Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

shamrocker

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,447

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

 Content Type 

Everything posted by shamrocker

  1. shamrocker
    If you stop letting it stress you out, stop acting on impulse and engaging with them, do what DX has asked above...and then post on here before doing anything further in the future - they'll have a tough job getting a penny out of you. Be prepared to have to put a bit of work into this though, as the vultures will not disappear just because you get angry at them or are hard done by. They don't care. The signage is prohibitive for a start, so they can't ever rightfully claim that it forms a contract - but there is probably a multitude of other discrepancies that will be their undoing. Better qualified forum members that me will point all this out. You're in very good hands, so relax and enjoy the ride.
  2. shamrocker
    It looks pretty good at a glance. A couple of observations... p. 15 "...The Defendant returned to the car park and took photographs of the site and machine..." Replace "returned" with "recently visited", maybe? p.18 "...The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is..." Remove "out"? Regards to Elliott v Loake - I'd add in that strong evidence existed to suggest that the Keeper in that instance was the likely driver - but that is not the case here. I don't see why you should need to support that with an exhibit, as the Claimant has introduced it without evidencing it - but it might not do any harm. Introducing POFA covers you on certain angles, but there's a side of me also feels that it's assisting the Claimant by providing the grounds upon which they can hold the Keeper liable. In any event, if they don't even come close to complying with POFA then I guess it can't do any harm. See what EB says, but it looks like you have a fair grasp of the arguments you need to put forward.
  3. shamrocker
    welcome to the forum BTW! You need to defend all. DX and ericsbrother will likely look in in due course, so sit tight. Just be prepared to provide all information requested.
  4. shamrocker
    The only one you need to keep reading now is the Claimants - don't over read things when there's really no need. Simply address their pleaded cause for action, this being the assumption that the Keeper was the driver, yet have supported that assertion only with an irrelevant criminal case. You may be wise to bring in other arguments alongside - no authority, no planning permission, amount being claimed, etc - but I can't see the Driver is the Keeper argument getting them very far.
  5. shamrocker
    Gladstones are good at taking snippets of other cases and using them out of context or quoting them in an incomplete fashion. If they use these statement to qualify their case, then all you need to do is read up on it and challenge each point in turn. That will completely undermine their case. Here's my own response to the Elliott v Loake case (from my WS): "If the Claimant relies on the criminal case of Elliott v Loake 1983 in support of a flawed logic that the Keeper can be presumed to be the driver, in the absence of sufficient rebuttal by the Keeper; then they are reminded that the circumstances of the aforementioned criminal case is entirely different to this civil case. A key difference being the existence of ample evidence to assist with arriving at the ruling. The Claimant is, therefore, reminded of their obligation to suitably support their case with evidence." They're not using POFA, so you should only need to create a clearly laid out argument that, as stated by the claimant, the contract is with the driver, but their assertion that you were the driver on the basis that you are the keeper is denied. They have provided zero evidence as to the identity of the driver. They're clutching at straws with this.
  6. shamrocker
    A common theme within that WS is their reference to "the defendant" as though they were the driver. No mention of POFA, being the mechanism under which they can hold the Keeper liable - only the Elliott v Loake criminal case (which is nonsense). Also, in p.24, quoting the signage in respect of additional charges - "...for which the driver will be liable..." - again, they're pursuing the Keeper. Use their own lazy wording and omissions against them and remind them that you're the Keeper, yet nowhere have they properly established the liability of the Keeper. I haven't read the full thread, so maybe they've already messed up on POFA so can't go there. I'm sure EB will have a more succinct summary when he gets a chance to look in. It's a really weak WS though.
  7. shamrocker
    You can submit a supplemental witness statement up to 3 working says before the hearing. I appears to me that you have two main angles of attack - the DN and the balance. If you can loosely challenge these in your current WS, it gives you scope to strengthen your resistance in a supplemental WS which will largely be dictated by the content of their WS, which will probably be waiting for you when you get back. So...in this WS you're saying "you have no knowledge of the account being in default because the original claimant never sent a DN to me, and the claimant has not provided anything in my CPR request". No doubt they'll address the DN within their WS, but will likely be pretty scant with details. If so, you can then introduce s.87 of the CCA and outline how they are in breach. Let's see what they disclose though - it might be absolute rubbish with no need to respond further. Andy will put you straight on what to include within your current WS though.
  8. shamrocker
    As DX has pointed out, that's not proof of an actual DN. It might or it might not be evidence that one was issued. The next problem they have (although you need to create the problem for them) is that they can claim to have issued a DN, but they will also need to prove that it was CCA compliant. That's why they will need to provide a copy. However...and this is where I'm a bit hazy, without some refreshing - there usually isn't a copy of a DN retained by the creditor. They would then usually provide a template copy. See what they provide within their WS and go from there. You said you're away for a while - how much time do you have between returning and the hearing?
  9. shamrocker
    No, I think he means that you should get a copy to the court on time, but sent Lowell's slightly late. If they're waiting on yours before completing theirs, it will mean the net result is that they end up being quite late. Regards to your proposed new para.5 above, it's probably suffice to simply state that one wasn't received, in addition to their failure to comply with your CPR request for a copy of the DN. I just looked at the comms log you attached further back and can see that they reference a DN being issued. They'll probably disclose this within their WS - but who's to say it's genuine. You definitely need to challenge them to evidence the balance. It's likely to be full of charges, so you can challenge these. Take every opportunity to erode their gains.
  10. shamrocker
    How did you end up with a CCJ? Did you ignore the claim form?
  11. shamrocker
    Re. the DN - I would be inclined to also state that none was ever received. This places an obligation on the claimant to evidence that the account was indeed placed in default and a compliant DN sent to you. They'll have to provide a comms log which clearly shows this activity. It might just give you an other stick to beat them with. Probably worth getting the view of DX and Andy on this though, as they've been helping you thus far.
  12. shamrocker
    Thanks Andy! Sounds like a slim to none chance and not even worth the hassle.
  13. shamrocker
    Had a letter from the court regards to my email request for costs. It states: "Defendant must apply on notice for a costs order. The Claimant has now filed a witness statement....but the case remains struck out." Thoughts? What's involved in applying for a costs order?
  14. shamrocker
    Best bet is to post the images on here, so advice can be offered based upon what's written on them. Add the pics to a Word doc and then save the doc as a PDF - post the PDF up here as an attachment then.
  15. shamrocker
    Today was the day of the hearing. Tried phoning at 9:03am, 9:05am, 9:10am, etc but couldn't get through - so decided to head down to the court. The case wasn't listed! I think that probably concludes the matter, albeit I was secretly looking forward to having the case heard. One thing that jumped out at me from their WS, was the fact that they made no attempt whatsoever to address Keeper liability. Everything implied that the defendant was the driver. The only mention of POFA, was to deny my assertion that they weren't compliant due to the amount of monies being claimed. I was looking forward to making them attempt to explain the case for suing the Keeper when they've not presented anything or even mentioned anything in support of this fact. It's laughably shoddy work for so-called qualified lawyers. For anyone else looking in and dealing with a similar matter - I was going to argue that the signage was prohibitive in two ways, albeit it only came to me after I'd served my own WS. One was the PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. The other was because the signs said "VEHICLES MUST PARK WHOLLY WITHIN A MARKED BAY" and "NO PARKING ON ANY...ROADWAY". This fits with the Bull case here - if the term is prohibitive and cannot create a contract with a permit holder, then it absolutely cannot create a contract with a non-permit holder either (where a vehicle was parked on a roadway, as mine was). It might seem like twisted logic, but it makes complete sense to me. Thanks again for the guidance EB.
  16. shamrocker
    I hear you! Cheers.
  17. shamrocker
    They're an absolute nightmare to get through to EB - hence I took my comms to email. Even then, it takes about two days or more for a response. I'll give the phone a go again anyway though - you never know, might get lucky!
  18. shamrocker
    Thanks EB - understood! I'll keep my ear to the ground in the meantime, but will take a spin down there on the day if need be.
  19. shamrocker
    Thanks EB! The main point I was making, was that the claim has officially been struck out - confirmation from the court was delivered this morning. It states "therefore your attendance is not required". The strike out was only done yesterday, after I emailed (again) and queried non-payment and no WS from the claimant. As if by magic, their WS (two of) arrives this morning, but they'd probably sent it without knowing about the strike out. They'll probably have received notification in the post this morning and will either have to suck it up or apply for reinstatement. With five days to go until the hearing - bearing in mind their lateness (6 weeks late on WS - 3 weeks late on fee (if they do pay it)), can you see any way back for them at this stage? I know you can't specifically answer that, but what's your hunch? As far as I'm concerned, the court have said my attendance is not required now, so I feel I ought to follow that advice until told otherwise. Thoughts? MPS use in house staff for the hearings. They're obviously unsure which one they're sending, so sent two identical witness statements.
  20. shamrocker
    Thanks EB. What are your thoughts on my post above yours? Did you see it?
  21. shamrocker
    Yes, it was small claims Andy - but also stated on the Notice of Allocation that failure by the claimant to pay the hearing fee by [date] would result in striking out and that they would be liable for costs incurred by the defendant. Let's see though. A further development - today I received not one but two identical WSs from the Claimant, in the name of two different employees. Looks like they haven't given up as first thought. It's five days until the hearing - and only six weeks late! What also landed on my doormat today was the order from the court, advising the strike out. It does mention that a party can apply to reinstate the case upon payment of the hearing fee, or apply to have the order set aside etc. What are the chances of that happening at this late stage, and considering how overdue they are with both WS and fee?
  22. shamrocker
    Just emailed my costs request in to the court. Hope they'll accept it like that. What's the score with possibly going after Millennium for breach of DPA? Is it worth doing?
  23. shamrocker
    Just another update... The claim has been struck out due to non-payment of the hearing fee. They obviously didn't fancy it. Happy days! Thanks for your help and guidance with this - particularly EB and AO. It's been an enlightening journey, from not knowing anything about the subject, to knowing decent a amount. I'll post my WS up later, so maybe some others can benefit from some of the arguments put forward. Thanks again! Sham P.S. Should I now also submit a request for costs?
  24. shamrocker
    So.....for all anyone knows, you could have been at the ticket machine when the ticket was issued. There is a consideration period that needs to be allowed (10 minutes?), so if they have not documented the time of commenced observation, how can they demonstrate compliance? Put simply, they can't - so they're stumped on ticket 1 as well. Wait for Ericsbrother to advise further tomorrow, or when he gets an opportunity to look in. All said and done, you paid them their £12 for 24 hours parking. It's not as if you're trying to dodge paying by way of a technicality. They're just greedy so and so's - and doing a bad job of it. Regards the supposed additional charges - this is difficult if they pursue you under POFA, hence the advice is always to wait until the NOK arrives before deciding on next steps. Nevertheless, I'm sure I read within the Beavis case that the accepted charge for breach of any terms (£85) should cover any such costs incurred by the car parking management company. I'm a bit sketchy on the detail. That term essentially facilitates them adding an extra £60 on top of the £100 once they pass it over to their DCA friends. You're a while off worrying about that anyway, but look it up within the Beavis case if you get time. In terms of why they've not listened to your appeal - there's no profit in granting appeals. It's all about making money - and not about fair and professional management of a car parking space. It's also the reason why you were ticketed so quickly. They quite likely saw your ticket displayed on the windscreen at some point too., but ticketed you the next day anyway. They've got a fight on their hands to win this one though - and that's coming from me as a relative novice on this stuff. EB will blow it apart.
  25. shamrocker
    Ericsbrother will most likely be along tomorrow and rip them to shreds. In the meantime, I'll throw in what I think about it, having looked on Google Streetview at what I believe is the car park in question. Take the second ticket first - nowhere does it state that the ticket MUST be displayed on the dashboard. It merely states "Place ticket on dashboard" on the ticket. That is exactly what you did. Given the location of the car park, they ought to have made provisions for strong winds accessing the car and moving the ticket. The fact they haven't isn't really your concern. In any event, you complied with their request to place it on the dashboard. Furthermore, you clearly possessed a valid ticket, as demonstrated by the photo of the ticket. They have no hope of claiming from you on this one, in my opinion. Now for the first ticket - have you still got the original penalty notice that was affixed to the screen? Does it state the time the vehicle was observed from? By writing to them, you have identified yourself as the driver, thus making it slightly easier for them to pursue you (no need to chase driver under POFA). It's done now though, and not the end of the world. The letter could also come in handy later should they go down the court route, as I can imagine any reason-minded judge appreciating that you made a positive attempt to address the issue at an early stage.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...