In May last year I sent a watch by Special Delivery Guaranteed before 1PM to Casio for repair. When the watch arrived at Casio’s repair centre the padded envelope was ripped and the watch was missing. I claimed through Royal Mail’s website for compensation for the loss, but despite apologising for failing to meet my expectations and admitting liability, they stated that under the terms of the product I had failed to meet the criteria where they could provide full compensation. They provided no more information than that, but they did include a cheque for £7.65, which was the cost of the service. I spent five months going through the various escalatory processes, and each time their excuses for not honouring my claim changed; I had not provided them with enough evidence to prove the watch’s worth (I had long since lost the receipt and it was no longer in production, so the best evidence I could find was using links to websites that showed its RRP – but were not accepted by RM); I had not provided them with the original packaging nor the original receipt for postage – I provided both, but then they claimed my packaging wasn’t adequate. My final act of complaining to the independent postal review team didn’t work either as they just parroted the Royal Mail’s decision. I submitted an MCOL against them earlier this year (make sure that you address it to Royal Mail's registered address, as others have found to their cost that having to change the address where papers are served can add to the expense of the claim). Royal Mail’s defence was the usual case law of Harold Stephen & Co from 1978, and that I failed to meet the conditions of the UK Post Scheme – without a reciept for the watch or a copy of a bank statement they claimed I couldn’t provide evidence of value; they claimed that I had not packaged it properly and referred to packaging guidelines within the Postal Scheme for perishable, fragile and bendable objects; they claimed that I had no contract with them even when buying “an insurance” to compensate for loss or damage whilst in their care. So I had my day in court - my hearing was before Deputy District Judge Lindsay in Brighton on the 26th June. I had to concede that they had me over a barrel with the case law, that the government gave them a lot of (unfair) protection, but I argued that it was blatantly unfair that RM could accept a valuable item into their care, lose it, then have no claim in contractual law whatsoever against them. But the conditions within the UK Postal Scheme are challengeable. The RM’s legal rep claimed that the padded envelope was not suitable for a fragile item such as a watch. The Judge agreed with me that a stainless steel watch is not a fragile item and that my padded envelope was of a reasonable strength to protect it. He also found that I had sufficiently proved it’s value and awarded the case in my favour. Facing a judge and arguing your case against professional legal representation may be a little daunting, but it is worth doing against RM. They think that quoting dozens of pages of case law will put people of claiming against them. Do a bit of research, prepare well and the chances are you'll be successful.

dx and Nicky Boy are spot on. The fleecers may be writing to the correct address now, but there's nothing stopping them having another go in three months' time say, deliberately sending the court papers to the wrong address, and you'll have a backdoor CCJ. We've seen it happen. So invest in two 2nd class stamps on Monday and send off the following. Make sure you get two free Certificates of Posting from the post office. Once that's done we can move on to the SAR. Dear DCB Legal, Re: PCN no.XXXXX firstly, would both you and your client kindly note that I no longer live at XXXXX but instead now at XXXXX. Next. Cheers for your Letter of Claim. I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the idea you actually thought I'd take such tripe seriously and cough up! As usual you'll have been too bone idle to carry out any due diligence. Had you done so, you would have seen how your client has broken every trade association rule in the book in my case. Your client can either stop this madness now or else get a hell of a thrashing in court, where I will be sure to request an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.1(1)(b). I look forward to your deafening silence. Yours, XXXXX COPIED TO UK PARKING CONTROL LTD

Without boring you with the reason, I recently calculated the success rate for Caggers in court hearings against the most litigious of the PPCs over the last couple of years or so, and it was about 85%. So what about the other 15%? Two things stood out. Firstly, rubbish judges. Secondly, complicated cases where the person taken to court was not the person liaising with CAG or where the person was abroad and trying to take part in the hearing on-line. Thus alarm bells ringing in my head about your case. Then the problem with PALS is this. Let's imagine they are all cooperative and agree to call PE off. Some PALS have indeed been cooperative on several occasions. The problem will be that PE will say they "can't" cancel the ticket now there is a court case and they have incurred additional expenses, and that you "should" have contacted them earlier. They come out with this tripe when the "additional expenses" are a single threatening letter sent by a third party, so you can be damn sure they will moan all day about the huge sum of £35 which the poor dears have spent to start court action. Conclusion? Your case has morphed into a bit of a mess and whatever you do will have an element of risk. i think you really need to go with it with PALS and beef up your letter, including playing some of your cards early - which we always say not to do - simply to try to get PALS to seriously take on PE: Otherwise nothing will happen. So I suggest - Dear Sir/Madam, Re: PCN no.XXX, vehicle registration no.XXX your parking agent (Parking Eye Ltd) is threatening court action over an invalid parking charge notice received after a driver parked in Goodmayes hospital with my registered vehicle to attend their appointment. According to NHS car parking guide 2022, I note that it states the following : "Additional charges should only be imposed where reasonable and should be waived when overstaying is beyond the driver’s control (such as when treatment takes longer than planned, or when staff are required to work beyond their scheduled shift)." The driver's appointment was delayed due to whatever reason the NHS gave at the time, lack of staff/ too many patients. It was not the driver's fault they could not leave within the 30-minute time allowance. Could you kindly instruct your Parking Company to cancel the charge as not only is it invalid but after perusing the site, there were no signs upon entry notifying drivers that they are entering into a restricted area and that terms for parking are in place. I attach a photograph showing the lack of signage. I am XXX years old and disabled, and it is completely unfair that I am being dragged to court due to the driver being entrapped by Parking Eye and the overstay being caused by the hospital. If you need any further information please contact me, I look forward to your assistance. Kind regards, However, hang on this evening for other opinions from the regulars before sending the mail tomorrow morning. We wouldn't normally include this level of detail, but yours is not a normal case. And to set your mind at rest, even in the worst, worst, worst, worst, worst, worst case scenario, as long as your mum contacted the court more than seven days before the hearing, to inform that she would not be attending and would ask the court to decide the case on the papers, the court wouldn't penalise her. However, the outcome would almost certainly be that the judge would disallow the made-up charges bit of the claim by PE but would allow the rest and she would lose the case.

Don’t like it? Just ask them to remove them. That way you won’t have to pay a standing charge. Sorted. Then you can get on to your mobile phone provider and charge them for having their Sim in your phone. Do let us know how you get on, (even if it means going to the library to access the internet because you have no electricity at home, and no mobile service ………)

But that has happened to me on more then one occasion when the amount of cabin baggage has exceeded the space available for it. What should happen is that the ground crew explain what they're doing and give the passenger an opportunity to retrieve anything they need during the flight. If they don't do that tha passenger needs to be assertive and clearly say "Wait! I need to get something out of the bag" and not stay silent. @SueRyanAir - as everyone else has said you have no grounds for a claim against Ryanair on the basis of negligence or distress or for you worrying that something might happen that didn't actually happen. The courts are generally only interested in things that did happen, not things that could have happened but didn't. This sort of "less than ideal" situation happens all the time and if its going to cause you such distress and anxiety you ought perhaps to reconsider whether you should be flying at all

Hi @SueRyanAir, I'm sorry that you felt distressed due to imagining what could have happened with your power bank, but I want to reassure you. There was indeed a plane crash in 2010 in Dubai, UPS flight 6, which was caused by Lithium batteries catching on fire. But there were no passengers, it was a cargo 747 jumbo jet that was packed full with thousands of batteries, which all subsequently caught on fire via a domino effect and effectively led to the crash. It was a very sad story which led to the lithium battery regulations that we have today, and passengers being asked not to pack lithium batteries in the hold as a precaution. Also fire supression system regulations and cargo hold container fireproofing was improved considerably as a result of the accident. I need to also add that cargo fire supression is a lot more secure by default in passenger airplanes than in cargo planes, for obvious reasons. While the rule to not pack lithium battery is a welcome added precaution, it's there to avoid hundreds of lithium batteries all catching on fire through another domino effect. It is a rule that is not stricly enforced, unless someone tries to sneak in 20 laptop batteries in their bag, which is not your case. The airlines are aware that forgetful passengers frequently pack batteries by mistake and tolerate that. In the one in a billion chance that your power bank would have caught on fire at that moment (They almost never catch on fire spontaneously. Those incidents usually happen during charge, not when idle), then the fire would have very most likely been contained by the metal container that your luggage is placed in. At the first sign of smoke, the sprinklers would have gone into action (they are mandatory in passenger aircraft holds), and they use a special kind of toxic foam that supresses all sorts of electronic fires. The pilots would have been instantly notified of the fire system activation and made a landing at the closest airport by precaution, until the damage can be assessed. Short version: you or the airport did not cause any risk of harm to anyone onboard, and I can guarantee you that at least a handful of other passengers on the same plane as you also had betteries in their luggage, and probably also didn't switch their cell phone off for take off! For the medication part, this is very unfortunate, but it was ultimately your responsibility to ensure that you keep essential medication with you. Now where you are probably right is that you were misinformed, or at least not explained things properly. And they should have let you know to take those items out of your bag more clearly rather than put a sticker on and assume you read it. You could here make a complaint to the airport that they didn't do their job properly there, and by "they" like my site members have stated, it's not Ryanair but whoever does the ground handling (the poor underpaid Ryanair staff already has too many things to take care of!). Ryanair is actually 0% responsible here. If you did so it is almost certain that as a best result, some low level employee will be reprimanded or scolded. It is not likely to go any further than that, and you're certainly not likely to be awarded any damage or compensation outside a "thank you for your feedback and sorry for your experience". I also have to agree with my colleagues here that it doesn't seem you were treated unfairly, unless you requested additional assistance from the airline which they didn't provide. Sorry that this is not the answer you wanted, but I hope you can travel with peace of mind in the future now that you know that a single passenger's mistake - in this day and age - cannot and will not bring an airplane down.

A very common scenario is that people wishing to send a parcel to someone else use a parcel broker/price comparison service to identify a suitable courier company – rather than go directly to the courier company. This means that when you make a contract to send a parcel, your contract is with the parcel broker and not with the parcel delivery company. This happens especially with people who send parcels because of eBay sales. Typical scenarios are: Through eBay, you make a contract with Packlink who decide on your behalf to send a parcel using Yodel or EVRi. Through the Internet, you make a contract with Parcel2Go which decides on your behalf to send your parcel using EVRi or DPD or DHL. Through the Internet you make a contract with ParcelHero which decides on your behalf to send your parcel using a courier company of their choice – EVRi, DPD et cetera. The common element in all of the scenarios is that you make your contract directly with the parcel broker. You don't have a contract with the delivery company. In English contract law this poses difficulties because you can only sue somebody for breach of contract if you have a contract directly with them. However, in 1999, Parliament passed the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. This act of Parliament can in certain circumstances give you the rights to sue on a contract just as if you were a directly contracted partner. In order to be entitled to third-party rights you must be a discernible beneficiary of the contract. In other words you must be somebody who's actually identified in the contract or you must clearly be somebody who is entitled to benefit under the contract. Our view is that if you are the sender or the addressee of a parcel then you are clearly somebody who is intended to benefit under the parcel delivery contract. There can scarcely be any argument about this. The other requirement is that there must be no evidence in the contract between the parcel delivery company and the broker that they did not intend for the contract to be enforced by third parties under the 1999 Act. Generally speaking when you make a contract through ParcelHero or P2G , this doesn't pose any problem because you can sue these parcel brokers directly. They are domiciled within the United Kingdom jurisdiction and it is easy to issue a claim against them and to force them to engage in the litigation. The situation with Packlink is very different. Packlink are domiciled in Spain and this means that if you want to bring a court action against them, you're going to have to do it in the Spanish courts – and this would be extremely complicated, possibly expensive – and certainly long winded. Packlink used to be domiciled in the United Kingdom and then suddenly for no obvious reason they packed up shop and moved to Spain. Anybody who suspects that this might have been done simply to make it more difficult for the victims of last parcels to be able to sue them in the English courts, should go and say a prayer, asked for forgiveness and wash their mouth out with soap. This would be a very evil suspicion and unworthy of any right thinking member of society . We have helped lots of people bring cases against mainly EVRi – but some of the others – even though those people did not have direct contracts with those courier companies, but instead they relied upon their third-party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. In every case, the courier company has howled with indignation and protested in their defences that there was no direct contract with them and that the rights of third parties act did not apply. However, in not a single case where they prepared to put their money where their mouth is and go to court. Instead they preferred simply to settle out of court at the mediation stage – thereby avoiding a judgement against them which would confirm that the claimant did in fact have third-party rights. Until now. We are pleased to say that recently at Brentford County Court we helped somebody to win his case on the basis of his third-party rights. This happened on 12 July 2023 and we have applied for a transcript of the judgement – but that won't be available – probably not before September. However, this is an important milestone in the battle against the courier company scammers – and as soon as we receive the transcript of this judgement we will make it available in this forum and on this thread to be included in people's court bundle in preparation for their court cases against courier companies who tried to deny you your third party rights. At the moment, although we don't have a transcript, you should certainly cite this case if you are going to trial and explained to the judge that no transcript is available yet because it has only recently been applied for. If you need this information then please flag it up in your thread and we will make sure you get whatever is necessary. Meanwhile – watch this space.

Don't worry about producing a long section. Just put. DOUBLE RECOVERY XX Under "The Claimant claims (iii)" Ms Atkinson refers to "instructing solicitors". The claim already includes legal representative's costs at small claims. Inventing a further £70 is a badly-concealed attempt at circumventing the small claims cap. It is irrelevant what the Claimant's biased trade association (itself a breakaway from the British Parking Association, which dealt with appeals far too leniently for the likes of the Claimant) deem as lawful, it is the law in England & Wales which decides what is lawful. The addition of fictitious sums to the original parking charge is also forbidden under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

So, have you had a chat with Mum? Is she up for a court appearance? If so, the team will offer their help. Yes, your case is good, but... there's always what's known as Judge lottery. If you get one in a mood, or not really up to speed, or any other number of things, it could go pear-shaped. No guarantees... However, we've an 85% success rate in court helping other Caggers. Is mum the "charming little old lady" type? ------ This is a frustrating situation. Reapstar appears to be the type of user we like here... Up for the fight. Unfortunately, his personal circumstances make it difficult. Another thought comes to mind... Reapster could out himself as the driver (thus losing his POFA protection) and fight on with the other good points mentioned. The only issue then would be his extended time out of the country. I'm not sure whether the Courts would allow him to explain this during the process and push back the case for 6 months. (cant remember the document which holidays, etc are declared on). The alternative could be a remote hearing on the phone, zoom, etc? Thoughts guys? In the meantime, it might be worth a go at contacting the fleecers offering to settle their true costs of £35?

I agree that it is worth an appeal as the PCN is non compliant into the bargain. Under Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] - (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; There is no mention of the keeper paying to Charge. Therefore the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable. Under Schedule 4 S9[2] [a] (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; There is no mention of the period of parking on the PCN . The timing on the photos is not the same as including it on the PCN. Also the timing mentioned on the PCN is the time spent between the arrival and departure of the car which involves driving to the parking spot and later from the parking spot to the exit. This therefore cannot be called a parking period. Another fail which reinforces that the keeper is not responsible.and there is no obligation to name the driver.

They may be sending the letter again in the hope you've moved and they can get a backdoor CCJ - or they may just be stupid. Probably the latter. In any case you need to "snotty letter" them again. How about - Dear Kev, Re: PCN no.XXXXX cheers for yet another Letter of Claim. It's always nice to hear from you! How many of these are you going to send me? You've already been told. I'm not paying. If you feel confident enough to convince a judge I owe you something even though you were paid and suffered no loss and the whole thing is legally "de minimis" and you were contacted within 24 hours of the parking event before a PCN was issued and given the right registration number and you're just wasting the court's time - then go for it! I will enjoy giving you a hell of a thrashing and spending the dosh from an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) on a nice holiday while laughing at your expense. I look forward to your deafening silence. Yours, XXX Do what you did last time. To differentiate the replies send one with "Dear Kev" and one with "Dear Alliance Parking", send one off tomorrow and one in ten days or so, one with your brilliant PS and one not. Etc. Get two free Certificates of Posting from the post office.

Presuming you've sent the above to PALS, I would also put in some work this weekend and see if you can get the hospital's/trust's CEO's e-mail address and send it there too. Belt & braces. Given the situation with your mum and your move abroad trying your best to get the hospital to intervene is a must.

Ok, so first the preachy bit: it seems you bought a very dear ticket that's non refundable, for a trip which you weren't sure you'd be able to travel, and without having any travel insurance. That's obviously not something someone should ever do, but I'm sure you've already learned your lesson by now, so... moving on. Swapping your ticket for another ticket You'll need to check your ticket conditions very carefully from when you bought the ticket, or paste them here. Some airlines allow changes "for a penalty fee" even on non-refundable tickets. Some airlines do not. Also swapping the destination city within the same region is always easier. Say your London Singapore to a London Kuala Lumpur. But changing to a Frankfurt-New York is going to be a lot harder. Brief look at Singapore Airlines seems to suggest that if you are on a "Business Lite" you can indeed change your ticket for a £198 fee + fare difference even on non-refundable ticket, so there is hope. What I regularly recommend to people is that the call the airline directly (and record it) rather than go through their crappy OTA who never do anything and just tell you "computer says no". However it looks like the travel agent you used in this case seems very highly reated so in theory they should be one of the proper ones who can do these things for you. Have they exaplined the reason why they were not able or willing to change your LON-SIN to a LON-JFK for a penalty fare? I think it's time you pay them a visit/recorded call, and say what you want to do. Before your visit to your agent, go to https://www.singaporeair.com/ and note down the dates and fees for flights from London to JFK (via Frankfurt, it's the only way), choose days which have existing flight, ideally where Business Lite fares (if that's your fare) are still being sold. Normally they do this for you but it helps if you come prepared. Explain that you want to change your ticket and pay the penalty fee + fare difference. If they refuse to do this for you and don't give you a good reason, you should try the same again direct with the airline this time. This looks to be your best option right now. Give it a shot and tell us know what you end up with. If you don't manage to change your ticket, and there's actually a good reason for it (for example you bought a cheap TA only fare that's not changeable), we'll look at other options like using the flight to go to the USA. Cancellation is not an option since your ticket is nonref and you will get something like £250 per person back for taxes, DON'T DO IT. The best option is to wait for 2 hours before your flight to cancel the ticket, that way there's a chance your flight gets moved or cancelled and you become eligible for a full refund. We can talk about further options again once you find out more about whether your ticket can be changed. Good luck!

Vondoothoven DX is right the only choice you have initially is to reply to their Letter of Claim. If you go chasing around the country trying to get it cancelled you will have CCJ before you know it. Please follow the instructions above on post 2 so we can see what they have on you. Then you can respond showing them that you are going to fight them if that's what you want. It may well be that there is a way to get out of paying anything but obviously we will need some info from you -and that starts with the Claim form. Once we have and your PCN as well as some dates it will give us a clearer picture of the situation. The chances of anyone being able to cancel the Claim form is so very remote as to be a forlorn hope. Especially as to PE you are acting scared enough to end up paying them. So why would they cancel when you are getting nervous.

its std practice. to exchange witness statements (its not a defence!) actually thinking about i , if you dont get theirs by say 23:55 on the day it due, there is no harm in youremailing it even though you've said not to use email play them at their own game!

An observation, if I may: Mini gearbox bolts are, from the factory, coated in a thread-locking compound that stops the bolts from unwinding in normal usage. If you're unsure, thread-lock is a thick liquid applied to the bolt thread before the bolt is tightened. After the bolt has been torqued, the compound hardens and acts as a sort of glue, stopping the bolt from unwinding. If you have had a bolt come loose, my initial suspicion is the garage has not reapplied fresh thread-lock compound on reassembly. You could test for this by having an independent mechanic remove another gearbox bolt and check for residue on the bolt thread. It'll be a blue, red, or pink residue. If you don't see it, or hardly any of it, I would suspect it hasn't been applied during reassembly, and this might provide you with an avenue to pursue in terms of demonstrating poor workmanship with the original repair.

Hi, you should fill in the affixed budget sheet - it calculates as you complete it) - as you'll need to send it with your offer letter to the lender. This will help your case if we have to defend in court as the judge will see you've made an effort to come to an arrangement with the lender. Let me know when you have completed it. Are these mortgages in joint names or just yours ? I have to go out this evening but will check back with you tomorrow. Budget Sheet - Blank.xlsx

BPA Code of practice: 9.5 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious and sanctionable instance of non-compliance and may go to the Professional Conduct Panel.

To be accurate, Reds, we are a self-help and self-empowerment site. If people try to do their own research on threads here, even if they don't understand everything they gain a better understanding and we can correct any issues. Without people doing this, going to court against a PPC or anyone else is a very challenging experience and cases can be lost because the OP didn't grasp the underlying principles. We can't be at the hearing with you. HB

Thank you for posting the PCN. The good news is that both you and your Mother are off the hook. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 so the charge CANNOT be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now responsible for the charge and as several thousand people with valid motor insurance policies are allowed to drive that car, good luck knowing who to pursue. In order to be able to transfer the debt from the driver to the keeper PE must observe the wording of the Act. And they haven't. Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] states " (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; If you read the PCN to your Mother it does not invite her to pay the charge nor to pass the PCN on to the driver. It may not sound much but it is a major mistake on PE's part and as such the liability to pay the charge is restricted to the driver only. If you have not appealed the PCN then you cannot as yet claim they have breached your Mother's GDPR in relation to sending numerous notices to her asking to pay when they were not aware that she was not the driver. Once she tells them that in her Witness statement and they continue to take her to Court, that is when her GDPR is breached since they should have dropped the case at the WS stage. They have also not complied with the Act again since they are supposed to specify the parking.period. They have not. They have listed the arrival and departure times which is not the same since driving to the parking place from the entrance and driving from the parking space to the exit cannot be described as parking. Whether you can argue that you were not parked even though you were there for almost two hours is a moot point. i

[I can't find this posted elsewhere on the Private Parking forum, apologies if I have missed it] Summary The government is seeking to gather evidence to inform our review of parking charges and debt recovery fees in the private parking industry. This consultation closes at 11:59pm on 24 September 2023 Who is this for: The government is keen to ensure that any further additional evidence which is material to the impact assessment is gathered through this call for evidence, therefore responses from all interested parties are invited and welcomed. However, this call for evidence is technical in nature and is likely to be of most interest to those involved specifically in the private parking industry who are likely to be best placed to assist the government with relevant evidence. /assets/static/govuk-opengraph-image-dade2dad5775023b0568381c4c074b86318194edb36d3d68df721eea7deeac4b.png Private parking code of practice: call for evidence - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK The government is seeking to gather evidence to inform our review of parking charges and debt recovery fees in the private parking industry.

OK, thanks to your wife I see you are covered! See what the other regulars think tomorrow, but my initial thinking is this. Send the CPR normally. You don't want post getting lost on its way to Amsterdam. However, when you file your defence in early September, stick in a paragraph about living aboard and should you win at the hearing you will claim all your travel costs back from the claimant. When it's DQ time, make a big deal of only being available on Fridays or Mondays or similar through living abroad and again tell the fleecers they'll be paying your plane fare. I'm just thinking of ways of making being in Amsterdam an advantage not a disadvantage and maybe pushing the fleecers towards discontinuing.

Thank you both of you for the pointer to AgeUK. We always knew that a % of their joint money was going to be used, it was just that no one could tell us how it was going to be worked out, and what and wasn't taken into consideration as part of the assessment, and then going forwards, how any funding and placements worked and what mum would be left with. The best answer we seemed to get was "Social services will do the assessment and explain it to you." Well Im not saying that I dont trust social services, or that I think that they are staffed by people who lack training/knowledge/experience and we might not get the best outcome and care package but... Well ok thats exactly what Im saying... I spoke to a lovely lady from age UK yesterday who gave me some information and escalated it to a level 2 AgeUK financial advisor. Today Ive spent almost 4 hours on the phone going over every aspect of my parents joint and single finances. I've learned so much and I cant tell you how helpful and amazing the lovely ladies at AgeUK have been. Im happy that we are now able to get what we need for my dad, I have a clear understanding of how the care package and I have a further appointment with the AgeUK benefits team to get some further help for my mum. Thank you all And remember, Stay calm and drink tea

they lost the case a while back but demanded a rematch despite the original judge telling them they had got the protocols all wrong so were doomed to fail. They then failed to turn up and had the temerity to whinge afterwards and insist they are still owed money cos they dont like the order.

Reapstar, Surely, you must realise that you're going round in circles with this. It is what it is. If you care to look, experienced moderators on this forum have been dealing with these situations for a number of years. Don't you think that all legal options will already have been explored? Things are afoot to control the fleecers, but there's been a bit of a bump in the road. Read here: Just a moment... LORDSLIBRARY.PARLIAMENT.UK And here: /assets/static/govuk-opengraph-image-dade2dad5775023b0568381c4c074b86318194edb36d3d68df721eea7deeac4b.png [Withdrawn] Private Parking Code of Practice - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK It's just a matter of time... I think I've already said, you DO have recourse... Win in court, then pursue them with your own claim for breach of GDPR. You would probably have to put some serious time into this, but the forum would help you. The payoff could be sigificant, but as usual with courts, there are no guarantees. Also, as you say, they mess up with the SAR, so you could also pursue them with that.

That is irrelevant as the issue of control oft the vehicle is not an element of the offence. Then how did you pick it up? How many hands do you have? Would you care to post it up here (suitably redacted) so we can comment. If you plead Not Guilty you will have to ask for the officer who made the statement to attend so that you can cross-examine him to cast doubt on his evidence (unless, as it stands, it does not support the charge). Do you feel able to do that? My view is that if there is evidence that you picked up the phone (and you don't seem to dispute that you did) then the court will find that you were using it. It doesn't matter what else you were or were not doing with it. The principal point of the law is to prevent people faffing about with hand-held phones whilst driving. As soon as it leaves its secure place your phone becomes "hand held" and you were faffing about with it. If I see the officer's statement I'll reconsider. But purely on your version of events I stand by my earlier comment.

I think we have to be realistic at this point. Getting the hospital to intervene and force the fleecers down from £185 to £70, with litigation going on, is one hell of a result. No way were the fleecers going to cancel in the middle of a court claim and no way were the lazy hospital authorities going to force them. Of course the legal position is that the OP really owes £0.00 due to the insufficient, entrapping signage, so paying anything sticks in the throat Indeed and this lesson needs to be learnt for the future.. Personally i think the OP needs to make a decision. Pay £70 you don't owe or get mother to fight it in court. It's now one or the other.

Yes, that is your statutory UK261 £520 so do accept it, but they also paid your expenses already, right? You should have got both. So by the platform you mean the ADR website? It's good to know that it worked well so thanks a bunch for coming back here and letting us know.

The elephant in the room which they did not mention was the keeper was not the driver and the PCN is non compliant. I would write back to them stating that this letter is not an appeal. The University of Leeds has been informed that the keeper could not be the driver and the PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Ergo the keeper is not liable to pay the PCN. While that point was ignored on the appeal, should they decide to take the matter further and instruct the Court for instance, that will be taken as a breach of keeper GDPR and as that can involve compensation which could be as much as £2000 where certain types of disability are concerned, is it worth the risk?

i bet its still on grounds owned by the NHS...mind now most uni's like most FE colleges were forced to become Incorporated by Thatcher in 1992. (private) they might be a sep entity to the NHS, but i can assure you they do not own the grounds their building are on nor the land they manage. go check, if it's NHS land the car park/uni is on - if it then their (NHS) rules still apply. how do i know this...well lets just i was in that circle at the time, most wanted to fence off campuses for security, they couldn't as it was LEA land and public had right of way through it. dx

One more thing, I just read some reviews on C.A.G and it was not good, to quote one reviewer "Avoid this site, it's full of ego's competing to be the biggest A*****E". How I laughed. As Nellie Pledge once said "I'm going now and I won't dorken your darkstep again".

The more I think about it, the more I reckon Lee19921992's letter is spot on. It hints that they have messed up with POFA, without actually spelling it out, which would be very confusing for the poor dears. If you still want to fight these charlatans, send it off ... ... but before that, can you please be clear and open with us about the driver, the registered keeper, etc., because if you want to remove someone from the loop then you are going to have to tell the fleecers who the driver was.

Snotty letter time?

wv600 I am so sorry but I misled you about the PCN being non compliant because they had not asked you to pay the charge. On checking the PCN while they have said it they have still got the PCN wrong. They are supposed to specify the parking time when what they have actually done is to use the arrival and exit times as the parking period. This is obviously wrong since you would have had to drive from the entrance to the parking spot and perhaps have to manoeuvre back and forward to be parked within the lines. On top of that there may have been children or disabled people with you who would have taken longer to exit the car and then re-enter it when leaving. Then you have to drive back to the exit perhaps having to stop because of pedestrians, other vehicles, animals etc. All that time spent driving around cannot be termed as the parking period and the new Private Code of practice confirms this. 2.24 parking period the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle) This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.

Just wanted to finalise this story by sharing that I’ve had my complaint to FOS upheld. It’s been an anxiety and anger fuelled time but worth it to win against this disgusting company. Initially it was not upheld because they stated it was my responsibility to update my address and Erudio did nothing wrong. But I added further comment and referred them to similar decisions where complaints had been upheld. The crucial element was that Erudio stopped sending deferment email reminders in 2021 and all those people who hadn’t updated their addresses did not remember to defer because everything was sent by post. FOS basically said that Erudio could and should have done more to contact me once the account went into arrears. They had my email address and phone number but didn’t use it. They stated that it is standard industry practice to trace a new address for people which they obviously didn’t attempt. Funny that once it was with Capquest, the phone calls were plentiful. Anyway, the decision hasn’t been published online yet but once there’s a link I’ll post it on this group. I realise we’ve only got another year or so for these particular loans but I hope I can help someone else by posting here.

It'll definitely have a wet ink signature.

That's not a good idea. At least one of them (and possibly both) will be prosecuted for "Failing to provide driver's details" (FtP). Upon conviction the offence carries six points, a hefty fine and an endorsement code (MS90) which insurers really hate. An MS90 endorsement will see the premiums at least double (and probably more than that) in the first year and will see considerably increased premiums for up to five years. The required process is not to "decide" who was driving but to identify who was. There is a defence to the FtP charge if the recipient can show that "...he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.". It is a tough hurdle to clear and will involve convincing a court that all reasonable steps have been taken to establish who the driver was. So what have they done, so far, to establish that?

Point 2 of their SWS is the give away " In response to defendants statement " A SWS is not intended as a further opportunity to add to their existing statement already served after receipt of the defendant's statement. That's why the court directions stress simultaneous exchange for that very reason I would request the late SWS be inadmissible pursuant to the CPR guidelines as it does not add any further new evidence and is merely in response to facts discovered after in response from the defendant, which reflects badly on the claimants initial statement and whether its content is questionable or valid. Andy

I'm sorry you feel like that, Sandy. I think we've all tried our best but clearly we haven't given you the answer you wanted. I hope your friend gets on OK. HB

Then you were badly advised, I'm afraid. You are not entitled to any evidence before deciding whether or not to accept a fixed penalty and the solicitor should have known that. The idea of a fixed penalty offer is that you accept the allegation as it stands and are willing to dispose of the matter without it going to court. The police are under no obligation to provide you with anything until they begin court proceedings and then you are only entitled to the "Initial Details of the Prosecution Case" (IDPC). This, roughly speaking is the evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you, to enable you to enter an informed plea. You are not entitled to see "all evidence involved with the case" unless the court agrees to anything over and above the IDPC before your trial. This is something else the solicitor should have known I hope you didn't pay him or her any money. If you did I would seek a refund. My advice would be to simply plead guilty in response to the SJPN. You can mention the precise circumstances and request some leniency. A kindly Single Justice may reduce the fine a little, especially as you seem to have been badly misled. You might even be lucky and be sentenced at the fixed penalty level, though I would be surprised. But six points is the inevitable outcome unless something spectacularly unexpected happens.

Well done, I dont think you realise how rare it is for a claimant to lose a SJ application and how difficult it is for a LIP to stop it in its tracks. Usually a failed SJ application does not bode well for a claimant and its even rarer for the claimant to proceed to trial after losing. The following is hilarious for a District Judge to state:- Thats possibly because section 77 does not refer to Legibility its section 65 as per your WS above. If you refer back to my amendment in the conclusion of your statement you will now see why its imperative to conclude and prompt the court to test if the claimant can show and prove it has the means and evidence to pass the threshold to be awarded Summary Judgment. Well done.

Who is this external company? It would help a lot if you could upload all your correspondence as suggested by DX.

Take photos

Well it's up to you, but you have a habit of wanting to change letters which are already perfectly fine. I'm not a GDPR expert so I don't think it's a good idea to be too specific about what the breach would be in case you get it wrong, therefore I would cut out "in sharing my personal contact data that has been held by them for their use, without my consent". Also the last line has to go as you do want to hear from them again - to say they have discontinued the case.

I agree with my site team colleague above – @dx100uk that this is a distance sale. You can't cancel the cooling off period by going along to collect the item. That's ridiculous. I also agree my site team colleague that one should not buy a vehicle without seeing it – and also paying for it by casual bank transfer is a – Big Fail! Follow the link used car guide to see what we have to say about buying a used car and what happens when you pay by bank transfer or you pay by cash. This is a distance sale. Write them a letter immediately – confirming the cancellation of the purchase which you informed them about on XXX date. Make it clear to them that this was a distance sale and contrary to what they have tried to say to you, you cannot nullify a distant sale cooling off period by visiting the premises after the contract is made. Send them this letter straightaway. Make sure that you have a record of it being sent. Send it by email as well if you want. Let us know if there has been any reply in the next four or five days. Don't set any deadlines though. Start reading this forum about the steps involved taking a small claim in the County Court. Start drafting a letter of claim. Be prepared to issue a court action in the small claims court. Give your son a slap – and make sure that he is thoroughly involved in this claims process so that he acquire transferable skills, develops a bit of maturity and also becomes confident about suing anybody else who gets in his way.

dont do anything. what you should have done is used the site.. no reason why you cant do it now. /assets/static/images/logo/bac-logo-1280x720.jpg Bereavement Advice Centre | The Tell Us Once Service | How it Works WWW.BEREAVEMENTADVICE.ORG The ‘Tell Us Once’ service allows you to inform central and local government services of the death all at one time. The services works on behalf of the...

DCBL DOES NOT call the shots and are NOT the claimant!! once you've filed that defence. its upto the claimant IF they instruct DCBL to file DQ N180 in the 33 days they have. even thought is was 2018 id be seeing if the hosp has a pals and write to them asking if they can intervene and get the PCN cancelled by the hospital admin as the RK is 92yrs old and was legitimately there in 2018 (hosp appointment?) the pdf is ok

Got a reply confirmation email so just have gone in. Should be ok. Thanks for letting me know tho

Closing the stable door long after the horse has bolted springs to mind I don't see anything that would successfully support their application within that statement ......or genuine reason to request a set a side or what it wishes the court to do. Very poor litigant statement.