HX Car park management con artists PCN |
HX Car park management con artists PCN |
Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 20:22
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,308 |
Evening all. I've received a PCN from the above company. A driver was photographed (he thinks by a little man in a dark silver BMW 3 series touring) in a "No stopping area" on a Shell garage forecourt. The length of the stop according to the photographs is 7 minutes! The amount payable is for £60 rising to £100 after 14 days
Initial thoughts are; 1) Ignore 2) Send them a letter telling them I wont be naming the driver but they can pay me a £100 administration fee to find out who the driver was along with a fee schedule for dealing with the matter. Thoughts? TIA ETA The stop was actually 7 minutes according to the photo time stamps. This post has been edited by parkingcompaniesFOAD: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:04 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 20:22
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 22:16
Post
#101
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,308 |
All good to send?
|
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 07:35
Post
#102
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
No need for a statement of truth
You can only claim a half days loss of leave. However you can add the OTHER half day into you unreasonable costs side - or just charge it at £19 per hour. |
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 10:18
Post
#103
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,308 |
Ok. I’ve sent the costs sheet in to court and the Claimant, May just take the skeleton along for my own reference.
Any other Do’s and Don’ts in the big day? Any advice? The letter I sent in reply at first may not go down too well I suppose... |
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 11:32
Post
#104
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 683 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
I don't know if this is too late but...
I am not a lawyer. But as a lurker I'm sure I've read that you can charge £19 per hour or part thereof. So your half hours can be rounded up. e.g. 7.5 Hours - £142.50 sb 7.5 Hours - £152 etc Perhaps someone with knowledge of this can confirm, in case I'm raving. "enfore" should be "enforce". As for grammar; Far too many capital letters and too few apostrophes! e.g."Due to the Nature of the Defendants Business and the Time of The Court appearance they have Lost A full Mornings and Afternoons work at £80 Per Half Day." This post has been edited by rosturra: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 11:38 |
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 11:40
Post
#105
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
Any other Do’s and Don’ts in the big day? Any advice? Be early, suit, tie, be polite, don't interrupt the judge if you can help it. Oh, and when the PPC's legal lackey is talking, no standing up and shouting 'OBJECTION, YOUR HONOUR!' -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 07:37
Post
#106
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,308 |
I don't know if this is too late but... I am not a lawyer. But as a lurker I'm sure I've read that you can charge £19 per hour or part thereof. So your half hours can be rounded up. e.g. 7.5 Hours - £142.50 sb 7.5 Hours - £152 etc Perhaps someone with knowledge of this can confirm, in case I'm raving. "enfore" should be "enforce". As for grammar; Far too many capital letters and too few apostrophes! e.g."Due to the Nature of the Defendants Business and the Time of The Court appearance they have Lost A full Mornings and Afternoons work at £80 Per Half Day." Well spotted, I must’ve been tired. Some daft errors there. Hopefully won’t impact things too much! Suit and tie really necessary? |
|
|
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 08:24
Post
#107
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,124 Joined: 8 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,842 |
QUOTE Suit and tie really necessary? Not essential, but smartly dressed is, in my view. Give your Primark jogging pants and your Rab C Nesbitt string vest a day off! |
|
|
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 16:51
Post
#108
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,308 |
I’ll be sure to leave them at home thanks
|
|
|
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 17:02
Post
#109
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Elliot v Loake was determined on the presence of forensic evidence and other linking the car and the driver. Again, no there wasn’t, please understand EvL as you continually misquote it. In that case the keeper swore blind the car wasn’t involved in the accident and that he had it at the time. The Forensic evidence put the car at the scene and therefore buy his own admission he had to be the driver. There was NO forensic evidence linking driver to car or driver (directly) to the event. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 21:47
Post
#110
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
OK the there was forensic evidence available and this was used to show that he was the driver. Play on words.
|
|
|
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 23:01
Post
#111
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,053 Joined: 20 May 2013 Member No.: 62,052 |
OK the there was forensic evidence available and this was used to show that he was the driver. Play on words. The forensic evidence was used to tie the accident to a particular car. The RK of that car made unwise admissions, including that no one else had driven the car. The judge concluded that the RK was the driver at the time of the accident. At no point did forensic evidence link the RK to the driver. |
|
|
Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 06:56
Post
#112
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
It was the combination of the forensic and the other evidence that permitted the link and the finding that the keeper was the driver. I did not say that it was all due to forensics but forensics had their part to play by identifying the car. Let's just usee "forensic" to rattle the PPC's cage.
|
|
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 08:38
Post
#113
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Yes but at least start quoting it accurately.... otherwise you look like a twit!
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 10:09
Post
#114
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,308 |
Parkingcompaniesfoad 1 - 0 Gladstones
|
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 10:14
Post
#115
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Report please
|
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 10:33
Post
#116
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,308 |
Ok here goes.
I think the Gladstone’s rep was more nervous than me. The Judge invited him to present his case, some fumbling later and talk of Elliot v’s Loake which the judge then asked him what date That was, 1983 apparently. The Judge then went on to say how an act in 2012 would superscede that anyway. The Judge moved on to POFA 2012 and asked Gladstone’s rep to show her in the NTK where it was mentioned, which of course he couldn’t do! Boom! Didn’t even have to present my case! We then moved on to costs. The Judge has my cost sheet in front of her, she then asked the Gladstones rep if he had received a copy to which he lied and said no ( it was sent I know full well it was because it was sent to the same email address as the witness statement and he admitted to receiving that). The Judge went on to say how we both should’ve not been relying on email and in future should serve by post. Lesson learned! Because of this The Judge wouldn’t allow my claim for full costs and Litigant in person costs although she did allow me to claim for 2 hours loss of earnings, my parking and mileage. Nonetheless I will accept my cheque for £56.37 with my head held high. Does anyone know of a good printer around the £50 mark? Countless evenings of stress, worry, Time that I won’t get back? Who knows what the true cost of fighting this was. Seeing the Gladstone’s rep looking like he wanted to throw himself down the stairs? Priceless. In all seriousness I would like to thank each and every one of you who has helped me - I could not have done it without you! |
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 11:15
Post
#117
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Well done!
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 13:10
Post
#118
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Well done, however you can get HALF a days pay, not just 2 hours!
Crazy that they would lie I would do a SAR on Gladstones (free!) and PROVE they got the email that way Then have them for contempt - youd need to get a transcript... so a long shot but could drop them in it... But remember - well done! YOU cost therir client a few hundred quid on top as well. |
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 18:15
Post
#119
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,308 |
I did question it but the judge was adamant that’s all I was having due to email business. To be honest any costs were just a nice bonus. The real pleasure for me is as you say, costing these shysters money. The thought of that makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.
Maybe I’ll do a SAR after my cheque arrives.... |
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 18:21
Post
#120
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Then have them for contempt - youd need to get a transcript... so a long shot but could drop them in it... Take on the cost and expense of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the rep in court knew that it had been received? Good luck. -------------------- 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 - 12:59 |