We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
need advice on this letter i am writing up
chrisjose1913
Posts: 40 Forumite
Letter date 17/1/15
To:!
K.B.T Cornwall, t/as Armtrac Security Services PO Box 154 Penzance TR209WD. !!
My Address to respond
{adress}
Without prejudice, save as to costs
Parking Charge Notice No. 000000000.(adress)!!Vehicle registration
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing in response to the latter dated 23rd of December 2014. received on the 15/1/15
I have taken the time to read the letter and and acknowledged the fact you have rejected the appeal.
At this stage I reject your claim for the following reasons set below and as a consequence the claim is now in doubt of it's legality.
1: In my first correspondence dated 17/11/14 I stated that I expected acknowledgement within 14 days and a comprehensive reply within 35 days of the letter date witch was 17/11/14 .
Having not received such a letter until 15/1/15 and stamped by royal mail on the 14/1/15, this means your reply was 30 days overdue. I will also note the letter at the dated time, the 23rd of December will still have been a total of 7 days over due regardless.
2: Failure to meet all requests outline in the letter dated 17/11/14
2a I requested that you provide me with the name and address of your solicitors (if any) in order that I may copy them into this correspondence. No such Information was given.
2b I requested Your details on your administration costs. As mentioned in point number 10. there is no mentions of these costs.
2c I requested information mentioned in point 11 on who the actual creditor is making this £100 demand. Your letters simply mentions armtrac serurity. You failed to include specific identification as to who the Creditor is. This is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
2d Your loss, I requested a breakdown of actual loss not pre estimated loss.
2e Refusal to provide owner details and prof of contract, as a result I now believe there is no contract with your company and/or Landowner/occupier that entities you to LEVY these!
charges and therefore I assume you have no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs).
3 Your loss
As stated on 2d,The losses you claim I have caused. The losses are calculated based on your charges and are pre estimates not actual losses for damages.
3a All losses you claim are all post the event and not as a direct result of the bike being parked there. the losses are a cause of your own actions to pursue this case. I can not be expected to pay for your employees because of losses caused as a result of damages (witch is denied).
3b You mention it's a permit car park in witch case indicates there is no charge to use the car park expect by needing a permit if this is the case I can only assume there is no cost to use the car park but simply have permission from the land owner. If this is the case then I calculate the loss being a grand total of £0
I have taken into account the following.
1: The fact the car park was not full at the time the bike was parked there nor when the bike was moved. £0
2: The fact the car park has no fee stated. So I can assume the total cost per hour using the car park is £0
3: The fact no damage was caused to any property in the car park or on the owners land. £0
3d losses as a result of a breach of contract, the contract has been denied.
4: The charge you are levying is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular,!Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
4a: The charge you are levying is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness as a result the contract you claim I agreed to (witch again is denied) is void.
5: I will also mention under the Bill of Rights Act 1689: "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void. No fine or forfeit can be imposed until and unless the individual is convicted in a court of law.
It is also my understanding that under common law in England citizens have the right to a fair and just trial. Further more Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights !protects the rights and in civil cases it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time.
Further more
6:
The formal demand is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the!
Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is!
required to specifically "identify" the Creditor not simply name them on it ,This Would require!
words to the effect of " The creditor is " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with!
whom any purported contract was made. This they have failed to do and thus have not!
fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow you to attempt recovery of any!
charge from the keeper.!
7: The photograph of a WARNING notice which appears to be pinned to an office wall.
I wish to point out that photographing a poster on a wall is not evidence of the signage nor is it prof that this is matching to any signs used on the car park premisses in question. The photos are not photos of signage from the day when the alleged breach of contract occurred. And do not clearly show details of the writing on the signage.
I reserve my right not to perform under any contract or agreement I did not enter knowingly
My name and adress
To:!
K.B.T Cornwall, t/as Armtrac Security Services PO Box 154 Penzance TR209WD. !!
My Address to respond
{adress}
Without prejudice, save as to costs
Parking Charge Notice No. 000000000.(adress)!!Vehicle registration
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing in response to the latter dated 23rd of December 2014. received on the 15/1/15
I have taken the time to read the letter and and acknowledged the fact you have rejected the appeal.
At this stage I reject your claim for the following reasons set below and as a consequence the claim is now in doubt of it's legality.
1: In my first correspondence dated 17/11/14 I stated that I expected acknowledgement within 14 days and a comprehensive reply within 35 days of the letter date witch was 17/11/14 .
Having not received such a letter until 15/1/15 and stamped by royal mail on the 14/1/15, this means your reply was 30 days overdue. I will also note the letter at the dated time, the 23rd of December will still have been a total of 7 days over due regardless.
2: Failure to meet all requests outline in the letter dated 17/11/14
2a I requested that you provide me with the name and address of your solicitors (if any) in order that I may copy them into this correspondence. No such Information was given.
2b I requested Your details on your administration costs. As mentioned in point number 10. there is no mentions of these costs.
2c I requested information mentioned in point 11 on who the actual creditor is making this £100 demand. Your letters simply mentions armtrac serurity. You failed to include specific identification as to who the Creditor is. This is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
2d Your loss, I requested a breakdown of actual loss not pre estimated loss.
2e Refusal to provide owner details and prof of contract, as a result I now believe there is no contract with your company and/or Landowner/occupier that entities you to LEVY these!
charges and therefore I assume you have no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs).
3 Your loss
As stated on 2d,The losses you claim I have caused. The losses are calculated based on your charges and are pre estimates not actual losses for damages.
3a All losses you claim are all post the event and not as a direct result of the bike being parked there. the losses are a cause of your own actions to pursue this case. I can not be expected to pay for your employees because of losses caused as a result of damages (witch is denied).
3b You mention it's a permit car park in witch case indicates there is no charge to use the car park expect by needing a permit if this is the case I can only assume there is no cost to use the car park but simply have permission from the land owner. If this is the case then I calculate the loss being a grand total of £0
I have taken into account the following.
1: The fact the car park was not full at the time the bike was parked there nor when the bike was moved. £0
2: The fact the car park has no fee stated. So I can assume the total cost per hour using the car park is £0
3: The fact no damage was caused to any property in the car park or on the owners land. £0
3d losses as a result of a breach of contract, the contract has been denied.
4: The charge you are levying is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular,!Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
4a: The charge you are levying is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness as a result the contract you claim I agreed to (witch again is denied) is void.
5: I will also mention under the Bill of Rights Act 1689: "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void. No fine or forfeit can be imposed until and unless the individual is convicted in a court of law.
It is also my understanding that under common law in England citizens have the right to a fair and just trial. Further more Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights !protects the rights and in civil cases it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time.
Further more
6:
The formal demand is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the!
Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is!
required to specifically "identify" the Creditor not simply name them on it ,This Would require!
words to the effect of " The creditor is " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with!
whom any purported contract was made. This they have failed to do and thus have not!
fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow you to attempt recovery of any!
charge from the keeper.!
7: The photograph of a WARNING notice which appears to be pinned to an office wall.
I wish to point out that photographing a poster on a wall is not evidence of the signage nor is it prof that this is matching to any signs used on the car park premisses in question. The photos are not photos of signage from the day when the alleged breach of contract occurred. And do not clearly show details of the writing on the signage.
I reserve my right not to perform under any contract or agreement I did not enter knowingly
My name and adress
0
Comments
-
You should keep this on your original thread TBH - Individual threads for each stage of your process gets confusing and won't get you the same quality of advice compared to a single thread where all aspects are referenced.0
-
Why have you headed it "Without prejudice ..."?
Do you know what that means?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
-
Precisely, but it cannot be used against the PPC either.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
-
Why are you even writing to them? If you have a POPLA code - use it. If you don't, why not?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards