Parking fine but not my car wrong ANPR details

numps

pappa_golf wrote: »

what did david dunsford say when you contacted him , I know that he read the thread on MSE , but needed directions from you?

Hes been dealing with them directly and is the reason this is being sorted, we have been e-mailing. :j

numps

Fruitcake wrote: »

Cross out 3, sign it, send it back with a list of costs/expenses incurred otherwise the OP will go for a set side without consent plus DPA breach, as helpfully admitted in that very same letter?

Definite complaint/follow up to D. Durnford, query to DVLA asking who requested keeper details, and why two reg Nos were given insead of just the correct one as they (DVLA) have also committed a DPA breach.

Also, complain to your MP, and add contact WHICH as per this thread.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5765579

Yes number 3 is the one that worried me!

pappa_golf

numps wrote: »

Hes been dealing with them directly and is the reason this is being sorted, we have been e-mailing. :j

have minster baywatch been sanctioned?

this thread along with corrispondance from D dunsford should be fowarded to the head of the ATA they use

that would be Steve clark at the BPA , who should give sanction points to baywatch for there actions (inc the hiring of gladys)

nosferatu1001

3 is of concern. Strike it and include all your costs, including the £100 YOUhave to pay for the set aside.

Coupon-mad

Cross #3 out, I agree with what the other regulars have said. Johnersh or LOC123 might suggest an amendment to secure your costs as part of this consent order, if that is possible.

No way are you to remain £100 out of pocket - of course you are entitled to your wasted costs of £100 (plus any p&p or other reasonable costs you might want to add).

And ratchet up the complaints as advised above.

[Deleted User]

Ok, this is an application to set aside a CCJ. As a fee is specified for set asides on Form EX50, the fact that it is consented to does not adjust the tariff (as I had once assumed it would). It will cost £255 to send off the paperwork.

Add to that the costs of any Experian searches you have done, petrol at £0.45 per mile for any site visits etc and you have significant costs that you need to recover.

Item 3 must be deleted from the consent order and replaced with the following wording.

The Claimant do pay the Defendant's Court Court costs and disbursement costs of and occasioned by the application, to be assessed if not agreed.
OR
The Claimant do pay the Defendant's costs in any event within 14 days of this order agreed at [£ ] .

Whichever suits.The first wording provides for no claim for your time, but full reimbursement for everything else. It's a bit clunky, but it'll do.

Since you've got to pay the Court fee anyway to register the thing, the Claimant PPC has the choice of haggling over what the number should be or waiting for you to apply and then heading over to Court to explain exactly how it is that they registered a CCJ on notice despite pre-action correspondence making it clear that they had the wrong Defendant (which is when you seek unreasonable costs from the judge and all your time etc).

You're in a decent bargaining position and should provide them with an itemised list of your costs. The notion that the costs may increase if they have to attend a court hearing shouldn't be lost on them.

Finally, it would be remiss of me to point out that this is EXACTLY the type of case that is most suitable for the Which complaint (there's a whole thread devoted to that)

...and why this consultation was launched shortly after Christmas:
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/default-county-court-judgments-2/supporting_documents/defaultcountycourtjudgmentsconsultation.pdf

[Deleted User]

As a footnote, it may be that Gladstones will want to pay for and file the application themselves (i.e. it becomes their application).

At that point you are not down the £255 fee for the application, but they need to know that you will still want those other costs paid, so my proposed wording above would still be appropriate, you just agree a smaller fee.

Coupon-mad

First time I've seen that link, Johnersh.

Happy to see they sent a copy of the paper to the BMPA, of which I am a founder member but don't have day-to-day involvement due to my day job & family commitments.

But wow, as well as sending it to the BPA and IPC, they specifically sent it to ParkingEye. No other PPCs. Jeez. The status that consumer-hated, moneygrabbing company has, is abhorrent. MPs even named and shamed them as 'cowboys' in Parliament, yet still they wheedle their way into Government consultations as if they might actually have valid points to make.

Sickbags out. The lobbying smarm of that company and their ilk, if shaking hands with Government advisers in person to put 'their side, as industry leaders' would be horrendous to hear as a fly on the wall. They need banning entirely.

[Deleted User]

But wow, as well as sending it to the BPA and IPC, they specifically sent it to ParkingEye. No other PPCs. Jeez.

Simple reason, obviously they had to send it to both debtor and creditor representatives and we can infer that PE are securing more default judgments than other PPCs - not in itself surprising, given its capita-owned resources.

It's an overdue review and I say that not just in the context of parking cases. I also wouldn't say PE are wheedled into the consultation - there is nothing to stop anyone submitting a response, save that it would need to be well-reasoned with clear examples.

Coupon-mad

Yes and they will (provide well-reasoned clear examples) because someone will write it for them.

And who knows how much weight will be placed on their response and that of the BPA and IPC (pass the sick-bag again).

I recall when the Dept for Transport published that they wanted to stop PPCs from issuing penalties at Motorway services, due to all the complaints from motorists. A survey was made public which *we* (the good guys & girls, who I would list at the time as bargepole, me, the Prankster and the BMPA main founder) just missed seeing in time. This was around the time when we all started rallying here and sussing out who was who, learning which posters were trustworthy, with an altruistic agenda.

We all know what happened to the idea the DFT had clearly put forward, that for reasons of fairness for tired drivers, they should be able to pay retrospectively or be reminded when leaving, that they had stayed longer than 2 hours and owed £11 tariff. Oh no, none of that got past the BPA lobbying, and the likes of PE rolled out more and more PCNs at surprised drivers 2 or 3 weeks later, giving them NO chance to pay the £11 that they knew nothing about.

How awful to be a person who actually MAKES that anti-consumer argument in response to Government papers. How can such people do that for a living (and live with themselves) is beyond me.