We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
DB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics
Options
Comments
-
Well done , A good win against PPL and dcb legal
Another one bites the dust ! 😜😜👍👍👍3 -
The PPC has wasted your time, now waste theirs, read this
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/
You never know how far you can go until you go too far.1 -
Yay, well done!Judge raised an interesting point stating PPL couldJudge raised an interesting point stating PPL could have written asking for the payment that should have been made on the day as a result of the faulty machine but chose not to. If they had done so and I had refused to pay that then there could be a basis for the claim.Good point well made by the Judge.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD4 -
Yep, that approach could/should be used more often but then that is common sense and not something that parking companies are graced with in abundance and, of course it makes them no money - not that this case did!Coupon-mad said:Yay, well done!Judge raised an interesting point stating PPL could have written asking for the payment that should have been made on the day as a result of the faulty machine but chose not to. If they had done so and I had refused to pay that then there could be a basis for the claim.Good point well made by the Judge.4 -
That was the point he was making, after judgement was delivered and leave to appeal to refused he carried on and even said he was entering on personal opinion and should probably stop. I deduced from that speech that this particular judge is getting tired of the endless claims being brought by parking companies with very little basis in law backing them.The rep stated during questioning that I had appealed after the time limit but PPL had responded anyway. The Judge stated he wasn’t bound by the appeal process so the outcome was irrelevant. He then went on to state that the appeal process isn’t fit for purpose as is run by the industry. Everything that is stated on this forum.
My only thought now is whether I should submit a request to PPL for right to erasure under GDPR as I see no reason why they now need to keep any of my personal information and I don’t trust them with it.4 -
Judge has his ear to the ground on the scam. Pity it's not universally understood.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street4 -
Well done, a great win and with the crap cases DCBL bring to court this will not be the last.
No doubt you had a good judge who understands this rubbish
Which court is DDJ Mitchell at ?
Whilst there is no precedence for other cases, there are major points the judge said that could tested in front of other judges
1: I couldn’t have entered into a contract as there was no facility to pay. Representative argued that I should have left the car park to which the judge remarked that is not a point of law
2: Judge raised an interesting point stating PPL could have written asking for the payment that should have been made on the day as a result of the faulty machine but chose not to. If they had done so and I had refused to pay that then there could be a basis for the claim.
3: The judge went onto to state it was a bit of a joke the way parking companies send in reps to present cases such as this. I am assuming this means that PPL/DCBL can not dig this up again in the future for another try?
4: The Judge stated he wasn’t bound by the appeal process so the outcome was irrelevant. He then went on to state that the appeal process isn’t fit for purpose as is run by the industry
So, if you can provide the court name and case number it may help many others3 -
It was Telford court and claim number was H0KF2228.3
-
Thankshoundsoflove said:It was Telford court and claim number was H0KF2228.
Today at 9:23AM <<<< click
A link to this thread is now in ....DCBL letters ..... forum group thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6203697/db-legal-premier-parking-logistics/p8
2 -
In my case DCBL readily admit that the claimant they are representing has no written contract with the landowner and that the landowner does not support the claim but they will proceed to court at the request of the claimantD_P_Dance said:IMO a valid contractt between the PPC and the landowner is a sine qua non. The claimant MUST surely be abe to produce one before a claim can be considered. IMO the judge was wrong.2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards