Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Agree it is not a modification that needs to be disclosed to Insurers as changing the seats has not changed the risk.  
    • Frpm David Frost and Robert Jenrick: 'Conservatives must show we respect the votes in 2016 and 2019 and not give the Opposition the chance to undo the benefits of leaving the EU'   Sweep away the Brexit gloom – or Labour will unravel a huge gain ARCHIVE.PH archived 22 Apr 2024 05:47:50 UTC  
    • Please please help we were miss sold full fibre by EE July 22  Install couldn’t go ahead no equipment sent and no. Survey it was hell  foind out no full fibre in road so we had to go back to cooper no choice we involved. Ceo and they put in a man from customer resolution s  he was vile he told me I had to go to engineers  something very odd about the ex resolution s in bt basically they took my drive up said they Would put ducting in ready for full fibre we have got £ 40 for a hours upon hours phones stress and more told to go to ombudsman  then bill was £35 we called twice told it was that price as they had treated us appalling two weeks later all sky package gets pulled we call again our bill goes to 165 the next two weeks was hell trying to get yo bottom why it’s off our package it was all on in the end I spent a day on the phone  341 mins was the call anyway I got to the bottom it was this resolution man coveting up the other issue another deadlock  to cover it all up  they hide data  ee did so couldn’t get the miss sell in writing I have now only from sept  Basically now we tried getting full fibre and they have found my drive had to be taken up again which has sunk .  The engineer has placed the wrong ducting again under my drive and need s to be taken to again apparently and the pipe sticks up middle of the drive near gate not behind look so odd it’s a big as a drain pipe open to water and it’s below touching the electrical cables to hot tub . I was sent a letter from the ex resolution to say I had stopped the work  I haven’t  it’s so sadistic she covering up for her mate in that team as the orginal install he didn’t check it had been done correctly  I took to Twitter and posted on open reach they ignored me then after 3 calls of two weeks they sent a engineer bt ignored me ceo emails blocked tag on Twitter unanswered then we get someone from twitter send a engineer he written report to say it’s dangerous since we have  had a  letter to say our problem can not be resolved  then a email to say sorry we are leaving and we can’t get into our account Bt will not talk to us ofcom tells us nothing they can do Citzens advice said go to the police  we can’t go back to virgin due so mass issue with them only option is sky  but point is they make out we have canceled we haven’t we have this mess on our drive dangeous work we are in hell  it’s like she covering up for this collegue it’s all very odd I am disabled and they like played mentaly with me open reach say bt resolved the issue no they have not  I recon they have terminated us making our we have  to hide it from mgt  Help it’s hell I don’t sleep we have 29 may we have tried  calling they just ignore me  at first they are so lovely as they say I am then they go to nnamager and say we can’t say anything to you end call  Scared police are rubbish I need help even typing is so painfull  Thankyou  anyone hello be so grateful     
    • There's a thread somewhere about someone sending the baillifs against Wizzair that is quite hilarious. I would love to see someone do the same to Ryanair. Question is, should you be the one to take that role. You are entitled to the £220, if your flight was from the UK. If it was TO the UK I suppose it is more of a grey area... though the airlines I know have been using £220 as standard. Not that surprising for Ryanair, the worst cheapskates in the universe, to go for the lower amount, and if you forward this to the CEO he will probably have a jolly good laugh and give his accountants a verbal bonus. After all he's the one who said and I paraphrase "F*** our customers, they'll fly with us again anyway". While we would all love to see Ryanair get wooped in court again, I have to join my fellow posters in thinking it's not worth the hassle for (hypothetically) £7 and not sure it will expedite the payment either. It's already an achievement that you got them to accept to pay.
    • The US competition watchdog has taken legal action to stop Tapestry's $8.5bn takeover of rival Capri.View the full article
  • 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
      • 161 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

The truth about the number of parking cases lodged by BPA members in the Small Claims court in 2011


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4302 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

Compliments of Nev - a tireless worker for the rights of motorists in the UK

 

 

I have an idea that the BPA at some point claimed that there about 36,000 cases per year? Maybe someone can correct me

Dear All,

 

Please find the attached breakdown of those now infamous 845 private parking cases that were lodged by BPA AOS members in the small claims court for 2011 (England and Wales).

 

For those who are not aware, the BPA have come up with a number of explanations as to why these 845 cases don't appear to match their claimed figures of 36,000 to 90,000

 

1) They first thought that the 845 were only appeals to a circuit judge (no they are not)

 

2) Their members list hundreds of cases on one application (no they don't - that's not how the system works - it's one case one listing)

 

3) They don't include NI and Scotland (true- but they represent only a tiny proportion of the population of the UK)

 

4) It was a best guess and they told the DVLA that, it's the DVLA's fault for using the figures in the Impact Assessment.

 

Regards

 

Nev

 

Data (2).xls

Link to post
Share on other sites

Name of Parking Company Number of claims initiated

ARMTRAC SECURITY SERVICES 28

BALFOUR BEATTY WORKPLACE LIMITED 8

BALFOUR BEATTY WORKPLACE LTD 2

BUSINESS WATCH GUARDING LTD 2

CAR PARK SOLUTIONS 1

COMBINED SOLUTIONS UK LTD T/AS COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS 10

COMBINED SOLUTIONS UK LTD T/AS COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS 8

COUNTY PARKING ENF AGY LTD 22

DEVERE PARKING SERVICE 4

DEVERE PARKING SERVICES 92

DEVERE PARKING SERVICES ( A FIRM) 14

DEVERE PARKING SERVICES (A FIRM) 58

DEVERE PARKING SERVICES LTD 52

DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED 30

EAST KENT HOPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 1

EAST KENT HOPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS FUNDATION TRUST 1

EAST KENT HOSPITAL NHS TRUST 1

EAST KENT HOSPITALS U.NHS.F.T ROSS HOUSE 25

EAST KENT HOSPITALS UNIVERSITY N H S FOUNDATION TRUST 1

EAST KENT HOSPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS 1

EAST KENT HOSPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 14

EAST KENT HOSPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS TRUST 1

EAST KENT HOSPTALS UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 1

EAST KENT UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 1

ELITE MANAGEMENT (MIDLANDS) LI 53A LOWER HALL LANE 8

ELITE MANAGEMENT (MIDLANDS) LI BRADFORD HOUSE 7

ELITE MANAGEMENT LTD 53A LOWER HALL LANE 7

ETHICAL GROUP LTD 1

EURO CAR PARKS LIMITED 7

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES 1

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED 7

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD 10

LEGAL PARKING ENFORCERS(UK)LTD 23

NAPIER PARKING LIMITED 1

NCP LTD 2

NEW GENERATION PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD 2

NEWLYN PLC 7

NORTHERN RAIL LTD 2

OBSERVICES PARKING CONSULTANCY LTD 167

OBSERVICES PARKING CONSULTANCY LTD 56

OCS GROUP UK LTD T/A CANNON C ONSUMABLES NORTHGATE WHIT 7

PARKINGEYE LIMITED 40 EATON AVENUE 5

PARKSHIELD.COM LTD T/A PCPEA 9

PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS 13

RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP LIMITED 1

RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP LTD 1

RISK CONSULTANTS LTD T/A APSECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 1

RISK CONSULTANTS LTD T/A ASPECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 5

RISK CONSULTANTS LTD T/A ASPECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 19

RISK CONSULTANTS LTD T/S ASPECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 1

RISK CONSULTANTS T.AS ASPECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 1

RISK CONSULTANTS T/A ASPECT PARKING SOLUTIONS 1

ROSSENDALES COLLECT LIMITED 1

ROSSENDALES LTD 1

SALISBURY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 2

SECURE CAR PARKS LTD 26

SECURITAS SECURITY PERSONNEL L TD CREDIT CONTROL REGENT BU 2

SECURITAS SECURITY PERSONNEL LIMTED 1

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES 1

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES LI MITED 203-205 LOWER RICHMOND 1

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES LI MITED UNIT 2 REDHALL COURT 1

SUSSEX SECURITY SOLUTONS LTD 34

TOTAL PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD 1

TOTAL PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD SOMERSET HOUSE 4

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES 2

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED 8

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD 7

VINCI PARK CAR PARK SERVICES U PORTSOKEN HOUSE 2

WING PARKING LTD 1

Total 845

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd already done some more work on this and got hold of the email exchanges between the BPA and the DVLA that give the audit trail for the original figures (the emails are redacted courtesy of the DVLA).

 

What is clear from those emails and must not get confused is this.

 

The BPA did not supply the DVLA with a numeric figure, they gave then a percentage return of between 2-5% of all AOS members PCN's taken to the small claims court each year (this is important because of what I will get to in a minute or so).

 

It was the DVLA who took that 2-5% range and converted it into a numeric range of being between 36,000 and 90,000. The DVLA did this on the basis that they reckoned on 1.8 million BPA AOS PCN's per year.

 

OK park that there for a minute.

 

Lets go back to the email exchanges, when the BPA gave the 2-5% figure, they also claimed that they believed that their members were issuing 4 million PCNs per year

 

This means that the BPA were (in effect) at that time feeding the DVLA a numeric range of between 80,000 to 200,000 cases in the small claims court each year!

 

The email subject boxes are marked as "AOS Operator Survey Results" - this was not therefore a 'best guess' nor anecdotal evidence informally provided to the Dft. This was information that was passed to the DVLA under the email heading of 'AOS Operator Survey Results'

 

Furthermore, this was information repeatedly asked for by the DVLA to (quote) 'satisfy the economists'

 

It is this 'smoking gun' email sent by Steve Clark (Cc'd to Patrick Troy and Kelvin Reynolds) which contained the crucial 2-5% response for the DVLA and the claim of 4 million tickets

 

That means that 'they' (all three of them were party to the email) were trying to convince the DVLA that their members were taking between 80,000 and 200,000 motorists to court each year!!

 

Now I know that the DVLA challenged them over the 4 million figure which was eventually haggled down to 1.8 million but surely to God the alarm bells should have gone off in the DVLA with the huge disparity and the retraction, when pushed, from 4 million to 1.8 million.

Edited by Nev Met
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only speculate on that. The true figures would not have supported the argument for RK liability and secondly, if you read the actual Impact Assessment that the DVLA wrote I don't think the BPA could have done a better job themselves at making the arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...