Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice is change. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been reading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. On mediation form you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee that you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
    • I am sure the resident experts will give you a comprehensive guide to your rights.  The responsibility lies with the retailer. I have dealt with Cotswold before for similar. And found them refreshingly helpful.   Even when I lost the receipt for one item I had bought in Inverness. The manager in Newcastle called the store. Found the transaction and gave me a full refund. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Parking eye quick help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4914 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Quick one here.

My car got a ticket from Parking Eye, working for Morrisons, from one of their car parks. They say I was there for over 2 hours, and it was caught on camera.

However, it was my mother driving the car - she's on my insurance and uses it from time to time.

I used the basic set of letter templates, and have informed them that I was not the driver at this time, but they've sent me a letter, saying that my appeal was unsuccessful because of '2008 Judge Ackroyd Oldham court, Combined Parking Solutions verse Stephen Thomas, in the case where Mr Thomas claimed not to be the driver, it was ruled that he was, and was ordered to pay the charge and costs.'

Is this true? What are my next steps? I have no intention of giving them my mother’s details, so I would just end up paying it. Or should I just state her name and refuse the address?

Many thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have done too much already by "appealing". That system is a complete sham as it's done "in-house" and is not in dependant. From now on do not contact this company again and ignore any correspondent from them. You do not owe them a penny.

 

As for that court case, it's widely beleive that it was a "set-up" and can be discounted. And Parking Eye have never been known to take anyone to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FIrst thing - don't panic at the official looking paperwork. It is designed to look official and frighten you into reaching for the cheque book.

 

All you have is an invoice for an unjustifiable amount - the driver was a shopper in Morrisons and used their free car park so all they can claim for is actual loss which is zero. A Morrisons I occasionally get caught at has the same bunch of scamsters running the car park and there is a website set up on how to deal with them (google Morrisons Reigate)

 

The Thomas case - may have been a setup or just that he did something foolish like say too much on the internet under (PPC's monitor the forums). More recently one of these PPC's tried their luck in court (Wakefield) and came badly unstuck being fined heavily because they set out to intimidate

 

The fact is inspite of all the threats PPC's very rarely do court because there are too many defenses and they know they would lose and that costs them money.

 

Currently am receiving junk mail from another PPC and the latest Debt Collectors letter (powerless sad people) gives an impressive list of successful CCJ's but the important point they have missed out is what they are for which is most likely unpaid utility bills, council tax etc.

 

The invoice will contain lots of might's, may's and if's - all empty threats because Parking Eye do not do court. It simply is not worth their while taking you to court for their zero loss. If they are stupid enough to go to the expense of installing ANPR cameras etc. then that is their problem and should not be funded by innocent shoppers. The whole system is a [problem] and relies on the fact that the victim does not know it is a [problem] and hands over an unwarrented amount of their hard earned cash.

 

Do what you should have done in the beginning and ignore all the paperwork they send and if still in doubt search through the various threads

 

Ignore, ignore and if still uncertain try ignore

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggest you watch BBC Watchdog on iplayer from last night. They hit the nail very much on the head. There is no appeal, the case quoted means sod all as far as you are concerned for goodness sake. My mate was found guilty of speeding once, that doesn't mean I am!

 

DO NOT reply to them ever again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2008 Judge Ackroyd Oldham court, Combined Parking Solutions verse Stephen Thomas, in the case where Mr Thomas claimed not to be the driver, it was ruled that he was, and was ordered to pay the charge and costs

 

How is this relevant? He WAS the driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...