normally they will write it off unless it was left address. further enforcement will cost them money and if a bailiff fails to collect. they would see it as a waste of money pursuing

i would be even more concerned how the car had been treated before you bought it. for a clutch to go that quick

you need to start your own post. but under the freedoms act. if you dont name the driver then the parking company can ask you for the money. popla is you best bet. start your own post and give as much info as possible

if they cant afford the mortgage how they gonna pay you back

make sure you appeal against their pre estimate loss for this car park only and not all the car parks they manage. at the moment they are just asking for the the money and their contract between the landowner normally allows this on their behalf and that is to ask you for it nicely. if it goes to court than you start attacking the contract with the landowner as the landower dont normally assign the land over to the parking company. so only the landowner can take you to court and not the parking company. at the moment pre-estimate loss is working good with popla. yours is pretty straight forward. you already paid the fee so their is no loss to the landowner or the parking company . the parking company can not include day to day running expenses of the business as these are tax deductible and and not a loss because of your builder filling in the form wrong

i think your gonna have to wait for the court papers to arrive. then come back here. you could write a letter to them confirming that you prefer to challenge it in court and in the mean time could they send you a copy of the contract they have giving them the right to take you to court, a copy of their breakdown of their pre-estimate loss. even though its below £100. they are still obliged to show it if asked. tell them that you need to see their pre-estimated loss for this car park only and not for the business on the whole. include that you don't wish to hear that they have successfully sued in the county court for these charges unless they where defended case's and relate to this car park only. in which case you wish them to send the claim numbers.

only just saw you post. spanners you meant wanna try to throw in does parking eye pay part of the charge to the hotel. how do they account it as payment for a loss. if you you used there the hotel anyway. the fine being £100. how do they account it for being a loss. if they can deduct £40 for early payment. how do they cover the £40 loss if you pay early.

i know what your saying.. i meant even the landowner cannot have a loss for maintaining the car park ie new tarmac because its all in with the shops paying rent. motorist have always been a cash cow. and it amazes me how many people pay the charge

they are a business full stop. TO MAKE PROFIT. not recoup their loses. they set the charge at £100 to try to avoid disclosing their pre-estimate loses. but they still need address the question if asked. three times i asked and each time i got a template letter back saying either name the driver or pay within 14 days. not one question was answered. if they pre-estimate they lost £100 by not buying a .20p ticket. they to explain how they afford lose £40 if we had taken them up on the £40 discount if paid within 14 days. if the £100 is the loss how can you discount it. its ok they say we have enforced the charges successful in the county courts. but how many of them where not defended. even if it was defended and parking eye won. was any of them concerning this car park. if none. then that information is irrelevant to this charge. if the breakdown includes a percentage to the landowner. how did their lose occur. for example the shops are paying the landowner rent. did one of them withhold rent because we didn't pay .20p. my reckoning they earn £20 from each one that paid. it cant be for the upkeep of the carpark because all the other drivers paid .20p i asked them to supply a copy of the contract they have with the landowner giving the authority to issue charges and collect them. apparently because they are a business they dont have to show it because it could be used by the competition. the contract is to recover loses and not make a profit. so whats in the contract shouldn't make any difference and in any case. they are the ones claiming we owe the money so have to prove they have the right to claim it. i like to thank POPLA for seeing parking eye as they are. and parking eye need to grow up and and run the business as a business and use some common sense

************************ won************************************* PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN 0845 207 7700 enquiries@popla.org.uk http://www.popla.org.uk 09 April 2014 Reference XXXXXXXX always quote in any communication with POPLA XXXXXXXXXX(Appellant) -v- ParkingEye Ltd (Operator) The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxx1 arising out of the presence at Meridian West Street/Bulbeck Road, Havant, on xx xxxxxxxx 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxxxx The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed The Assessor’s reasons are as set out. The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith. Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination It is the Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for failing to purchase a valid parking ticket. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking. It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre- estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The signage produced seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre- estimate of loss. The Operator has submitted that its charges are in line with the BPA Code of Practice. The BPA code states that Operators must justify in advance any parking charge over £100. However, it does not automatically follow that any charge which is £100 or under is, therefore, justified. Where the issue is raised by the Appellant, it is for the Operator to address it. The Operator has also submitted that its charges have been held to be enforceable in previous cases; however, the Operator has not produced any evidence to justify this parking charge. The losses suffered by breaches of a parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the car park, and the nature of the breach. That a parking charge at a certain level is held not to be a penalty in one car park, does not mean that the same sum is a pre-estimate of the loss caused in every car park. The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, as the Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre- estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some explanation or evidence in order to tip the balance in its favour. In this case the Operator has not provided any evidence as to why this charge in a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not minded to accept that it is sufficient to simply list the names of previous cases without applying them to this case. Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Accordingly, I allow the appeal. I need not decide on any other issues. XXXXXX XXXXXXX Assessor

asking on behalf of someone else. due to divorce my friends exwife requested a pension forecast fron his employer who provided it to her. work has now told him he owes them £500 for providing it and must pay it asp is this correct

http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/queensclose/media/Mobile%20Uploads/img121_zps503287dc.jpg.html?filters[user]=117827552&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0&src=wap http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x325/queensclose/Mobile%20Uploads/img120_zps56f773ba.jpg?t=1387806254 http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x325/queensclose/Mobile%20Uploads/img119_zpsce9716c0.jpg?t=1387806195 http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/queensclose/media/Mobile%20Uploads/img118_zps2932771b.jpg.html?filters[user]=117827552&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=3&src=wap

parking eye have sent this to a female serving soldier who who has returned home for christmas to their letters. basis of it several people have access to the vehicle with her permission. several people have access to the vehicle. no one is admitting to driving at the time. looking at the letter i can not see what the breach was. her problem is 2 days after Christmas she will return to her regiment and not return home until early march which is worrying her that they will get a judgement by default http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/queensclose/media/Mobile%20Uploads/img120_zps56f773ba.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0 http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/queensclose/media/Mobile%20Uploads/img119_zpsce9716c0.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1 http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/queensclose/media/Mobile%20Uploads/img118_zps2932771b.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2 http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/queensclose/media/Mobile%20Uploads/img121_zps503287dc.jpg.html?sort=3&o=3

quote from above you may have missed it. but i can not really see it been a success as the lender and courts havent done anything wrong

just apply to suspend again. making that offer would make a judge happy. doesnt matter what the claimants want

you can put an appeal for the keys back. i think it costs about £130 and because the house is already taken. you wont get a hearing for at least a mont. but i can not really see it been a success as the lender and courts havent done anything wrong . your best bet is to speak to the lender and try to continue to get the original buyer to buy the house

i think the company decided to just pay out because it wasn't worth the companies time and money to defend it. reading through the posts its my opinion the company where correct to reject the claim because it is in the terms and conditions to respect the iPad. there's not many Ipads out there that's been dropped in all four corners scuff marks etc which are all signs of "i don't give a crap its insured" and if you tried to trade it in at cash converters. they would just send you on your way.

people never learn. kwik fit have been given plenty of chances to get their act together after watchdog. but still they carry on doing this. they tried to do work unneeded on my car. decided to give them another chance because i use an arval card im limited where i go. i waited my turn for a puncture repair. but a complete exhaust system change came in and they are the money earners. i this job got priority over my puncture. forget customer service. ATS for me all the way

so how was it served

was the n56 personally served on you and by who

my son got stung booking a driving test. i just claimed a refund on the card which was returned promptly. these tpeople are even charging for the free NHS travel abroad card

you need to check the packaging. fedex wont pay out if it wasn't packed securely. the sender would have ticked the box for an international shipping parcel being legal and packed securely. if you feel that the packing was good then your claim is against fedex. if it was no secure you need to go to the retailer. and from what you have said i think its the retailer because fedex has already checked the packaging. they normally quite good if they did the damage

you could be opening a can of worms reporting neighbours. i would speak to him about your concerns and explain how because a sheet can hurling at her she smashed her phone. if hes decent he will replace. if he rants and raves then i would use the above approach.

you say its a council owner car park. who is ticketing the cars council or private company. how do you rent the space is it on a weekly monthly or do you have a contract etc. i know you pay weekly what i,m getting at is do you have a tenancy type agreement

i think that you clicked to have the quote search under your old details. it does give you the option of correcting this. but even after that on the esure site you have to check the details are correct. how did it allow you to make one initial payment and then return to make a full payment. your now on the list ( have you ever had insurance declined or cancelled list). i would have do the SAR but insurance companies are not easy to work with if they think there maybe a claim against them down the line