PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

677 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 00:27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


This was the defence from months ago, which didn't say who was driving:

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 23:28) *
Try this (below) which I have put together based on various defences by the pepipoo and MSE stalwarts and legally-qualified posters (which I am not). Read it and check everything I have stated is correct for your case.

No need to attach evidence or witness statements yet, that comes later. MSE explains what happens next, and that you sign, date and then print out and email this defence as an attachment, to CCBC using the ccbcaq email address mentioned in several threads.



Statement of Defence

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

Uk Car Park Management v ___


DEFENCE


Preliminary


1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

1.1 The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.

1.2 The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

2.1 The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

2.2 The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charge in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute, including what was described by the Claimant as an 'independent' review by the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). There is no scrutiny board and IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice and shift the burden to the consumer to prove matters outside of their knowledge and evidence, causing a significant imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

2.3 The Defendant has discovered that the Claimant's Trade Body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), is an organisation operated by the same Directors as are/were recorded at Gladstones Solicitors, at least until very recently. They - John Davies and Will Hurley - are also responsible for the IAS.

2.4 The Defendant now submits that the IAS 'decision' should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS but the publication 'Parking Review' reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld (compared to POPLA where 50% have consistently been upheld since its inception in 2012). It is unsurprising then, given the relationship between the parties, that the IAS rejected the Defendant's appeal.

2.5 Now the Defendant notes that Gladstones are employed in bringing this claim, demonstrating a clear conflict of interests.



Background

3) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle in question.

4) It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

5) It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

6) It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material date, whilst residing at the private residential property. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that can have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.


Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

7) It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park, in circumstances where the Lease/Tenancy Agreement does permit the parking of vehicle(s) on this land. The Defendant avers that there was at the very least, a prior and overriding grant of a licence to park, and indeed believes there was an absolute entitlement to park, deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide residents with the right to park a vehicle on this private land, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or any reference to any 'undesignated bays'.

8) It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

9) The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot:

(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or
(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease/tenancy Agreement, or
(iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and/or start charging for them.

9.1 Parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.


No contract and no breach - this bay has never been ''undesignated'' nor was it clearly marked as such

10) It is denied that the vehicle was “parked outside of designated area”. The Defendant parked legitimately in a bay, used without penalty for many years, by various residents at the site.

11) This Claimant has only in recent months, begun a predatory parking regime targeting residents and has unilaterally attempted to foist upon residents a change of rules, in complete disregard to any existing rights and grants; the Claimant being a stranger to the various residents' Agreements. No variation of residents' Agreements has taken place and any such variation would be solely a matter between the landowner and the resident, in any case.

12) The is no site plan of bays in existence (the Defendant has checked with the site Managing Agents). If such a plan now exists, the Claimant is put to strict proof of its origin and on what basis/on whose authority this particular bay has been decided to be 'undesignated' after many years of normal use by residents, and how this change of use was communicated to residents and/or agreed.

13) Other residents also routinely park their vehicles in this bay and when the Defendant contacted the Managing Agents they advised that there was no site plan identifying any bays or 'non-designated bays'. The Defendant concludes that, given the fact that the Managing Agents state there is no site plan, the Claimant is not entitled, nor has any locus standi to decide that one bay is 'undesignated' as opposed to any other.

14) The Defendant denies any separate contract with the Claimant in respect of parking arrangements. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration, given the primacy of contract enjoyed by residents who already have rights of way, and have been parking in that space for years and have a reasonable expectation to continue to do so, free of harassment, predatory conduct and 'parking charges'.

15) It is denied that there was any breach of contract or of any relevant parking terms. The Claimant's claim is wholly misconceived.


In the Alternative: Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished

16) The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, insofar as the Court were only willing to exempt a parking charge from falling foul of the penalty rule which would normally render it unrecoverable, in the context of a site of commercial value, it being a 'complex' case where the driver was a visitor with no prior licence or rights, and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

16.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
16.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
16.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
16.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of existing residents, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

16.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. In fact, the existing rights of residents should have been protected.

16.3 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.


Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

17) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

18) The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

19) The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

20) The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

21) If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.


I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


Signed

Date

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1360876 · Replies: 180 · Views: 20,337

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 00:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


It was said on MSE this week that a person could copy a typical CEL defence from another thread, and not understand it, and still win, because CEL will discontinue later*



*as long as the Defendant didn't grab defeat from the jaw of victory by failing to read letters properly, thinking defence is the only job!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1360874 · Replies: 24 · Views: 428

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 00:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
But there's an issue at my end. I'm a competition level athlete in my chosen sport and have been chosen to represent GB in France also on Friday 22nd June. I got the invite only a few days ago. If I'd known earlier I would have called the court and put it on my "dates to avoid".

Very reasonable to add that to your unavailable dates. Representing your country gets you off exams with Exam Boards exempting people in some circs (I work in a school) so your reasons are certainly something very extraordinary, that I would hope a Court will consider. MUCH more persuasive reason than a holiday.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359682 · Replies: 193 · Views: 13,187

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 00:10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (Nidad @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 11:25) *
Hi Guys,

I got today this letter from BW legal where I receive : PCN letter on rental company name, letter with statement about my details from rental company, PCN issued on my name with the date of 21.12.2017 which I never received. What to do in this case ?
Download link of the letter : https://we.tl/l3NdCa6Qli


Compare that with what paragraph 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 says, and you will see what we are saying.

'No hirer liability'.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359681 · Replies: 25 · Views: 508

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 00:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (wilf3uk @ Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 21:06) *
Thanks for the reply. Its much appreciated.

Based on what you've said, I'll try and provide her with a thorough defence and hope that CEL decide to drop the claim before the court date

Hope?!

CEL ALWAYS discontinue when they get nearer a hearing, when a decent forum defence is put forward, and the person doesn't do anything silly like think defence is the only job and ignores the simple DQ paperwork, etc.

All covered in the second post on MSE here, with AOS example and a typical CEL defence:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359680 · Replies: 11 · Views: 205

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 - 00:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Oh well. Shame because they could have won as keeper, and POPLA will now be harder. Worth a try though, and certainly no-one pays!

If they lose at POPLA, CEL are still dead easy to see off at court defence stage. they discontinue when they see a decent defence.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359679 · Replies: 7 · Views: 108

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (snowman816 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 14:37) *
QUOTE (Dave65 @ Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 22:53) *
If you send by email send CC to your email address or another to prove it was sent.



Ok will do, if I can't find an email for UKPC shall i just send to Zenith and copy my own email in?

appealmoreinfo@ukparkingcontrol.com
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359286 · Replies: 29 · Views: 789

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (Lmc1988 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 11:11) *
So is there a template letter I can send given it’s time passed? I’ve never done anything like this before so really have no idea what I should do

You asked this two posts under post #5 which told you what to say, appealing as keeper?!

Obviously the registered keeper has to also give their name and address, but NEVER say who was driving. This is easy.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359285 · Replies: 8 · Views: 140

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Smart PCNs are 100% winnable if you appeal as keeper. You'd have to try very hard to lose a Smart Parking appeal at POPLA!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359284 · Replies: 7 · Views: 133

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


I hope victims of MIL do sue the DVLA, something has got to be done.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359282 · Replies: 118 · Views: 10,820

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 00:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (Dave65 @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 23:42) *
Yes I think the original idea was to get someone who may specialise in parķing law.

Bargepole advised that the previous VCS case makes this defence difficult, IIRC saying: should have contested jurisdiction at AOS stage.

And there are no other lay reps worth trying or who 'specialise in parking law', or who are byelaws experts. So forget lay reps.

A barrister should at least argue it well.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359280 · Replies: 478 · Views: 18,898

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 00:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


You are NOT at appeal stage, so don't call it that. And don;t address it to MET. They don't get to see your final comments.

You have a mere 2000 characters in a POPLA box, to give POPLA your 'comments on the evidence' not re-appeal. They won't read that.

You really just need:


QUOTE
These are my comments:

Landowner contract
2 or 3 lines, point out if any of the contract is obscured, the signatures/names covered, or the start/end date unclear. Seems to be signed by a dormant company and not the landowner. The document talks about the services, contractor materials etc., but when it comes to the section about “Commencement date” it clearly states “TO BE CONFIRMED”!


Signage
2 or 3 bullet points, point out if the dates on their signage pics are old, if they show scarce signs or don't include a SITE MAP of signs.


Keeper liability - unless you have anything else to add then leave that without comment.

ANPR - forget it.


Your first point should win so keep it short and focus on pulling apart the Landowner contract letter first, and signs (no site map?) second, because those are what will win at POPLA, unless the overstay was so close to ten minutes that 'no suitable grace period' is worth pushing.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359034 · Replies: 18 · Views: 445

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 00:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Kudos to Redivi for this letter. Catgirl, you had great advice there.

Seeing off PCM in one appeal is no mean feat, most end up fighting them in court, so repeating the letter suggested:


QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 2 Feb 2018 - 21:21) *
In cases like this I lean more to a refusal than an appeal

It's still engaging with the company and setting out the reasons that payment is disputed
PCM can't complain afterward that you acted unreasonably

I would go for something along the lines of :

Dear Sir

Ref : PCN **** Reg ****

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle

For your information, I am the owner of Flat No. ** and have an unconditional right to use the parking space
I have no obligation to ensure that a permit is displayed when my vehicle is parked on my own property or to pay your company for the privilege if it is not seen

Even though a permit is usually displayed, it is merely as a courtesy to your operative
You are seriously mistaken to assume that it signifies recognition that your company has any authority over the parking space

I therefore suggest that you cancel this parking notice and white-list the vehicle
If you continue to pursue the matter I will not only cease display of the permit entirely but withdraw your implied right of access to my parking space to inspect the vehicle

Further Parking Notices will be prima facie evidence of trespass by your operative

Do not contact me again about this matter unless to confirm that the Parking Notice is cancelled and I will not be troubled again
I will note the content of any other communications but do not guarantee a reply

Yours Faithfully


Copy to the management agent holding them liable for the actions of the disreputable company that they were negligent to employ
Five minutes on Google would have clearly warned them not to have any involvement with PCM

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359033 · Replies: 10 · Views: 239

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 23:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


I suspect Perky, or people who are far too close to him for comfort, will be reading all of this.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359016 · Replies: 45 · Views: 1,047

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 22:50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 11:10) *
Make your first POFA reference the fact that it was not delivered within the relevant period of 14 days, contrary to 9 (4). Spell it out to POPLA as though they were 5 year olds. NTK posted on 11/1/18, a Thursday and therefore not delivered until 2 working days later, detailed in 9 (6), and therefore not delivered until Monday 15/1/18 at the earliest. Event date is 30/12/17 so served after 16 days instead of the required 14 days.

making this the first point means that they should just accept that and not continue down the rest.

Yes. 9 (2) (e) has not been given correctly.


You really will have to spell out the days, as above. And this must be your first point, that the PCN was neither sent, nor received, within a timeframe that could lawfully have established any keeper liability.

POPLA can't add up, they even got this one wrong (right decision but they wrongly added a day) so you MUST make it simple for them:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...03#post73891603

Show us your final draft, but no expecting us to proof read every word, that's your job! Does it make sense for your case, only you know.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1359014 · Replies: 27 · Views: 646

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 16:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
This is an NCP Parking Notice with the six months limit
No six month limit to a contractual charge though. This is only a parking charge.

6 months sure only really applies to Indigo and CP Plus at stations (and UKPPO at Newcastle Airport?) who call their PCNs penalties.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1358606 · Replies: 16 · Views: 297

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 00:41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
I plan to wait for the request for driver letter.


Why would ANYONE who is not the registered keeper, with a company car, wait for an NTK to hit the fan?

Obviously appeal as lessee/hirer, with name and address, NOW.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1356486 · Replies: 6 · Views: 150

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 00:36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


The first link doesn't work.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1356485 · Replies: 45 · Views: 1,047

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 01:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


This is what will happen next, start to finish of beating Gladstones claims (and we almost always do!):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5678039

Don't be scared, there is no CCJ risk as long as you don't bury your head in the sand (even if you lost at a hearing, no CCJ if you then paid). But losses here and on MSE forum are very rare indeed. We know what we are doing.

These are very defendable and your evidence of when your vehicle was there/could not have been there, is more compelling than a lot of posters have.

Read that thread in full and stick around on both forums even if just lurking every 2 or 3 days to read any other Gladstones claim threads. to get ahead of the game and be ready for your day in court. This was never going to be won at the IAS.

Did you know that the IPC (who run the IAS) and Gladstones, shared Directors? Conflict of interests in the extreme:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...nes-bungle.html

''Fitness to Run an Accredited Trade Association (ATA)

The directors of Gladstones, Will Hurley and John Davies are also the directors of the IPC, who run the IAS appeals service. It is obvious to The Prankster that anyone as incompetent as Gladstones, and who appear to have such a poor knowledge of parking-related law judging by the number of cases they assist in losing in court, have no business in running an appeals service.

A proper appeals service should come to the same result over each case as a court would arrive at - not some judgment relying on the bizarre interpretations of Will Hurley and John Davies, and their hand-picket motley crew of Baristas.

The Prankster therefore calls on the government to take control of this scurrilous situation, and to set up a proper independent appeals service.''


So they (allegedly) tried to hide it by a switcheroo of Directors:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...es-and-ipc.html


But not before it was noticed by MPs who debated the scam of private parking last Friday, and named and shamed Gladstones and the IPC:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...stage-will.html

Watch it in full, worth your while I promise:

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f038...918?in=12:49:41

handy quotes here:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-...OfPractice)Bill
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1355800 · Replies: 12 · Views: 274

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 00:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


You PAID a PCN you got 2 days ago, despite being here already??
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1355794 · Replies: 198 · Views: 13,906

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 00:33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Yes but on much more grounds than that, with better preparation.

Read some other set aside cases and see what's expected of you. Lots on here, lots on MSE.

Google 'set aside parking charge' to find results that include recent threads on both forums in one hit.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1355792 · Replies: 50 · Views: 952

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 19:51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Smart are so easy to beat at POPLA, it's most amusing. Wish everyone knew how to do this and not pay them.

Well done!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1355217 · Replies: 12 · Views: 447

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 19:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (Altin2015 @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:07) *
I will post copy of ntk after work.

Do you think I should write to the landowner. It's actually a company owned by lord sugar.

Should I mention In popla appeal we have reciept and was a customer?

If you like but that won't win the POPLA appeal.

When you say you've seen the 'POPLA template' which do you mean, because there isn't whole template.

There are POPLA appeal points written in the NEWBIES thread on MSE, to put together, and you might win on something like 'signs were not lit/not seen in darkness and the pouring rain' putting ECP to strict proof of the signage being visible at night.

Even better, illustrate your POPLA appeal with photos taken at night in that car park.

And add the other template points from the MSE NEWBIES FAQS sticky, post #3 of it has them. Show us the draft POPLA appeal based on the above.

Bottom line, it's only ECP, half of us here have ignored ECP in the past (before POPLA) and nothing happened.

They are not litigious, no-one pays them!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1355216 · Replies: 18 · Views: 298

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 23:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (4101 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 22:55) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:51) *
I've sent a message to BMPA. I'll let you know once I get a response. If we win can I claim compensation for us for all the time and effort?!


Excellent, David Carrod is a smart fella.


Agreed.

As I said, if bargepole or lamilad were available then great! The big concern was any repeat of the awful mess made of the Cardiff nurses case.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1354141 · Replies: 478 · Views: 18,898

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 23:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,089
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
8 - There are multiple possible drivers of the vehicle in question. My partner is insured to drive the car and my father, who stays at the same address, also has use of the vehicle. The driver of the car at the time has not been identified by the claimant and as the registered keeper I have no obligation to name the driver. The Claimant did not serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, therefore I cannot be held liable under any applicable law, nor can I be presumed to be the driver on the balance of probabilities.


You could add to the above.

And your WS needs to refer to your numbered exhibits, which IMHO should include:

- your car insurance and your father's, to prove they can both drive this car/any car
- a copy of Schedule 4 of the POFA, read it and understand what a compliant NTK must have in its wording - see para 8(2)f, etc.
- the Head Lease
- the tenancy agreement
- a copy of the Beavis case sign to show what a clear sign looks like
- photos of the sign there to show what an unclear/forbidding sign looks like
- any paperwork or email that came with the permits, if this does not mention an 'obligation' or 'contract' or £100 parking charge
- Jopson v HomeGuard
- Saeed v Plustrade
- Pace v Noor
- Link v Parkinson
- PCM v Bull (forbidding signs explained)

(all transcripts available from the BMPA website or from the Parking Prankster's case law pages (Google to find them, read them, understand them).

You could add that you watched the recent Parliamentary debate on the planned Private Parking Code Bill, which particularly singled out the current unacceptably huge numbers of unfair 'parking charges' received by ordinary residents, and how this is considered completely unreasonable (then attach a full transcript printout as part of your exhibits, with the relevant speeches about Gladstones and unfair ticketing of residents' cars at their own homes, being highlighted):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5787731

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f038...918?in=12:49:41

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=...9.0&p=11026

Stephen Doughty Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth
''I will make my own speech, but I wonder if he will add to his list of unreasonable circumstances the repeated issuing of fines to individuals parking in their own parking space outside their property, which has affected me and many of the residents in the block where I live in Cardiff.''

Greg Knight Conservative, East Yorkshire
''I certainly would condemn that, and I will share an example with the House shortly of a similar case that I regard as outrageous...Even homeowners have been hit, as the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention. A case was brought to my attention about residents in a Salford block of flats to whom over 200 tickets were issued for parking in their own car park in just one month.''

Stephen Doughty Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth
''I wholeheartedly support the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and very much hope it gets Royal Assent. We need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with it, and I wholeheartedly support the Bill.''

Also as you mentioned they ignored your letter informing them that you had moved address, mention that too:

Stephen Doughty Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth
''In some cases, information has been wrongly obtained from the DVLA and documents have been sent to the wrong address or to an old address. People are then served with a series of demands, solicitors’ letters and bailiffs’ letters. I regret to say that many of my constituents have ended up with county court judgments, which do huge damage to their credit rating and their ability to get mortgages. Some people have even ended up on “Can’t Pay? We’ll take it away!” over a tiny parking fine, which may even have been for parking in their own parking space. That simply cannot be right.''

and because it's Gladstones, highlight this too:

''Gladstones Solicitors of Knutsford is involved in many such cases—to be clear, I am talking about the firm in Knutsford; there are other firms of solicitors that use the same name—as is BW Legal. I have been involved in a lengthy case concerning a constituent. This week, I raised concerns about such firms with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and I am hopeful that it will take a close look at the matter and consider whether the firms are complying with the regulatory environment for solicitors, and with best practice.''

''Fundamentally, this comes down to common sense, justice and reasonableness. When things end up in court, it is an absurd situation. Roboclaims companies, which are making a massive mint off this industry, can issue a summons for just £30, and yet a defendant can sometimes have to pay as much as eight times that to defend the case, as well as having to deal with the time, emotion and everything that comes with that process.

I wholeheartedly support the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and very much hope it gets Royal Assent. We need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with it''
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1354138 · Replies: 74 · Views: 3,450

677 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 25th February 2018 - 15:43
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.