Good Afternoon, I am hoping to receive some advice regarding the below topic. I was looking to purchase a property off-plan with a incentive attached and in order to secure this you pay a 'finder's fee'. The fee was paid but then the property was un-mortgageable due to various reasons including the incentive being offered. Having gone back to the agent to ask for a return of the finder's fee - they have refused saying that the incentive does not need to be disclosed and that essentially my broker is useless and I should use theirs! Their broker also advised it would be hard to get a mortgage with the incentive disclosed which backs up what my broker has said. This fee will now be kept on account. I signed a form which confirms that the finders fee is non refundable - which was my error I should have checked if the property was mortgageable beforehand - however I wondered if there was anything I could do because: The property is un-mortgageable - my broker tried all lenders including those who are happy with the incentive which was offered They have advised to withhold information which is clearly questioned in the mortgage application process This is not a case of pulling out, this is a case that I cannot get finance and so cannot proceed. Thanks in advance.

I misread the email - I thought you said where - no secret, no conspiracy! I bought it in September last year. I raised the issue with the dealer within a few weeks and they had a look at it for leaks but couldn't see anything and said it may just be the case it burns more oil due to the engine is is. They recommended trying a thicker Oil which would last longer however the issue has been getting steadily worse.

No secret, it's a independent trader. Thanks for the response.

Hi, I wanted to get some opinions/advice regarding an issue I have and wanted to know what the general feeling, or even better someone who has experienced this problem and what the outcome was.... I purchased an Audi A3 1.8TFSI and the car has the same oil consumption issue as the 2.0 TFSI (mainly Audi A5's but A3 and other models also). I went for the 1.8TFSI as I didn't think it had the same oil consumption issue but it appears it does, just less well known. My local Audi dealer is doing all of the tests and in a couple of weeks they will have all of the details to put forward to Audi UK for a solution and a cost and what they expect me to contribute towards it if I have the work done. Audi say that the more main dealer services you have had, the more favourable this will be looked at and and if you were to have the next service with them, this would help also. Through speaking with my contact, he seems to think that the dealer that sold me the car (non Audi) could be liable for the cost of any repairs as he sold the car to me and the car clearly has a fault. I countered this by saying the dealer is likely to say it's a known Audi issue therefore the issue is with Audi and they are liable. Who is liable?? The dealer who sold the car or Audi? Thanks in advance.

The houses are terraced so all the driveways are next to each other, however there is an approx 3 foot high fence between the properties - would this likely scupper the idea of being contiguous? Good point regarding the policy - I can ask for that. Thanks for the response.

Morning All, I'm not sure if anyone can help but I thought I'd give it a shot. My girlfriend lives in a place called Whitton which is covered by Richmond Council and she was hoping to get a dropped kerb put outside of her property. The road has a number of outlined (with white paint) parking spaces along the road, however a number of people have paved over their front gardens and managed to get a dropped kerb for their driveway and there is not a parking space outside of their property - presumably it's been removed. When she bought her now home, the previous owners had paved over the garden and created a large driveway, both in length and width (approx 5.8m wide) however there is no dropped kerb, so they did not seem to get permission for one before doing the new driveway. She has applied for a dropped kerb but it was rejected because her driveway does not reach the requirement of being 7.2m wide and therefore the sightlines are not wide enough. Her neighbours (with a driveway and an approved dropped kerb) have the same width driveway as hers and managed to get a dropped kerb however we have no idea when these were approved by the council, at least over 2 years ago. The council seemed to outline that they were no longer doing dropped kerbs in her particular area of which we queried why she was allowed to apply in the first place when they saw the address! Does anyone know of any loophole, precedence etc that we could put forward as a reason for us to be allowed to have a dropped kerb? The initial response in terms of an appeal against the council would be that as her driveway is not wide enough it does not fit the requirements outlined by the council - however as the neighbours have the exact same width driveway, how can it be one rule of one and not for another? Any help would be appreciated with this. Thanks

Hi All, GOOD NEWS! I chased up the BPA about this and within a day MET had cancelled the notice. The reason they stated was as a 'goodwill gesture' for the hassle I have incurred in appealing this fine. Many thanks all for the help, another one for the little guy!

I called BPA this afternoon as I hadn't heard back from them. The lady I spoke to actually had my complaint letter on the desk and was about to look at it (apparently..). I outlined my complaint with her and she asked me to forward the rejection letters from both POPLA and MET. Have done this and again outlined my grievance at the fact I did not receive the rejection letter from MET and had to chase for a copy, of when I had received it the POPLA code had already expired... The BPA did tell me however they cannot enforce MET/POPLA to give me a new code, they can only recommend they do this as they are not a regulatory body. It did make me wonder the point of their existence if they cannot help someone like me who has been put in this situation by MET and I have followed the appeal procedure as outlined. Anyhow, will keep you posted! Thanks for the ongoing help. Cheers.

I will see what the BPA say when I have returned from Holiday. The fact I have already appealed this parking fine to me would say that is clarification who the driver was at the time. I think the route of ignoring seems to have been the better route, I was hoping after following the very helpful advice I would have progressed somewhere but it seems like a lot of going round in circles. Will call the BPA if they have not responded. Thanks for the advice again.

Just to clarify POPLA declined my appeal, not BPA - not heard back from them yet. This is ridiculous - Met didn't send me the letter the first time, or it got 'lost' in the post and by the time i receive a copy, the POPLA has expired so I can't appeal anyway?!

Hello i did as instructed and wrote to the BPA, appealed to POPLA (which were cc'd in on the letter I sent to the BPA) and they have rejected my appeal because the POPLA was out of date! Pretty much what I said was going to happen... What now? I'll see what the BPA comes back with but I can't see this being successful.

Ok. I have drafted an appeal to POPLA. Shall i mention to them, as I did in the appeal letter to MET about parking around airports not being 'relevant land'? Thanks

Morning, I have written up the letter that is going to the BPA and cc Met Parking and POPLA - I am about to write my appeal letter to POPLA, however as my code has expired (before I got a copy of the appeal rejection letter), will POPLA even consider my appeal? Thanks,

Hi, Thanks for the guidance. Regarding have I checked the POPLA and it appears my time to appeal has expired. Note I did not receive the original letter and had to request a copy (hence my post about not having a response). This is what has come up when I checked my POPLA code - I should include this in my appeal letter. As the time limit has expired, do I require to request a new POPLA code, or appeal with below explanation and also say that I never received the original and had to request a copy? Code summary Issuing operator: MET Parking Services Ltd (Code: 386) Date code generated: Wed Aug 06 2014 Code sequence number: 494 Deadline information You have missed the deadline to appeal! Your deadline was on the Wed Sep 03 2014 Your deadline passed 5 day(s) ago Grounds for complaint This code was generated 1 day(s) before the date of your appeal rejection letter. This means that you have not been given the full 28 days to appeal that you are entitled to under the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. Please consider making a complaint.

This is the wording of the letter received: Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons: The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at this site including that there is a 60 minute maximum stay for the use of South Gate Park customers only. South Gate Park at confident that there are a sufficient number of signs in place at this location warning drivers of the time limit in place. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that they check the signage in place where they are parking their vehicle and comply with any parking restrictions. South Gate Park car parks are on private land and the signage is in place is within the guidelines of the British parking association in which we are a member of. Attached is a copy of our signage which states that the motorists visiting this car park are entering into a contractual agreement. We have also attached a site map showing the location of the signs at this site. The signs state do not park in this car park unless you agree to the terms and conditions of use in full. MET Parking services ltd are the creditor engaged by South Gate Park to enforce adherence to the terms and conditions of use of this car park and have the authority to issue parking charge notices for contractual breach. Under the law of agency the contract you have entered into is with ourselves. We note you have requested a copy of this contract between ourselves and our client, however, we do not believe that it is necessary to provide this at this stage. Should the matter proceed to court we will provide all necessary paperwork , redacted as appropriate, to support our claim as creditor. We would like to point out that the charge notice was issued for breach of contract and the sum that is payable is in event of breach of the terms and conditions of use of the parking contract are clearly identified at the site. Our charge notice represents a claim for liquidated damages and the sum we are seeking to recover has been calculated as a genuine pre-estimate loss and reflects the anticipated recovery of the direct costs of enforcing adherence to the terms and conditions of parking at this site. This calculation is made with due regard to the guidelines set down by the office of fair trading. In summary we can confirm, therefore, that the charge was issued correctly and we are upholding it. To avoid any future parking charge notices, please ensure you always comply with the terms and conditions of parking and any restrictions that are in place when you park your car. This decision which has been based on the facts of the case and takes into account our consideration of any mitigating circumstances, is our final decision. It goes on to give me the option to pay, appeal to POPLA or if neither debt recovery/legal/court action.