Combined Parking Solutions Ltd - County Court Claim Form

The_Deep

Mr B, I misread the pm, Mr P has made no such claim, I have edited post 9 accordingly.

Coupon-mad

Marktheshark wrote: »

Which court ?
Have you checked they are real, they do send fake papers out.
Who has signed the papers what do they tick to say they are Claimant or claimants solicitor.

CPS don't send fake papers IMHO. This OP needs help, not that I can suggest where as I am not allowed to say here - she cannot put 'no GPEOL' as such in the defence and this will be difficult. Best bet is to defend and try to get the case stayed till after Parking Eye v Beavis decision (so after March).

bazster

I can say it since I'm not associated with the company in any way:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/appeal-service/

The_Deep

This OP needs help

Indeed, I understand that this PPC obtained a lien against a non payer's house.

My advice would be either to engage a solicitor, use a firm such as the one in post 14 above, or seek an accommodation.

However, FWIIW, I have read on another forum that a person connected with this PPC has a Police caution for wasting their time and that the company was banned a couple of years ago by the DVLA, can anyone perhaps confirm these?

ManxRed

CPS did indeed serve a three month suspension from KADOE access from the DVLA for repeated contraventions of the BPA Code of Practice.

It was on here, and other forums.

If memory serves it was because they repeatedly alleged that they could hold the Registered Keeper liable, not through PoFA, but through the Law of Agency. Laughable I know, but they used to insist this was the case on their paperwork to motorists.

Jim_AFCB

The_Deep wrote: »

I have received a pm from the OP which I have urged him to publish here. It is a letter from the PPC, the usual perky guff.

Their website puffs them as a major player

http://www.combinedparkingsolutions.com/category/news/

surely therefore they must be v.a.t. registered, so why no mention of vat on their invoice. We know he is reading this so lets hope he sends a v.a.t. compliant invoice.

It also appears that they pay the landowner £25 for every ticket issued, I wonder how many Residential Property Managing Agents they have on their books.

I had a similar PM.

C-M, I tried to PM you to suggest a tweak of the stickies in the light of something I have seen, but guess your inbox is full.

Coupon-mad

I can't take pm's at the moment - have blocked them!

jkdd77

I believe that the OfT has published guidance to the effect that, where the intent of a supposed contractual term is to punish or deter, rather than to make a genuine offer, it may be challengeable as a disguised penalty for breach notwithstanding that the PPC pretends that the £325 (or whatever) is the agreed contractual price for the parking.

The failure to charge VAT, as would be required if it was a genuine service provision, is evidence that it is not a genuine contractual offer.

As such, the 'not GPEOL' argument will form a critical part of the defence.

bazster

The_Deep wrote: »

This also makes interesting reading

http://www.combinedparkingsolutions.com/legal-issues/

This Mike Perkins chappie seems to be a bit of a card.

Perky is certainly a comedian.

Coupon-mad

jkdd77 wrote: »

I believe that the OfT has published guidance to the effect that, where the intent of a supposed contractual term is to punish or deter, rather than to make a genuine offer, it may be challengeable as a disguised penalty for breach notwithstanding that the PPC pretends that the £325 (or whatever) is the agreed contractual price for the parking.

The failure to charge VAT, as would be required if it was a genuine service provision, is evidence that it is not a genuine contractual offer.

As such, the 'not GPEOL' argument will form a critical part of the defence.

Yes indeed but has to be argued that way of course so not the usual argument.