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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
We're aware that some users are currently experiencing errors on the Forum. Our tech team is working to resolve the issue. Thanks for your patience.
LBC advice for driver who 'possibly accepted guilt'
Comments
-
You don't need a friend with you because mediation is a non-legally trained person trying to help the case be settled.
Nothing to do with documents. The mediator wouldn't have a clue about legal documents!
As a Claimant (in your unusual case) you should agree to the call, be seen to be reasonable and engaging with the court process and decide beforehand the figure that you'd accept. Let ZZPS talk. Hear what they say. Do not declare the lowest sum up front! Not too early.
Don't forget that the basis of your case is (I think) that this trader breached the 'misleading actions' section of the CPUTRS 2008. Look them up and understand the regulations which were amended in 2014 to make consumer redress easier:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b3b62f7e5274a6ff156b59a/misleading-aggressive-commercial-practices-guidance.pdf
The difficulties you might have:
- ZZPS were 'acting on behalf of' a principal, and so is this the right Defendant?
- you did not enter in any contract with ZZPS but your position is that they misled you.
- did them misleading you cause you to make a transactional decision (or payment) that you would not otherwise have done?
None of that will be considered by the mediator by the way!
I'm just saying what I think but IANAL.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 THREAD1 -
A little update on this after a couple of months.
There was a mediation on this recently and it went the exact way as expected.
Their argument is the claimant should have 'started from scratch' (not their words) once the LBC was received and court papers were filed, instead of calling on the phone various times regarding a 'cancellation' email, disregarding everything else before it. They are unwilling on any financial settlement but advised they would 'send a letter' explaining the email and correspondence from their POV. That is as far as they are willing to go.
Our argument is the claimant was completely mislead and thought the PCN was cancelled and there was 'no outstanding balance' (the email wording). As a lay person the confusion caused stopped a proper defence from being presented.
In our eyes although the defence was not done as it should have been, due to the confusion surely one of the companies involved have to take some responsibility. Otherwise they could send any emails they want to muddy the waters on every PCN.
This will be the crux of the judgement I would think.
As per the mediators comments I will keep in contact with ZZPS explaining the disappointment at mediation and asking the questions I have not had full answers too yet (including the wording they used on the 'cancellation' email).
If it does end up in court, at least it shows willingness on our part even if they ignore us completely again!
1 -
You have used claimant a few times; did you mean defendant? For example "the claimant was completely mislead (misled) and thought the PCN was cancelled".3
-
This is slightly different. The thread is a long one but boils down to:
1. Friend did nothing correct through the process but tried their best not knowing how this works by calling the companies involved. At one point receiving an email from ZZPS saying the ticket was 'cancelled' and 'no outstanding balance' which was deleted.
2. Following this email a LBC and court claim was served by DCBL with my friend still not understanding as they had seen this cancellation email. Eventually a default judgement was made as the correct process was not followed.
3. After hearing this, I assisted getting SARs from 3 companies involved, UKPC, ZZPS and DCBL
4. An email from ZZPS which stated the PCN was cancelled and no outstanding balance was part of the SAR from them so this email is agreed to have been sent to my friend.
5. DCBL confirmed that UKPC stated the cancellation email was sent incorrectly by ZZPS.
6. A claim has since been made by my friend as claimant with ZZPS as defendant attempting to get the money back they paid on the default judgement.
We are now at this stage where mediation has been unsuccessful as ZZPS are saying they are not liable as my friend should have followed the LBC and court letters after they had sent the cancellation email.
My friend is arguing they were completely misled by the email and continued to call the companies as they didn't know what to do.
All the full details with all relevant quotes from all parties involved are in the previous posts as I don't want to make this too long.4 -
Aha, friend has made a claim. that makes sense now.1
-
As I said before:Don't forget that the basis of your case is (I think) that this trader breached the 'misleading actions' section of the CPUTRS 2008. Look them up and understand the regulations which were amended in 2014 to make consumer redress easier:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b3b62f7e5274a6ff156b59a/misleading-aggressive-commercial-practices-guidance.pdf
- did them misleading you cause you to make a transactional decision (or payment) that you would not otherwise have done?
I think the answer to that question is yes.
By handling the motorist's data and dealing with you/your friend's case they had a duty to act in good faith and fairly.
Sounds like a breach of the CPUTRs (and possibly the CRA 2015 but I think you have to have entered into a 'contract' with the trader for the latter Act to apply).
I think digging deeper into the CPUTRs and being able to lead the Judge to whatever section(s) were breached and whichever section(s) in the amendments give rise to a remedy whereby a consumer can sue under these Regs, will be key.
Sounds mad but never expect a county court judge to just know the law you are relying on. The law is what the parties take into the court room and use on the day!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 THREAD1 -
Thanks again. Yes, I already read up on all that due to your previous message and it was very helpful!!Coupon-mad said:As I said before:Don't forget that the basis of your case is (I think) that this trader breached the 'misleading actions' section of the CPUTRS 2008. Look them up and understand the regulations which were amended in 2014 to make consumer redress easier:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b3b62f7e5274a6ff156b59a/misleading-aggressive-commercial-practices-guidance.pdf
- did them misleading you cause you to make a transactional decision (or payment) that you would not otherwise have done?
I think the answer to that question is yes.
By handling the motorist's data and dealing with you/your friend's case they had a duty to act in good faith and fairly.
Sounds like a breach of the CPUTRs (and possibly the CRA 2015 but I think you have to have entered into a 'contract' with the trader for the latter Act to apply).
I think digging deeper into the CPUTRs and being able to lead the Judge to whatever section(s) were breached and whichever section(s) in the amendments give rise to a remedy whereby a consumer can sue under these Regs, will be key.
Sounds mad but never expect a county court judge to just know the law you are relying on. The law is what the parties take into the court room and use on the day!
I have already copied down the "The 2008 Regulations make misleading actions unlawful (see regulation 5). An action by a trader is misleading if it contains false information or if it is likely to mislead the average consumer in its overall presentation." part of that document. It reads nicer than the actual legislation as it states "mislead the average consumer in its overall presentation" which is exactly what has happened.
I hope this is a good case, but maybe it's just a 50/50 on the day depending on which side the judge is on.
A win after a complete failure would be so nice though
2 -
Another update to the ongoing saga of claiming against ZZPS.
The Notice Of Allocation has arrived. Timeline of events is now:
1. Pay £59 by the end of March for the trial fee. I didn't realise this was a thing as I thought the initial £50 fee covered everything.
2. Deliver all documents to the Court and defendant before the middle of April (plenty of time to finalise the WS).
3. Hearing near the end of April.
Following some great advice on this thread I worked on the WS prior to getting the Court NOA so am attaching it below for advice and feedback for changes. I have not included the communications exhibits (02-08) as the statement explains exactly what they say and are. I have also included most of them redacted, previously in this thread so would be a bit repetitive.
I have included Exhibit 01 though as I have created that from the legislation I am quoting.
Thanks all!!
0 -
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations surely = CPUTR, whereas you have put CPRs in paragraph #3 and repeated in paragraph #9.In paragraph #13 "I requested Subject Access Requests .........."You don't request a request, you submit a request (SAR)1
-
I wrote CPRs as I found that in various locations, whereas I couldn't find reference to CPUTR.Le_Kirk said:Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations surely = CPUTR, whereas you have put CPRs in paragraph #3 and repeated in paragraph #9.In paragraph #13 "I requested Subject Access Requests .........."You don't request a request, you submit a request (SAR)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consumer-protection-from-unfair-trading-regulations-traders
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74d389e5274a3cb28677f4/oft1008.pdf
I will certainly stand to be corrected though and change if needed.
I shall change the SAR request line, thanks very much
2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards