believe how much photocoping costs these days!

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Just found this thread, and really interested in outcome because of the hassle I am receiving from Optima Legal.

 

I have a court case in a few months however, I ended up going to a solicitor because of the harrassment I was receiving from Optima Legal. Daily visits to the door by Sheriff Officers who were extremely abusive and aggessive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...