UK PAO LTD - Maplins Leeds, Threads merged |
UK PAO LTD - Maplins Leeds, Threads merged |
Mon, 1 Feb 2010 - 22:16
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 1 Feb 2010 Member No.: 35,331 |
Hi there,
Seems I already know the answer to this after reading/trawling this site and the consumeractiongroup website, but here goes ... On Saturday I went with my 3 year old boy to a maplins store in yorkshire and parked in the disabled bay (bad I know, but needed the room to get him out) to get some gear to repair a James tank engine for his railway track. Anyways, I was in about 10 minutes, paid for my goods, came out, put the boy in the car and noticed a ticket on my drivers window. Thought, cr@p, got in the car, opened it, read it, thought cr@p again, and started to drive off. I stopped at the entrance gate and noticed a sign which read something like that the shops on this site didn't have anything to do with the parking restrictions or something. Drove off and was feeling pretty cr@p about myself. Anyways, later on I looked over the ticket with interest and noticed a few things wrong with it ... namely: 1) it states that I was parked on a street, when clearly, the car park is off another street. 2) on the ticket there is a list of reasons for issue and on my copy ticket the tick is between the 'Beyond the stipulated time limit' and 'In a disabled bay with no badge displayed' options. 2 pretty shody things, if you ask me, but not sure if this is an issue or not. So I decided to google the parking company on the ticket ... UK PAO LTD ... and boy was I surprised by what I found! After reading some advice on this website and others, I can say that this ticket doesn't have a VAT number on it, it doesn't make reference to the registered keeper or driver of the vehicle. btw, i was the driver and I know the RK very well. I also noted the following 2 sections (which make me chuckle) ... : Part 6 Administration - This has been issued lawfully and the collection procedure will be processed in accordance with the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and Part 7 Police Only - If this slip is presented before a Police Officer, 'with reference to paying', it is important the Police do not discourage payment. By doing so the Police may be uniwttingly adding extra costs to the recipient. Oh yeah and Part 8 Lawful Issue - A number of Government Organisations operate a working Code of Practice parts of which UK P.A.O Ltd adheres. I'm sort of like 99.9% sure that neither the RK or myself will pay any attention to any letters/correspondence that we may receive. However, the RK is already saying that they will pay the charge if I don't, and they are worried about any CCJs that may be incurred. So I guess I could do with some re-assurance(s) as to what we should/should not do in the coming weeks/months. And if you could provide links to any supporting info for the RK, that would be great. Cheers fellas/ladies Oh yeah, the charge is for 60 quid + 3 quid per day after 10 days ... bring it on!? Oh yeah #2 - the address on the ticket is UK PAO Ltd Registered Company Number 4958206, Rear of 53 Richardshaw Lane, Pudsey, LS28 7NB ... is this an outside toilet at the property? Aplogies if I've broken any rules or offended anyone in displaying/writing anything in this post. I will amend anything upon request from a mod, unless they want to do that themselves. Cheers ears. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 1 Feb 2010 - 22:16
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 1 Feb 2010 - 22:36
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,374 Joined: 29 Mar 2008 From: South of John O Groats Member No.: 18,387 |
Seems I already know the answer to this after reading/trawling this site I believe you do! When dealing with "tickets" from private parking companies (PPCs) our advice is to ignore them. For more information about this recommendation and private parking companies, click this link. Anyways, later on I looked over the ticket with interest and noticed a few things wrong with it What, only a few things wrong with it! I'm sort of like 99.9% sure that neither the RK or myself will pay any attention to any letters/correspondence that we may receive. However, the RK is already saying that they will pay the charge if I don't, and they are worried about any CCJs that may be incurred. So I guess I could do with some re-assurance(s) as to what we should/should not do in the coming weeks/months. A CCJ could only possibly come about as a result of the driver being taken to court (wont happen), driver losing the case (wont happen) and then refusing to pay anything (highly unlikely) You need to be 100% sure the RK does NOT pay a single penny and neither you or the RK contact UKPAO in any way, shape or form. Totally ignore them, best way! This post has been edited by quickboy: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 - 22:37 -------------------- Results from taking councils on regarding PCNs (Lines and signs)
Quickboy 2 Torbay Council 0 Quickboy 1 Swindon Council 0 If a council tell you your own name, check they are correct! Always challenge PCNs. Make them work for their money! |
|
|
Mon, 1 Feb 2010 - 23:54
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,332 Joined: 10 Mar 2007 From: Midlands Member No.: 11,071 |
I am sure that there is another topic concerning this car park, suggest a forum search is required.
Edit, found one http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...&hl=maplins This post has been edited by axeman: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 - 23:56 -------------------- NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved" and do not constitute legal advice. Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Tue, 2 Feb 2010 - 00:04
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,151 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 From: Manchester Member No.: 15,638 |
QUOTE I'm sort of like 99.9% sure that neither the RK or myself will pay any attention to any letters/correspondence that we may receive. However, the RK is already saying that they will pay the charge if I don't, and they are worried about any CCJs that may be incurred. UKPAO have only ever taken one person to court. I don't know why because they didn't bother turning up on the day. RK sounds like he / she needs to brush up on CCJs. To get a CCJ you would need to be taken to court AND lose AND refuse to pay within 28 days. If you decide to pay after 28 days you pay £15 to get the CCJ removed. All theoretical because the charge is not enforceable against the driver, let alone the keeper. The keeper was not present so could not party to any contract so even if hell froze over and they were taken to court, they would only need one defence - I was not the driver. This post has been edited by Alexis: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 - 00:06 |
|
|
Tue, 2 Feb 2010 - 17:25
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 1 Feb 2010 Member No.: 35,331 |
You guys are great ... thanks for the help with this one.
Although I knew what I had to do, I still neaded to get something up here so that the RK could see that what I was telling them was right. Will update this post when I get some correspondence from UK PAO Ltd. Thanks again. |
|
|
Tue, 2 Feb 2010 - 19:20
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,312 Joined: 5 May 2007 From: ooot int sticks Member No.: 11,891 |
You guys are great ... thanks for the help with this one. Although I knew what I had to do, I still neaded to get something up here so that the RK could see that what I was telling them was right. Will update this post when I get some correspondence from UK PAO Ltd. Thanks again. Have a look at the epic Maplins - UKPAO (spanking) - Tallgirl thread here This post has been edited by muckychimney: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 - 19:21 -------------------- Images hosted by imageshack.com
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 12:34
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 1 Feb 2010 Member No.: 35,331 |
Hello,
please can someone help me with a defense?? I stupidly parked in a disabled bay outside maplins in leeds in January and received a parking charge notice. I was the driver but not the registered keeper. I reseached and posted to this group in Jan/Feb aand the advice I got was to ignore any demands/letters that would come through. This the RK and myself have done. However, we have now received a County Court summons 'thing' and we need to submit a defense. We thought that the RK was working one of their jobs which we thought we could prove with a time sheet. However, this wasn't the case. The RK was working their other job which we can't prove!! The Court papers are from Northamptonshire and we are in Yorkshire, which is a pain, and I am more than happy to stand up in court and say I was the driver of that vehicle, if that is what is required, as the RK is getting worried about CCJ. However, the parking firm (some unscrupulous lot in Leeds!) say that they have proof that she was the driver of the vehicle on that day. I will post the alleged offence later today. But can anyone help with a defense ASAP ... pretty please. Cheers, plug |
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 12:37
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12,878 Joined: 7 Jan 2008 From: London Member No.: 16,454 |
Post up these court papers. PPCs have been known to send fake ones. Obscure your personal details.
If this is real then 1) You can get it heard at your local court 2) We will help you draft an excellent defence 3) They will probably back out once they see that you have proper advice - they just try this on once in a while in the hope the victim does not turn up or doesn't have any clue on how to defend it. Did you keep all their previous paperwork? This post has been edited by dave-o: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 12:37 -------------------- Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42' Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87' Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge Goalscorer: I. Markings 79' Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86' Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19' |
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 12:43
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,151 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 From: Manchester Member No.: 15,638 |
Steve at UKPAO didn't turn up last time, so don't fret.
Northampton is the Money Claim online clearing centre. Case will be heard in your local court. PM me with your email address for help. |
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 12:50
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 1 Feb 2010 Member No.: 35,331 |
Yeah I did ... I'll get them all scanned in tonight ... at work at the mo
I think it is a real one though, as the rk went online to get the date extended, but I'll check that all out tonight and get back to you ... will be between 5 and 530. thanks for responding so quickly sorry, how do I pm you?? is that the Send Message option from the drop down on your name?? |
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 12:53
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,151 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 From: Manchester Member No.: 15,638 |
Yep, that's the one.
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 13:42
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
I wonder what their proof is when she was in fact somewhere else.
there was no contact at all with the PPC ? ? written ? ? phone ? ? or was there ? -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 14:31
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 1 Feb 2010 Member No.: 35,331 |
we have had no proof given to us, bama ... and the only contact we have had is the 2/3/4 letters.
and this is what I tell the RK, about them not having any proof, but they are panicing a bit as our defense was going to be that the RK was somewhere else, which we can't now prove. btw - thanks for merging my two posts guys |
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 14:53
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12,878 Joined: 7 Jan 2008 From: London Member No.: 16,454 |
It is for THEM to prove that the RK was the driver, not you.
Don't worry, there are also plenty of other points, which we shall no doubt uncover when we see their letters. -------------------- Dave-o 3-0 LB Waltham Forest.
Goalscorers: B. Alighting 08', G. Fettered 34', I. Markings 42' Dave-o 2-0 LB Islington Goalscorers: V. Locus 82', I. Dates, 87' Dave-o 1-0 LB Redbridge Goalscorer: I. Markings 79' Dave-o 1-0 LB sCamden Goalscorer: I. Dates, 86' Dave-o 1-0 LB Hammersmith & Fulham Goalscorer: T. Signage, 19' |
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 16:48
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
a detailed sworn affidavit may help. they would have to rebut it point by point.
Most strange for PAO to even try with papers and very strange they try it when there has been no contact. what does their claim (or letters) say about this alleged 'proof' ? This post has been edited by bama: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 16:48 -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 17:09
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 1 Feb 2010 Member No.: 35,331 |
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 17:17
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
so where is their averment that they have 'proof'
-------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 17:20
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 1 Feb 2010 Member No.: 35,331 |
|
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 18:10
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
What makes you think they 'say they have proof that she (the rk) parked there'?
Have you spoken to them on the telephone or had any letter saying they have 'proof'? You may be able to upload the other letter pics now that I have replied. This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 18:11 |
|
|
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 19:04
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
a detailed sworn affidavit may help. they would have to rebut it point by point. Affidavit? We're not in the US you know. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 08:46 |