Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have received a PCN from Euro Car Parks for MFG - Esso Cobham - Gravesend. I was completely unaware that there was any such limit for parking and always considered this to be a service station. I stopped there to use the toilet, have a coffee and made a couple of work calls. I have read the previous topics on this location which suggest I can ignore this and ECP will not take legal action. The one possible complication is that the vehicle is leased by my employer so I do not want to involve them with the associated reminders and threatening letters. The PCN was first issued to the leasing company Arval who have notified ECP of the hiring company. I have attached a copy of the PCN Notice to Hirer with details removed as per instructions. What options do I have or should I just pay the PCN promptly at the reduced rate of £60? img20240424_23142631.pdf
    • What you have uploaded is a letter with daft empty threats from third-party paper tigers.  Just ignore it. What we need to see is the original invoice you received last October or November.
    • 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.  
  • 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

Stockport Truck Centre - work done without permission & excessive charges


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2476 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

As soon as you leave the meeting, you should write up notes of the conversation.

 

It would be best if she wrote her version – and you wrote your version independently and then you compare the two which will allow you to remind each other of what each of you might have missed or have forgotten.

 

You should at the very least have been able to inspect the vehicle – if you're lucky, you will be able to agree a price and to drive it away. The price might not be the best one that you could hope for, but it might be a lot better than having to get into litigation because if that is the way it goes, it will be quite a few weeks and even months before you see the vehicle again

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

By the way, when she contacts him to arrange the appointment, she should tell him that she will be bringing you along. Don't let it be a surprise. Frankly it's a shame that they can't be some other person to come along and support who is familiar with the situation and who might even be able to drive the vehicle away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant. I'll do just that. Your support is I hate confrontations anyway and always choose the non-aggressive way. I will report back as soon as possible. Your support is invaluable and I'd be totally lost without it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question please, the meeting is set for tomorrow between 9.30-11am. My ex would like to know if as the owner of the truck she has any rights over the holding of it? If the garage can still hold it even though she owns it and was not involved in the original dispute. If she has a right to repossess the vehicle then that could force the garage to negotiate a settlement. If the garage cannot forcefully hold the vehicle, is there any law she can quote so to speak?

Link to post
Share on other sites

She is protected by the torts interference with good act and she would have to bring an action for conversion.

 

however,if she has to start talking about legal rights then the negotiation has failed. I would not start mentioning anything about legal rights . the best thing she can do if the negotiation fails is simply to walk out politely saying that she will be obliged to take action to recover her vehicle.

trying to avoid talking about anything legal because it simply mean that the negotiation has failed.

 

She doesn't understand enough about the subject to start talking about legal rights in a threatening way

Link to post
Share on other sites

My father had a saying - "Icily polite". Thats the way to play it.

Warmly polite will produce better results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We came back from the meeting and have been told to wait for Ian to discuss with Gareth and get back to me.

In the meeting, I introduced my ex as the owner of the truck with the documents (Logbook & loan agreement secured on the truck signed when I borrowed the money from her to buy the truck) present. Ian dismissed that completely and said that that does not have an impact at all on the matter and is irrelevant.

He would talk to me as the "contract" is with me. They then went on to say I absolutely and clearly gave them the go ahead to find, fix and repair any and all problems and that I will be paying the bill whatever it was at the end. I politely confirmed that that was untrue and I was not there to argue rather to negotiate a fair settlement. Ian said the bill cannot be reduced because of their position that I gave them the go ahead but he is willing to offer me a reduction to end the matter. He said if I paid 2000 then that will be the end of the matter. I insisted I never gave the go ahead and pointed out that I had noticed on the MOT that the load sensing valve (LSV) had been written down as seized and as this is what controls the amount of pressure going to the rear brakes, it would have been simple to repair that first before trying anything else. It would have equated to 165 for the part including an hours labour to fit it. He said they have to look elsewhere first as is their practice to determine if anything else might be faulty. This led to the many many hours of investigative work hence the very high labour costs. I also explained the cost of the parts used where excessive even if I was to buy them directly from suppliers without a trade discount. He explained they use their own suppliers to guarantee quality. This is ridiculous as a couple of those parts are coming from Iveco themselves.

 

I insisted I wasn't trying to remove the vehicle without paying nor was I there to have an argument or a full discussion of how things work as we are all mechanics and should be familiar already. I increased my offer to 1200 including VAT and let him know that was my absolute final offer. He (Ian) said he cannot see that offer as being acceptable to his company but he will discuss it anyway and let me know. We agreed and left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BankFodder, I recieved the email from Ian this morning and it reads:

 

Good morning,

 

I have spoken to my MD yesterday and we both agree that we have done everything correctly and carried out the repairs in good faith. We cannot give a reduction on the invoice and would like the matter resolved by the end of this week.

 

If payment isn’t made by the end of this week then we will have to start charging storage of £25.00 per day.

 

What would be the next step in terms of a reply I could send to them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

After speaking with my ex, she was willing to loan me £500 to help remove the truck and then I could pay her back after I go to court. I spoke to a friend of mine who was also prepared to loan me £1300 by calling in with his credit card. I would pay the rest. I emailed Ian and told him I would the £2395.05 under protest and explained that my friend will call up and pay with his card and once payment is received to let me know so I can come and pay the balance and collect the truck.

 

He replied saying he would not be taking payment over the phone and my friend would need to to come in and pay in person. Trust issues. The problem is my friend is currently in Belgium working away so I'm stuck. This got me thinking and made me feel angry because even though he is trying to fleece me by going ahead and doing work not agreed to I have been making offers and trying to negotiate to release the truck. Not only did they do that, they did unnecessary work and then charged a ridiculous amount for it. After all that, I manage to secure payment to release the truck and he refuses even that just to make life difficult and in an attempt to increase the payment by charging £25 a day storage. I've decided enough is enough. I won't let him bully me and hold me to ransom. This is bad practice and blatant robbery masquerading as a professional outfit. I'm going to inform him I am cancelling all previous offers. I should not have to pay for their errors. I will then compile a letter of intent asking for the truck to be put back to how it was and returned to me.

I'll then issue small claims proceedings to recover the truck.

 

I could do with some pointers on writing the letter of intent. How long to wait etc. BankFodder are you still there, some advice on how to proceed with be invaluable right now so I get it right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now spoken to a solicitor (a good one recommended by a colleague) who after reviewing the case confirms what I've been saying all along that we did not have an agreement. For even a verbal agreement to be relied upon, it needs to be complete and meet certain criteria. He will handle my case should I instruct him to do so. I've got a reference number from CAB who will refer my case to the Trading Standards should I wish to report them. I've written my letter explaining the situation which has been sent today to STC and detailing my request. If they refuse my request which by their track record is inevitable, then hopefully things will start moving much more structured to bring their vile injustice and bad practice to an end. I will then go full steam ahead and firstly report them to Trading Standards before continuing down the road to justice. I'm now more determined than ever to not let them bully me into paying when the fault was theirs.

 

Companies should really cut out this bad practice of carrying out work when not instructed to do so then charging what they want causing misery to honest and hard working motorists who feel pressurized to pay and then have their vehicles held to ransom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...