Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • or PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH        For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes      This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.    Below is CE  evidence to POPLA and  2 photos of my evidence. I have omitted other CE evidence as it includes personal and private details. I will upload POPLAS decision soon    CE to POPLA   ce to popla.pdf ce to popla 2.pdf ce to popla 3.pdf ce to popla 4.pdf ce to popla 5.pdf view approaching car park.pdf view from my parking bay.pdf   My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   18. We refer to the Appellant’s submissions that the signage was turned and difficult to see, however, we have attached an image plan dated 27/03/2019 which demonstrates there are many signs on the site which are readable and easy to see. The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured. Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.    19. The grace period was taken into consideration before issuing the Notice, and we have deemed this incident to have exceeded the allowed grace period.  Please note that whilst we do not advertise the grace period on signage, it is compliant with the guidance provided by the British Parking Association in their Code of Practice, which states that motorists should be allowed 10 minutes in which to decide if they are going to park or not.    20. Whilst we appreciate the Appellant’s submissions, we are unable to take into account mitigating circumstances; the terms and conditions of parking were clear. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.    21. We refer you to paragraph 3-8 of our response (above) as well as the following statement made by the British Parking Association, which advises all motorists:    “Regardless of whether they park in private car parks, Council car parks or on-street, motorists should always park properly and always check any signage displayed to make sure they know and understand the rules that apply. This is especially so if they are visiting for the first time - in order to acquaint themselves with the prevailing Terms & Conditions for parking.”    Drivers have an obligation to check for signage when parking on private land – the signs do not need to be placed directly in the position where they parked, they      Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool L2 3PF Tel: 0115 822 5020  Registered Office as above. Company Registered in England. Company Registration Number 05645677  Pa ge 7  simply must be placed throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them (BPA Code of Practice, 18.3).    22. This Parking Charge Notice was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.    23. The Appellant’s details were obtained from the DVLA on 10/07/2019 and the PCN was sent on 12/07/2019.  Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.            POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.  
    • Hi MIE   I have prepared for the fact that I might not win, although I would very much like to but has been factored into my plans to deal with my current debt and helping to reduce it.    In in regards to documentation....I have been asking for specific information, which they have refused to provide me with since 2013 and not just since I received the claim.    I’ve not received any documents or a response to my SAR.    Particulars of claim in #5.    Defence below (I know it’s not the best, but it’s all I could come up with).   DEFENCE   1. The Defendant received the claim xxxxxxxx from the Northampton County Court Business Centre on 10/08/2019.   2. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.   3. This claim relates to an alleged salary overpayment.   4. It is admitted that the Defendant was employed by the Claimant from 02/02/2009 until 31/08/2011.   5. It is admitted that the Defendant has made a payment of £465 to the Claimant.   6. It is denied that the Defendant owes this whole amount as the Claimant has not provided the information and documents requested.   8. The Defendant is unable identify through financial records that amounts were received as alleged.   9. The Claimant has failed to provide bank account details of where payments were made despite being requested to provide this information.   7. The Claimants particulars of the claim fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.   8. The Defendant contends that the Claimant is a public body that is requesting interest on a debt that is alleged to have been incurred as a result of a salary overpayment and not a credit agreement.   9. The Defendant contends that the Claimant is requesting interest from a date that is Statute Barred.   10. On the 12/08/2019 the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Claimant’s Solicitor].   11. Claimant’s Solicitor has not sent any of these documents to the Defendant.   12. The Defendant has asked the Claimant Solicitor if we may agree to extend the time period allowed for filing of the defence pending receipt of documents (as allowed under CPR 15.5), but no response has been received.   13. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.   14. The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead her case else the Claim should stand struck out.   15. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend her defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.   16. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.   Statement of Truth The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
    • Thread moved to Debt Collection Agencies Forum.   Andy
  • Our picks

nearlyoldwoman

Lloyds to make the first changes re; overdrafts?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4413 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

firstly sorry if this is in the wrong place/already been posted (i'm rushing out the door)

 

i phoned the banking services today and i heard a new thing on the automated list about new changes to their overdraft system, i ignored it and proceeded to hold for advisor, after doing me banking bits and bobs i asked her what these changes was, she then stated that Lloyds are the first bank to make changes to their overdraft system, and letters have been sent out and announcement will be made etc, i asked what the changes were, she said a different charge for O/D and returned D/D, ooh what were these to be? she couldn;t tell me, but she did say that now you can be texted if you were about to be overdrawn, so you could quickly put money in...at a charge of £2.50 a month of course:rolleyes: oh and if you go o/d you have the chance to put money in your account to cover that by 3.30pm that same day??:rolleyes: er, that was always the case with my branch anyway? anyone heard anything simalar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nearly Old Girl

 

The link is here

 

Need to know about banking


If you think this post has been of help, please click on my SCALES on the left - thanks :-) :-x

 

Peter Anderson

Me Vs Morgan Stanley - WON £490

Me V's LTSB - Private & Bus Acc - £18.8k (since Oct1997)

inc: S.69 Interest (and growing daily) -;)

Please remember to DONATE when you have WON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

thanks for the links folks, i understand it much better now, and have learnt a new word "quinitllion",:D

i am totally baffled as how lloyds think they are helping customers, its obvious (even to the permantly bewildered like me) that they are once again making a big fat profit with our o/d:rolleyes: even more so than before:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This link sheds a bit more light on how Lloyds will still fleece its customers with its new charging stucture :mad:

 

Bank Charges: Lloyds TSB Gets Sneaky - 13/09/2007

 

Red


Come on the mighty reds!!!!!!

 

Lloyds TSB - Success - 14/7/07

Lloyds TSB - Pending -

Halifax - Pending -

 

 

Tip my scales if I have been of assistance :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the link, surely this can;t be legal? so they drop the charge from £30 to £15, but add a daily charge of ranging from £6.00 to £20.00? so what is their explanation/purpose for the daily charge etc? it surely can;t be a fee to cover their costs etc, i would like to see how they are difining (sp) this charge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...