Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No, do the section 75 chargeback to your credit card provider.
    • See what dx thinks but it seems to me that sending a photo of your own pass isn't relevant to what happened. Let's wait and see what he says. HB
    • 1st letter image.pdf1st letter 2nd page.pdf
    • Many thanks for the replies and advice!   I what to send this email to the Starbucks CEO and the area manager. Your thoughts would be appreciated.   [email protected] [email protected]   Re: MET Parking PNC at your Starbucks Southgate site   Dear Ms Rayner, / Dear Heather Christie,   I have received a Notice to Keeper regarding a Parking Charge Notice of £100 for the driver parking in the Southgate Park Car Park, otherwise infamously known as the Stanstead Starbucks/McDonalds car park(s).   Issued by: MET Parking Services Ltd Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXX Vehicle Registration Number: XXXX XXX Date of Contravention: XX.XX.XXXX Time: XX:XX - XX:XX   After a little research it apears that the driver is not alone in being caught in what is commonly described as a scam, and has featured in the national press and on the mainstream television.   It is a shame that the reputation of Starbucks is being tarnished by this, with your customers leaving the lowest possible reviews on Trustpilot and Trip Advisor at this location, and to be associated with what on the face of it appears to be a doubious and predatory car park management company.   In this instance, during the early hours of the morning the driver required a coffee and parked up outside Starbucks with the intention of purchasing one from yourselves. Unfortunately, you were closed so the driver walked to McDonalds next door and ordered a coffee, and for this I have received the Notice to Keeper.   It is claimed that the car park is two separate car parks (Starbucks/McDonalds). However, there is no barrier or road markings to identity a boundary, and the signage in the car park(s) and outside your property is ambiguous, as such the terms would most likely be deemed unfair and unenforcable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   I understand that Starbucks-Euro Garages neither operate or benefit from the charges imposed by MET Parking. However, MET Parking is your client.   Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.   However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   As the driver’s intention of the visit was genuine, I would be grateful if you could please instruct your client to cancel this Notice to Keeper/Parking Charge Notice.   Kind regards
    • I received the promised call back from the Saga man today who informed me that the undertakers have decreed it IS a modification and they will need to recalculate a quote individually for me. However it all sounds very arbitrary. The more I think about it, and with help from forum replies, the more I am sure that it is not a modification. If for example the original seatback had become damaged by a spillage or a tear, I would be entitled to replace it with the nearest available part. The problem is when it comes to a payout after an accident, there is no telling what an individual insurer will decide when he notices the change. I am still undecided which of the two best routes to go with, either don't mention the replacement at all, or fill in the quote form without mentioning, and when it comes to buying the insurance over the phone, mention it at the time.
  • 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

Me vs BoS


df1985
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6419 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

Morning,

Having used much of the info on this site I wrote away claiming charges for £2064 from BoS over the last 3 years. I had no idea it was so much till I pored over my statements!

 

Got a letter back today offering £1108...not to be sniffed at but still just over 50% of what I have paid them in penalty charges. Before I go charging ahead angrily demanding everything back does anyone have anything to advise?

 

I feel that I ought to push for more at this would wipe out my student overdraft (which I wouldn't have if it wasn't for these charges!!)

 

Cheers,

df.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Accept it as part settlement and advise them you'll be pursuing them through the courts for the remainder (they'll probably withdraw their offer at that point).

 

Keep going df!!!!

14/09/2006 - Data Protection Act letter sent to my bank.............here goes :D

28/09/2006 - Statements received through the post. Charges appear to be in the region of £2000 :eek:

04/10/2006 - Prelim letter sent for charges of £2037 :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can point blank refuse the offer, but I think the general consensus is to accept it as an interim payment and continue claiming for the rest. You don't have to 'charge angrily ahead' though, just politely point out that you thank them for their offer, however you will still be claiming the rest. I presume this offer is just following your prelim letter? I got an offer at this stage as well - this is what I wrote back (with thanks to a mix of templates and other people's letters on CAG!):

 

Dear xxxxx,

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxx

SORT CODE: xx-xx-xx

Thank you for your letter of xx September 2006. I am happy to accept the offer of £xxxx.xx payment from you as an interim payment on the total amount of my claim, though not as full and final settlement.

I must differ with the views expressed in your letter as to your charges being fair, reasonable and transparent. As I have already stated, I now understand that the regime of 'fees' which you have been applying to my account in relation to direct debit refusals, exceeding overdraft limits and so forth are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer regulations. The charges laid out in the original contract are unlawful penalty charges and cannot be legally enforced i.e. charges in relation to unauthorised Overdraft, Referral, Chq/DD/SO Unpaid etc are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to Common Law. Further, as a disproportionate penalty they are invalid under the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2 (1) (e). In the event that the charges are not a penalty then they are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15. Therefore, I would once again draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that I opened my account. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law.

 

Since my initial letter further charges have been levied on my account, bringing the total I calculate that you have taken to £xxxx.xx. I am enclosing an amended copy of the schedule of the charges which I am claiming, further to the copy I already sent in my original letter of the xx xxxxx 2006. [This paragraph may or may not apply!]

I would also point out that the 14 day period I defined for resolution of this matter has now ended without satisfactory conclusion. I require repayment in full of this money, to a total of £xxxx.xx. If you do not comply fully within 14 days (on or before xx.xx.06) then I shall begin a court claim against you for the full amount plus interest as well as my costs and without further notice to you. I have included, on the schedule of charges, the standard 8% APR interest amount that will be applied for your reference should this go as far as a court.

 

I trust this clarifies my position.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Its not angry, it just makes a point! Are you only claiming 3 years because you've only had the account that long?

~

:p I'm a lover, not a fighter... well, most of the time :razz: ~

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...