Received 3 pcn on windscreen UKCPM |
Received 3 pcn on windscreen UKCPM |
Thu, 25 Oct 2018 - 13:09
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 25 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,600 |
Hi there,
The keeper received 3 pcn's around April time this year and wrote representation of them all, which obviously they rejected. The representation the keeper sent was the template from the NEWBIE THREAD. The keeper has now received Debt recovery plus limited letter wanting £160 for each pcn. Just wondering should I do anything at this stage? Before I parked where I did I asked the enforcement officer if I could he said bays 93,94 and 95 is not being controlled by UK cPm and got him to send me the evidence which he did and have attached here. Any suggestions or help would be much appreciated. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 25 Oct 2018 - 13:09
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 21 Nov 2019 - 14:43
Post
#161
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 330 Joined: 13 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,050 |
after reading the e v l, i can say that the RK doesn't even have a drivers license.
I would tighten it up and focus, working on the principle that anything that is not necessary has potential to be twisted against you or at least used as a distraction : Dear K Larsson, Your Ref: - xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx In your letter dated 27th November 2018 you state that the allegedly false attachment I have provided is outdated and that your company does in fact have a contract to manage the disputed bays 93-95. There is clearly a conflict between your assertion and the information provided by your Enforcement Officer (name) Please provide the full name of Mr **** and the correct address to serve a witness summons for his attendance at any hearing Please also confirm that you will produce the original copies of both contracts in Court - the contract that you state is now in place and one you allege to be superceded. Mr **** will be asked to confirm our conversation and to explain why there was a disparity between the updated contract as you claim, and his own instructions. I strongly suggest that you examine your position If the contract had in fact been superceded and Mr **** was in error, a claim against me must fail for promissory estoppel If it had not been superceded, you accessed my details at the DVLA without reasonable cause This is an actionable breach of the General data Protection Regulations and your continuing demands have aggravated your error I await your response Yours sincerely, Companies nearly always refuse to send copies of contracts They can't refuse to produce them in court and the request for both puts UKCPM to proof that the contract was updated If it was, it then leaves them unable to deny that the parking notice was a direct result of their own failure to correctly instruct their operative I didn't get a reply from ukcpm regarding the above can i ask gladrags to present the witness? that way the enforcement officer would be able to identify whether the RK was actually driving or not. He will also confirm that he was not giving pcn's on bays 93,94 and 95. Any help would be much appreciated This post has been edited by manur: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 - 14:44 |
|
|
Thu, 21 Nov 2019 - 16:07
Post
#162
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
You can repeat it and note their refusal to answer your reasonable questions.
Again require anname and address for a witness summons |
|
|
Thu, 21 Nov 2019 - 17:27
Post
#163
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 330 Joined: 13 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,050 |
I will send this to them now, also the RK is not the driver so they can't rely on e v l can they?
|
|
|
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 - 13:14
Post
#164
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
E v l doesn't demonstrate anything they can rely on anyway, that's been told to you a couple times now.
You state state under oath not driver, and maybe provide other proof of this. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Nov 2019 - 12:06
Post
#165
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 634 Joined: 8 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,778 |
I will send this to them now, also the RK is not the driver so they can't rely on e v l can they? But didn't your letter to them suggest you were both driver and RK. "Mr ***** will be asked to confirm our conversation..." And "If it had not been superceded you accessed my deatails at the DVLA..." Also your opening post says "... I parked ..." This post has been edited by disgrunt: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 - 12:08 |
|
|
Wed, 27 Nov 2019 - 12:23
Post
#166
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 634 Joined: 8 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,778 |
You state state under oath not driver, and maybe provide other proof of this. The OP will need very robust other proof as this thread and their letters to date suggest they were the driver. (The parasites are very likely to have this thread as evidence to show the judge.) I suspect the reply "you aver you were not the driver..." is to encourage the OP to either admit they were the driver or perjurer themselves, both of which will impact the OPs credibility in front of the judge. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Nov 2019 - 13:36
Post
#167
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Yep, my statement stands however
They need to make it clear if earlier statements were just mistakes, using templates, or something else. But we're 9 pages in and this STILL isnt clear, despite being asked more than once. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:45 |