UK CPM, Gladstones/Empira CCJ success

Coupon-mad

No the entire POC is not the right POC. 

Car park companies don't make claims under the CCA 1974 for 'shop accounts'!

Email the CNBC back and tell them they've muddled up two claims.  You need the POC relating to this car parking claim.

Mana2019

Fruitcake said:

... but the PoC are nothing to do with a parking charge. They are something to do with failing to make regular payments towards what appears to be a hire purchase agreement. Did you buy an item, set up a payment plan, then fail to make all the payments, because that's what those PoC look like they are for.

Yes. Now that I've re-read the PoC, it's something to do with Shop Direct, I had agreement with over 10 years ago. That has been cleared years ago.

Are you saying CNBC mixed up the PoCs?

If so WTH.

Coupon-mad

Yes the CNBC are useless...

Mana2019

Coupon-mad said:

No the entire POC is not the right POC. 

Car park companies don't make claims under the CCA 1974 for 'shop accounts'!

Email the CNBC back and tell them they've muddled up two claims.  You need the POC relating to this car parking claim.

I was about to respond to them, but ****, it's a noreply e-mail. So are you saying I have to wait on the phone for another hour and a half to get this sorted? 

Do I really need the PoC for the N244 or I need the PoC down the line?

Coupon-mad

Yes you need the POC.

Mana2019

Coupon-mad said:

Yes you need the POC.

Received a new PoC via the phone:

THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WITH REGISTRATION XXXXXXX (THE 'VEHICLE') PARKED IN BREACH OF THE TERMS OF PARKING STIPULATED ON THE SIGNAGE (THE 'CONTRACT') AT NIGHTINGALE AVENUE LONDON (PATROL) - NIGHTINGALE AVENUE LONDON HA1 3GX, ON 31/10/2021 THUS INCURRINGTHE PARKING CHARGE (THE 'PCN'). THE PCN WAS NOT PAID WITHIN 28 DAYS OF ISSUE. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE UNPAID PCN FROM THE DEFENDANT AS THE DRIVER/KEEPER OF THE VEHICLE. DESPITE DEMANDS BEING MADE, THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THEIR OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 FOR THE PCN, £70.00 CONTRACTUAL COSTS PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT AND PCN TERMS AND CONDITIONS, TOGETHER WITH STATUTORY INTEREST OF £22.13 PURSUANT TO S69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT 10.25% PER ANNUM, CONTINUING AT £0.05 PER DAY.


The address, I can remember it clearly. There was no visible sign, and when I received the charge I contacted the hospital and they tried to cancel the charge, but they said they had no control over it.

This was forwarded to me from the hospital when the hospital tried to cancel it for me

Hi Kiran,
Thank you for your email.
He received ticket from CPM not from APCOA.
Please note 2 Separate  parking companies are operates the Ealing hospital.
The car parking spaces at Ealing Hospital between Meadow House and the main hospital are WLMH spaces.
He have to contact CPM customer service because he received PCN from CPM not from APCOA.
Thanks
The parking team

After that I decided to let it go and wait until UKCPM escalated it. However I moved and notified both UKCPM and Gladstones that I moved home (on a different case that some of you know about) in January 2022.

So while they updated the record for the other case, they didn't with this.

Coupon-mad

So all of that goes into your WS.

Copy one someone already did this week.

I can recall at least one person today working in a WS and 3 point Draft Order asking the court to set aside a CCJ and dismiss the entire claim, and attaching CEL v Chan which you need to do as well.

Mana2019

Thanks.
So update, I've got the Draft Order and WS written up.

Removed. Look for next post.

KeithP

The last few words of your Statement of Truth should read...
...a false statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

But it appears to be a bit of a contraction anyway.

The suggested full wording is...
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Coupon-mad

No you need 3 points in the Draft Order, like I said. And CEL v Chan is obviously an exhibit along with your proof of moving.

AND you need to point out how the Code of Practice has been breached. As seen in every set aside example now.