Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
    • The music streaming service reports record profits of over €1bn (£860m) after laying off 1500 staff.View the full article
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention of peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now - post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!   Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.   Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.   A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
  • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4367 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

All I want is my statements to end on the 2nd of each month.

 

Instead I get two pages sent days apart.

 

It seems that when I have generated 25 transactions the statement is sent leaving the remaining days to the 2nd of the month to come later.

 

This make it harder for me to manage my account, less able to compare like with like.

I want to know how much has gone in and come out for the said period, not part of the said period.

 

I spent years deciding to leave Lloyds bank, purely for ethical reasons.

 

However, I had the statements I wanted with them...in Lloyds case up to the 15th of each month.

 

Why can Lloyds do it and not the Co-op.

 

I am told it is their system...so why cant they change their system?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to agree with Ims, if you don't have internet banking, then I would recommend getting it.

No more paper statements if you don't want them and all your info at your fingertips when you want it.

:razz:ALWAYS REMEMBER, IF YOU GOT YOURSELF INTO YOUR SITUATION, YOU ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF GETTING YOURSELF OUT OF IT

WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE DCA's!!!!!!!!!!!

 

IF YOU NEED HELP WITH UPLOADING YOUR IMAGES THROUGH PHOTOBUCKET CLICK HERE

IF I HAVE HELPED YOU OR MADE YOU SMILE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CLICK MY STAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Online banking only shows you an online version of what you'd have been sent in the post.

 

The statement frequency is as follows:

Every 25 transactions

(if you have charges or interest) the 5th of each month.

A date you specified.

 

As a result, you could get one statement on the 1st because it's hit the 25 item cap. One more on the 2nd because you asked for it. One more on the 5th if you're utilising an overdraft facility, or went over limit between the 6th of the previous month and the 5th of this month.

 

Online banking will copy the same timescales, but there's no longer wasted paper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I like to see is how much money over a given period has gone in and out....that given period being to the 2nd of each month. Can online banking do that for me? I don't want to get a calculator out. I know Lloyds (who I finally left for the Co-op) is not the most ethical bank in the world, but their customer service does seem better.

Edited by Bethie
I repeated myself
Link to post
Share on other sites

Online banking only shows you an online version of what you'd have been sent in the post.

 

The statement frequency is as follows:

Every 25 transactions

(if you have charges or interest) the 5th of each month.

A date you specified.

 

As a result, you could get one statement on the 1st because it's hit the 25 item cap. One more on the 2nd because you asked for it. One more on the 5th if you're utilising an overdraft facility, or went over limit between the 6th of the previous month and the 5th of this month.

 

Online banking will copy the same timescales, but there's no longer wasted paper.

 

huh.......online banking shows you realtime spending

 

esp the co-op....

 

call 08457 212212 and ask for it to be set-up for you

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The online banking is as "real time" as you can get without confusing people. The reason why anyone has an issue with the online banking - and i'm being as nice as I can here - is because they don't keep track of their own spending.

 

The ONLY way you can lose out with co-op online banking is by spending money on your card and not keeping note of it. The money won't show online until the day the retailer comes to collect it, which is around 2 or 3 days after the transaction was made. Also weekends and bank holidays are a bad time for many people who tend to forget about direct debits due out on the Monday, and therefore spend the money that should be in for the bill. What happens then, is the bank bounces the bill but it still shows on the screen, making you think you've still got £50 in your account and the £55 direct debit was actually paid.

 

The co-op cannot include outstanding authorisations because of the above reasons, and also because many retailers don't check the account balance before authorising a card payment. It's called a floor limit, and if you spend below it, neither your bank, online banking, nobody can tell you what's due out on your card over the coming days.

 

Cash, funds transfers, standing orders and direct debits are displayed to you in real time, but only if the money is in the account for the latter two.

 

The online banking cannot calculate spending from the 3rd of one month to the 2nd of the next. I'm afraid it's going to be a lot of copy & paste or calculating for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only ask if online banking can do this for me as people have suggested it can...all I really want is for my paper statement to be as requested, something Lloyds were able to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the co-op online portal unlike the lloyds one

does not let you select a date range

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...