Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - b789

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 149
1
I have never seen an APCOA case litigated. They are a very profitable company thanks to the vast orchard full of victims who are considered low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree.

Once they have exhausted the debt collection letter phase they give up and go off in search of lower-hanging fruit. There is no shortage of ripe fruit for the picking out there.

We don’t need to know about useless debt collector letters and they can be safely ignored.

2
What has Wing Yip said about this? I’m assuming you were a customer and they have contracted UKPS.

You say the van is registered to your company. Is it registered in the company name or your name? When you appealed, did you reveal yourself to be the driver?

Also, please show us the PCN you received. Was it a Notice to Driver (NtD) affixed to the vehicle or was it a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK)? If it was an NtK, is it addressed to a person or the company?

3
What is the issue date of the claim? What date did you submit the AoS?

The PoC fail to state any details of the cause of action. Simply stating that some terms were breached is woefully inadequate and in breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a).

The defence will request a strike out and will include reference to persuasive case law.

For now, please confirm the issue date of the claim and who is the solicitor acting for EPS, Gladstones or BW Legal.

4
You go through their operator response park and highlight each point that you made in your appeal that they have not responded to or rebutted.

The point is to show the operator has not issued the PCN correctly. You only have to win on a single point. They have to rebut each point of argument you made in your POPLA appeal.

You cannot introduce new evidence but you should respond as above.

5
Update: I have now submitted my appeal to POPLA

What exactly did you submit to POPLA?

6
So, show us what you wrote to the claimant when you tried to get a set aside with consent. Also show us the email from the solicitor and also show us the wording of your rejection of their offer.

You also state that you appealed the PCN in January 2020. What response to the appeal did you receive? You say that the amount went from £100 to over £300, so you must have had an appeal rejection and some debt collector letters. However, for it to have gone to more than £170, you must have received a Letter of Claim (LoC). When did you receive the LoC?

Can you confirm please.

7
I wouldn’t bother. They are not going to do anything except try and intimidate you with debt collector letters. You can safely ignore those. They are powerless to do anything.

If they want to take this further within the 6 month statute of limitations deadline, they would have to take out a private criminal prosecution in the magistrates court, which they cannot as they do not have the authority to do so. Even if they did, and they don’t, they wouldn’t receive any money as the penalty, if were a real one, would go to the Train Operating Company, not SABA.

It is all a massive fraud. Just keep us informed on any contact from SABA. We don’t need to se any debt collector letters but let us know when you receive the first one.

8
There’s nothing to “dread”. You will gain invaluable knowledge of the civil litigation process and have satisfaction of knowing when they discontinue that it has cost them much more than it has cost you.

9
If the WS and bundle deadline was 8th October, why have you waited until now to let us know? Not being copied in on the claimants WS is a serious matter and is considered unreasonable behaviour.

However, it will be worth your while contacting the court asap to check that they have not discontinued and failed to notify you. Ask if the claimant has paid the trial fee.

If they have paid and the hearing is still scheduled, it’s too late now to tr and email the court. You will have to raise this as a preliminary matter in the hearing.

At the start of the hearing, ask to address a procedural matter regarding the claimant's compliance with court orders. State that the claimant has failed to provide you with a copy of their witness statement, despite the court’s order that it be filed and served at 8th October.

Emphasise that the claimant’s failure to serve their witness statement has disadvantaged you, as you have not had the opportunity to review or respond to their evidence. Make it clear that you are attending the hearing without having seen the claimant’s case in full.

Politely request that the judge considers a sanction for this non-compliance. You should request the following, explaining each briefly:

1. Exclusion of the Claimant’s Witness Statement and Evidence: Ask the judge to exclude the claimant’s witness statement and any evidence they attempt to introduce, as this would otherwise put you at an unfair disadvantage.

2. Strike Out of the Claim: Request that the claim be struck out entirely under CPR 3.4 for failure to comply with court orders.

3. Costs Order: Request that the judge considers a costs order against the claimant for their unreasonable conduct, which has resulted in additional inconvenience and time spent preparing for the hearing without the benefit of seeing their evidence.

4. Offer to Proceed or Adjourn (as Appropriate): If the judge decides not to exclude the evidence or strike out the claim, you could request an adjournment to allow time to review the claimant’s statement should they file it. Alternatively, if you prefer to proceed, make it clear that you are willing to continue based on the available information but wish to preserve your rights to object due to the lack of notice.

Let us know the outcome please.

10
You need to get all the facts together a timeline rather than providing us with bits of information. All dates are important. Start with the date of the alleged parking event and progress from there, including the dates of address changes.

Once we have a timeline of events and sight of any correspondence, in both directions, and by who to who, we can put together your application. You only need to redact your personal details, VRM, PCN number, Claim number. The location and dates are important.

11
Obviously a Gladstones issued claim. Fails completely to comply with CPR 16.4 and incudes their particularly unlawful interest at 10.25%.

You are not putting in a full defence at set aside stage. You are applying for the set aside and it must be under CPR 13.2 as the claim was not properly served. Also, in the alternative, you are applying under CPR 13.3 as you have a very good prospect of successfully defending the claim.

In your application you will also argue that the claim should be struck out for failing to comply with CPR 16.4 and you will provide applicable, persuasive appeals case law in CEL v Chan (2023) and CPMS v Akande (2024) to show that other similarly poorly pleaded claims that do not even comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) have been thrown out for failing to even show what the facts are that the claimant is relying on.

Also, you will argue that when the claim is set aside, it cannot be re-served as it has been more than 4 months since claim was issued. This requirement is stipulated in CPR 7.5(1). If the claim form is not served within this four-month period, it becomes invalid, and the claimant cannot serve it thereafter. To extend the time for service, the claimant must apply to the court under CPR 7.6. However, such an application must be made within the original four-month period. If the application is made after this period, the court will only grant an extension if the court has failed to serve the claim form or the claimant has taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim form but has been unable to do so and the claimant has acted promptly in making the application. This is outlined in CPR 7.6(3).

So, if more than four months have elapsed since the claim form was issued and it has not been served, the claimant cannot re-serve it.

All this needs to be detailed in your application, Witness Statement and Draft Order.

So, before you do anything else, show us what has been requested and we can provide the necessary help in putting together a proper application that will blow them out of the water.

12
Private parking tickets / Re: EURO CAR PARKS LIMED - DCBL
« on: Yesterday at 04:45:45 pm »
Follow the instructions above and then show us the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in the N1SDT claim form you received. Also, we need to see precisely what you put in as your defence. We don't want a summary, we need to see exactly what you put.

It's a pity you didn't come here before you responded but we are where we are and you will receive the best advice. The mediation is always a waste of time and you should not have tried to argue your case there. There is no judge or lawyers involved and it is not a part of the judicial process and has no bearing on anything going forward.

You argument about no evidence of letters being sent is a valid one but would need to be argued in your Witness Statement much later in the process and it will depend on what you actually put in your defence.

13
What have Autoglass said? Plan A is to always complain to the authorised business at the location or the landowner or their agent.

A Plan B appeal to G24 and a Plan C appeal to the (not) Independent Appeals Service (IAS) are unlikely to ever be successful. Unless Plan A works, you will be left with Plan D which is to challenge the alleged debt in the ultimate dispute resolution service, the small claims track of the county court.

If you really want to put in the time and effort in a futile appeal with the IAS, you could use some of the points below. Personally, I wouldn't bother and I'd get on with my life and wait and see if/when they decide to start litigation.

You can safely ignore any debt collector letters as they are powerless to do anything. Use them as kindling. You only need to let us know if/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) that gives you 30, not 14 days to pay before they will issue a claim.

A claim, once issued, must be responded to but is easy to defend.

Quote
,Consider using the following points to challenge this charge nn your appeal to the IAS:

1. Customer of On-Site Business: Emphasise that you were a customer of Autoglass, located within the Homebase car park, and parked as directed by them to receive a windscreen replacement. You were not simply using the car park but were there for a specific service that required an extended period, which was beyond your control as a customer.

2. No Requirement Communicated: Point out that at no time did Autoglass inform you of any parking restrictions, payment requirements, or time limits. As a paying customer of an authorised business within the car park, you reasonably expected parking to be provided without additional costs.

3. Reasonableness and Fairness: Highlight that it would be unreasonable and against the spirit of fair treatment for G24 to penalise genuine customers of businesses operating within the premises. Emphasise that this parking charge fails to recognise legitimate usage tied to an essential service (the windscreen replacement), which could not have been completed within the limited time.

4. Signage and Ambiguity: Challenge whether the signage clearly states that parking restrictions apply to customers using on-site services and that there was no specific instruction from Autoglass to register your vehicle. Mention any lack of clarity in the signage regarding how Autoglass customers should handle parking requirements.

5. Requirement for Evidence: Request that G24 provide proof that they have informed Autoglass customers of parking restrictions and that they prominently display instructions advising such customers to register or obtain authorisation for extended stays. If they cannot provide such evidence, argue that the parking charge is invalid due to lack of clear communication.

6. Single Code of Practice Violation: Refer to the new Single Code of Practice (SCoP), which requires parking operators to act in a way that considers the interests of the landowner’s customers. By failing to take into account the extended time Autoglass required to complete your repair, G24 is disregarding this requirement and unfairly penalising a legitimate customer.

14
With an issue date of 30th October, you have until Monday 18th November to submit the AoS. Follow the instructions in this document to submit it:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

Once you have submitted the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 2nd December to submit the defence.

Let us known when the AoS has been submitted and we'll advise on the defence.

15
What actual evidence have they provided to prove that the "driver" left the premises?

All that effort you put into wasted appeals that were never going to work! The burden of proof is on them to prove the breach of any term, not for you to disprove. What a waste of effort.

You haven't even shown us the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that was sent. That will have the wording that they are relying on in their allegation.

Their sign states "Customer use only while on the premises. Anyone seen to be parking and walking off site will be in breach of the terms and conditions". How can that even be an enforceable term in a contract?

Ask yourself, if the driver parks but only a passenger walks off site (not that any boundaries are defined as to where the actual "site" is delimited), who is the person deemed to have breached the terms? It’s unclear who exactly would be breaching the terms if only a passenger (and not the driver) leaves the premises.

A contract cannot reasonably hold the driver liable for the actions of other occupants unless it explicitly specifies that responsibility. Even if it did, such a term would be open to challenge for being unfair, as the driver cannot control the actions of passengers in all circumstances.

Without clear delineation of the "site" boundary, the driver (or passengers) have no way of understanding what constitutes "walking off site." A contract term that is ambiguous to this degree is considered unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as it lacks the necessary transparency for the driver to make an informed decision about parking.

Hopefully, you now realise that you are dealing with a scammer. This willingly be resolved in the ultimate dispute resolution arena, the small claims track of the county court.

Ignore any and all debt collector letters. They are powerless to do anything. Use them as kindling or line the bottom of a litter tray.

If/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) giving you 30 days to pay or they will issue a claim, come back and we'll advise on the next steps. For now, get on with your life and don't worry about this. It is easily defended when the time comes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 149