Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)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; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
  • 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

Hearing to remove stay


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4339 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 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well that is a real eye opener for me anyway. How low can they get?:mad: Let the Judge think they are being reasonable and attempting to settle then once he has gone tell you no chance!!!!

If they happen to read this thread I for one think they are the lowest of the low!!

You did a great job Penfold. How could you expect to do any better when the court had lost your bundle! You should have hand delivered it to make sure it got there. Oh you did that didn't you! :rolleyes:

 

Good effort though!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this for a letter guys? Feel free to add remove reword!!!

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to my telephone hearing with District Judge Hewetson-Brown I would like him to be aware that further to his instruction to discuss a settlement with Mrs. Watt of DG Solicitors after he left the conference call that she made it clear she or HSBC had no intention of doing so. I am disappointed with this attitude as I have already supplied the Court with ongoing settlements occurring as we speak. It seems unless they have been given no choice, but to defend they will not settle. I am disappointed with her attitude and also the professionalism of such an establishment. I have included a photocopy of the special delivery slip I sent to DG. This can be checked on the internet and you will see that they did indeed get it on the 16th October. This allowed them over a day to get it to the Lawyer/ Barrister who would be dealing with the call. I would like it noted that they only supplied my copy at 6.22pm on the 16th as well.

With regards the Court Copy of my arguments and submissions, I can only apologise and hope these have now been found? I do believe that the Court does confirm receipt of it on the 11th October.

I will try to address the specific points you raised regarding the figures involved with Section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I also hope you will see on reading the Judge Behrens case (specifically section 12 on page 101 of my bundle) that HSBC’s continued reporting and adverse notices on our credit files are indeed relevant here unlike the simple dismissal Mrs. Watts tried to imply. You will also see that our Court submission answers nearly all the Defence’s argument in full and we have further answers prepared should your Honor wish to see them.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Penfold

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Address it directly to your Judge

 

Dear District Judge Hewetson-Brown,

 

Further to our telephone hearing this morning at XX o'clock I would like you to be aware that further to your instruction to discuss a settlement with Mrs. Watt of DG Solicitors after you left the conference call, she made it clear that neither she or HSBC had any intention of doing so. I was very disappointed with this attitude as I have already supplied the Court with ongoing settlements occurring as we speak. It seems unless HSBC and their representatives have been given no choice, but to defend they will not settle. I am disappointed with her attitude and also the professionalism of such an establishment.

 

I have included a photocopy of the special delivery slip confirming my arguments were sent to DG Solicitors. This can be checked on the internet and you will see that they did indeed get it on the 16th October. This allowed them over a day to get it to the Lawyer/ Barrister who would be dealing with the call. I would like it noted that they only supplied my copy via facsimile at 6.22pm on the evening of the 16th as well.

 

With regards the Court Copy of my arguments and submissions, I can only apologise and hope these have now been found? I do believe that the Court does confirm receipt of it on the 11th October.

 

I will try to address the specific points you raised regarding the figures involved with Section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. More needed

 

I also hope you will see on reading the Judge Behrens case (specifically section 12 on page 101 of my bundle) that HSBC’s continued reporting and adverse notices on our credit files are indeed relevant here unlike the simple dismissal Mrs. Watts tried to imply. You will also see that our Court submission answers nearly all the Defence’s argument in full and we have further answers prepared should your Honor wish to see them.

 

With regard to the two cases which have been "won in court" by the banks I believe both of these cases involved Lloyds TSB and the judgments were arrived at due to deficiencies in the claimants submissions rather than the strength of the defendants arguments. In fact I believe in both cases the defendant was not even represented in court and mealy won by default.

 

I trust the forgoing answers all of the queries you raised during the telephone conference hearing.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

 

Penfold

 

How does that sound ?

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Address it directly to your Judge

 

Dear District Judge Hewetson-Brown,

 

Further to our telephone hearing this morning at XX o'clock I would like you to be aware that further to your instruction to discuss a settlement with Mrs. Watt of DG Solicitors after you left the conference call, she made it clear that neither she or HSBC had any intention of doing so. I was very disappointed with this attitude as I have already supplied the Court with ongoing settlements occurring as we speak. It seems unless HSBC and their representatives have been given no choice, but to defend they will not settle. I am disappointed with her attitude and also the professionalism of such an establishment.

 

I have included a photocopy of the special delivery slip confirming my arguments were sent to DG Solicitors.put in date sent This can be checked on the internet and you will see that they did indeed get it and sign for the documents on the 16th October 2007. This allowed them over a day to get it to the Lawyer/ Barrister who would be dealing with the call. I would also like it noted that they only supplied my copy via facsimile at 6.22pm on the evening of the 16th October 2007.

With regards the Court Copy of my arguments and submissions, I can only apologise and hope these have now been found? I do believe that the Court does confirm receipt of it on the 11th October 2007.

 

I will try to address the specific points you raised regarding the figures involved with Section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. More needed

 

I also hope you will see on reading the Judge Behrens case (specifically section 12 on page 101 of my bundle) that HSBC’s continued reporting and adverse notices on our credit files are indeed relevant here unlike the simple dismissal Mrs. Watts tried to imply. You will also see that our Court submission answers nearly all the Defence’s argument in full and we have further answers prepared should your Honor wish to see them.

 

With regard to the two cases which have been "won in court" by the banks I believe both of these cases involved Lloyds TSB and the judgments were arrived at due to deficiencies in the claimants submissions rather than the strength of the defendants arguments. In fact I believe in both cases the defendant was not even represented in court and mealy won by default.

 

I trust the forgoing answers all of the queries you raised during the telephone conference hearing.

 

Yours faithfully,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pete and Jailbird!

 

Great as usual. I feel honestly good about today and the general vibe on here was one of not complete doom and gloom, but fairly negative. I believe that had the Judge had my bundle, just maybe the stay could have been lifted...

 

Be polite and respectful and most of all revise what and how you will say it.

 

Thanks,

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, how about this for the S187 paragraph:

 

I will try to address the specific points you raised regarding the figures involved with Section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, but I am inclined to say that the full amount taken over the years would account for payments made into the account on a month to month basis. If for example £30-£50 per month was taken, which occurred several times during the six year period we are talking about, then that is the equivalent of two weeks child benefit alone. Also if these charges are overdraft linked (ie the balance is overdrawn) then the Bank is a creditor as per the Act that was discussed at the hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Pete. There is nothing new there at all! I don't think they have a cat in hells chance! I thought they were going to come up with some amazing new defence and we would all be gutted but this is the same old drivel they have been coming out with in the past!:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my honest opinion I think the banks will come up with some sort of "clever" charges scheme. The OFT will buckle and make agreements with the FSA and the banks, the judiciary will have no choice but to ratify it into law because of the overwhelming mass of claims in the system and the banks are hoping they will get it retrospectively too :rolleyes:.

 

in other words a sell out by the OFT the FSA and the FOS backed by the judiciary.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

Do you think those 'August' bodies would survive the backlash of public opinion if they indulged in a sell-out like that? With media support it would expose them to intolerable publicity and even jeopardise their very 'reason d'etre'................

 

Incidentally , on another note, I think the third last line of Penfold's letter should read 'merely' not, 'mealy' . ;) Oops! and 'forgoing' should be 'foregoing'

 

It's a good letter though, I hope the judge nails their hide to the wall - devious b***ers........... :)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

Do you think those 'August' bodies would survive the backlash of public opinion if they indulged in a sell-out like that? With media support it would expose them to intolerable publicity and even jeopardise their very 'reason d'etre'................

 

I hope you are right Johnny but what do you class as intolerable publicity! I would have thought they have had plenty of that so far to no effect! I think "hard faced" is the phrase I am looking for!:mad:

And stop speaking french!:o It doesn't sound right in your scottish accent!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

Do you think those 'August' bodies would survive the backlash of public opinion if they indulged in a sell-out like that? With media support it would expose them to intolerable publicity and even jeopardise their very 'reason d'etre'................

 

Incidentally , on another note, I think the third last line of Penfold's letter should read 'merely' not, 'mealy' . ;) Oops! and 'forgoing' should be 'foregoing'

 

It's a good letter though, I hope the judge nails their hide to the wall - devious b***ers........... :)

 

Hi MItch,

 

I hope the media and public opinion would not allow this and let them get away with it, but there is always that doubt...That's why we have to get these stays lifted and proceed so they settle ASAP...

 

As for spelling mistakes...ooops....Gone to the Judge already...hope he understands...LOL

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

And stop speaking french!:shock: It doesn't sound right in your scottish accent!:grin:

 

Oh, Awrigh' , Monsoor Freaky! :D :D

 

As for spelling mistakes...ooops....Gone to the Judge already...hope he understands...LOL

 

Not to worry, Penfold, hopefully it will bring home to the Judge that we are just ordinary people with a genuine grievance, not one of those 'high flying barristers' that Pete was talking about..........:)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just realised I owe you an apology Penfold, :o - it wasn't you who introduced 'mealy' and 'forgoing' ...... it was pete! :eek: And chris - aka Jailbird carried it on..........;) .

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

:oops:

 

I should jolly well think so , Mr Castlebest............. Laffin....:lol:

 

 

Funny that, pete, I just this second logged in and caught your reply even before I got the e-mail......:-)

 

But must go ,I'm off to Hitchin early in the morning... g'night mate , enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonny you are close indeed...Did not realise, how have you found our District Judges? Or the Hitchin ones nastier...lol?

 

Penfold

 

PS Thanks for the reputation...I am only merging Petes and Aud's info and adding small touches of my own...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...