Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of  the original  PCN that they sent to the Hirer  along with your hire agreement documents. Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include  all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer.  Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference. Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper.  You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.  
    • This is simply a scam site.  It's been shown to be a scam in the national press and on national TV. Please fill in the the forum sticky and upload the invoice you've received. In fact what you have is an invoice, not a fine, a private company doesn't have the power to issue fines.  
    • Moved to the Private Parking forum.
    • Good afternoon, I am writing because I am very frustrated. I received a parking fine from MET Parking Services Ltd , ( Southgate park Stansted CM24 1PY) . We stopped for a quick meal in Mcdonalds and were there fir around 30 mins. We always do this after flights and never received a parking fine before.  Reason: The vehicle left in Southgate car park without payment made for parking and the occupants southgate premises. they took some pictures of us leaving the car. i did not try and appeal it yet as I came across many forums that this is a scam and I should leave it. But I keep getting threatening letters.  Incident happened : 23/10/2023 I did contact Mcdonalds and they said this:  Joylyn (McDonald’s Customer Services) 5 Apr 2024, 12:05 BST Dear Laura, Thank you for contacting McDonald’s Customer Services. I’m sorry to hear that you have received a Parking Charge Notice following your visit to our Stansted restaurant.   We've introduced parking restrictions at some of our restaurants to make sure there are always parking spaces available for customers.   We appreciate that some visits such as birthday parties or large group visits might take longer and the parking restrictions aren't intended to stop this. If you think your stay will exceed the stated maximum parking time then please speak to a manager in advance.   Your number plate is scanned by our Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system when you enter our car park, and then again when you leave. If you have overstayed the maximum time allowed, you will not be notified straight away- a Parking Charge Notice will be sent to you via the post.   If you feel that a Parking Charge Notice has been issued in error, please contact our approved contractors who issued the charge in order to appeal the charge. Unfortunately McDonald's are unable to revoke parking tickets- the outcome of the appeal is final and cannot be overturned by McDonald’s.   Many thanks for taking the time to contact McDonald’s Customer Services.   Can someone please help me out and suggest what I should do next?  Thank you 
  • 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

Ebay, Distance Selling Regs and Postage


HappyMonday
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5621 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

Hi all...

 

Been a while since I've posted here. I hope your all as helpful as I've found it in the past.

 

I recently bought an item on Ebay for £79.99 plus £12.66 postage + insurance.

 

Item was arguably not as described, and certainly would've been unacceptable to me if I were buying it from a shop, but being a kind soul I decided to 'change my mind' and request a refund under the terms of the distance selling regulations cooling off period (in this case, the period allowed for this would've been three months as the seller hasn't specified anything returns policy wise that I could find) rather than going through an 'item not as described' Paypal buyer protection claim.

 

I specified consistently throughout correspondence that I'm unhappy with the state of the item as received etc, and requested that the seller agree to cover the costs of my returning the item.

 

This request was ignored as you can imagine, and since I wasn't greatly fussed about the return postage I returned the item as 'a gesture of goodwill' (as opposed to making them collect it), still harping on about how I should be refunded for the cost of the postage etc.

 

I've now received a refund of the £79.99 original payment, but the seller is under the impression he doesn't have to refund the original postage amount either...Specifically...

 

"Item dispatched by request via express courier so postage cannot be refunded under distant selling regulation. Item returned unwanted,"

 

I've found an approximately equal amount of support and derision of this stance online, though how my agreement to accept dispatch via courier absolves the seller of refunding me the costs of said courier is completely beyond me. Sellers seem to draw the distinction between services and goods when referring to postage etc.

 

This is not the impression that consumers are given by Ebay, or indeed by a number of government sources online.

 

Can anybody clarify the position I'm in before I escalate the dispute?

Debt free, partially thanks to CAG forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Internet auction sites are excempt from the distance selling regulations, however if it was from a trader then your are covered under statutory rights and SOGA applies. If a private sale then you are not covered unless it was misrepresented in some way. Postage is not normally refundable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is very clear, the seller is liable to refund postage. It's harsh but clear.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

raydetinu is partially correct. Auction sites are not covered by DSR's, and in my experience even 'Buy It Now' on eBay is a grey area. BUT if item is not as described - then whether Auction or not - the seller is responsible for postage.

 

The only time seller is not responsible for postage is if the buyer just changes his mind.

 

If the seller is a business trader, then I would get his exact details, write him an LBA, demanding cost of postage for the LBA, and sue him for the postage plus interest at 8% per annum.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:!: All the information I impart is my advice based on my experience. It does not constitute professional advice. If in doubt, always consult with a professional. :!:

 

:-) If you feel my post has been helpful, please click my scales. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this everyone, I think this one will have to go unchallenged. The faults with the item are too unsubstantial for me to start getting heavy about it, and if Buy It Now on Ebay is a grey area too then we're talking serious holes in the argument.

 

However, Ebay claim that Buy It Now is definitely covered -

 

"The Distance Selling Regulations apply to items purchased via Buy It Now listings and Second Chance Offers on eBay.co.uk. However, they don't apply to auction format listings on eBay.co.uk,".

 

I should've approached this as a defective item etc, and I didn't because I assumed any costs related to the transaction were also covered under DSR return rights. This was stupid, but this information is not made clear in the Ebay help for consumers quoted above, or in the other government sourced information I accessed.

 

Might write something complaining in this respect to those it may concern.

Edited by HappyMonday

Debt free, partially thanks to CAG forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For Robert Harpers benefit, some of the sites I accessed are to be found below ;

 

Legal Guidance for Business Sellers

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

 

Distance Selling Regulations - BERR

 

 

All I can say is, I thought that the seller is liable for both sets of postage if I chose to change my mind and I was doing them a favour not getting heavy about my return postage - Quoth Ebay's guidance for businesses on the matter ;

 

"Under the Distance Selling Regulations, buyers have a period of 7 working days after the date of delivery within which they can cancel the contract (often referred to as the "cooling off" period) and get their money back, including the original postage and packing charges. You must refund the original delivery charges. However, you are permitted to require the buyer to pay for the cost of returning the item, but only if you clearly inform the buyer of this before the contract is made.," -

 

I'm now out both, and it seems from a lot of the internet information that buyers are not as well covered as it at first seems.

Edited by HappyMonday
Clarity

Debt free, partially thanks to CAG forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...