Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi welcome to the Forum.  If a PCN is sent out late ie after the 12th day of the alleged offence, the charge cannot then be transferred from the driver to the keeper.T he PCN is deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch so in your case, unless you can prove that Nexus sent the PCN several days after they claim you have very little chance of winning that argument. All is not lost since the majority of PCNs sent out are very poorly worded so that yet again the keeper is not liable to pay the charge, only the driver is now liable. If you post up the PCN, front and back we will be able to confirm whether it is compliant or not. Even if it is ok, there are lots of other reasons why it is not necessary to pay those rogues. 
    • Hi 1 Date of the infringement  arr 28/03/24 21:00, dep 29/03/24 01.27 2 Date on the NTK  08/04/2024 (Date of Issue) 3 Date received Monday 15/04/24 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012?  Yes 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No  7 Who is the parking company? GroupNexus 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Petrol Station Roadchef Tibshelf South DE55 5T 'operating in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice' I received a Parking Charge letter to keeper on Monday 15/04/24, the 17th day after the alleged incident. My understanding is that this is outside the window for notifying. The issue date was 08/04/2024 which should have been in good time for it to have arrived within the notice period but in fact it actually arrived at lunchtime on the 15th. Do I have to prove when it arrived  (and if so how can I do that?) or is the onus on them to prove it was delivered in time? All I can find is that delivery is assumed to be on the second working day after issue which would have been Weds 10//04/24 but it was actually delivered 5 days later than that (thank you Royal Mail!). My husband was present when it arrived - is a family member witness considered sufficient proof?
    • lookinforinfo - many thanks for your reply. It would be very interesting to get the letter of discontinuance. The court receptionist said that the county court was in Gloucester 'today' so that makes me think that some days it is in Gloucester and some days its in Cheltenham, it was maybe changed by the courts and i was never informed, who knows if DCBL were or not. My costs were a gallon of petrol and £3.40 for parking. I certainly don't want to end up in court again that's for sure but never say never lol. Its utterly disgusting the way these crooks can legally treat motorists but that's the uk for you. I'm originally from Scotland so it's good that they are not enforceable there but they certainly still try to get money out of you. I have to admit i have lost count of the pcn's i have received in the last 2 yr and 4 months since coming to England for work, most of them stop bothering you on their own eventually, it was just this one that they took it all the way. Like i mentioned in my WS the the likes of Aldi and other companies can get them cancelled but Mcdonalds refused to help me despite me being a very good customer.   brassednecked - many thanks   honeybee - many thanks   nicky boy - many thanks    
    • Huh? This is nothing about paying just for what I use - I currently prefer the averaged monthly payment - else i wouldn't be in credit month after month - which I am comfortable with - else I wold simply request a part refund - which I  would have done if they hadn't reduced my monthly dd after the complaint I raised (handled slowly and rather badly) highlighted the errors in their systems (one of which they do seem to have fixed) Are you not aware DD is always potentially variable? ah well, look it up - but my deal is a supposed to average the payments over a year, and i dont expect them to change payments (up or down) without my informed agreement ESPECIALLY when I'm in credit over winter.   You are happy with your smart meter - jolly for you I dont want one, dont have to have one  - so wont   I have a box that tells me my electricity usage - was free donkeys years ago and shows me everything I need to know just like a smart meter but doesnt need a smart meter,  and i can manually set my charges - so as a side effect - would show me if the charges from the supplier were mismatched. Doesn't tell me if the meters actually calibrated correctly - but neither does your smart meter. That all relies on a label and the competence of the testers - and the competence of any remote fiddling with the settings. You seem happy with that - thats fine. I'm not.    
  • 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

Ripped off by Locksmith


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2181 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

Yes guilty I’m a Rover enthusiast.

 

...My position is, if chummy rejects my offer of £140.00 IFAFS I shall pay a lesser amount (s ay £125) into his bank account .....

Why a lesser amount to your proposed settlement? The courts would look unfavourably on you with this course of action.

 

......into his bank account .....
Why into his bank account? In my view you would be better sending him a cheque for the amount your proposing with the condition if he presents the cheque he is accepting that amount in Full and Final Settlement.

 

......I very much doubt that HH will view his behaviour with approval.
From what you say this is a B2B issue. The courts won't intervene to the value of work done. Sorry for you but ericsbrother and Consumer Dude are correct on this one.
Link to post
Share on other sites

As HMRC do not recognise small landlords as a business for tax purposes, a court is unlikely to either.

 

 

I very much doubt if chummy will take me to court over a few pounds, in any case the police or TS may save him the bother.

 

 

Also he appears to be unfamiliar with the process, I sent him a letter marked "without prejudice" and he accused me of being prejudiced. He is also unlikely to be able to produce a compliant LBA without legal assistance. I do not think that, with his rapsheet, CPR27.14(2)(g) costs are likely.

 

 

Why a lesser amount? Perhaps not, perhaps a fiver more, and a cheque in full and final settlement is a good idea, let us see if he has the cojones to return it uncashed, but not until I have received a letter from a DCA. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

As HMRC do not recognise small landlords as a business for tax purposes, a court is unlikely to either.

 

The court can reach its own decision, and isn't bound by HMRC's opinion.

 

You own several properties, engage tradesmen several times a year to them, and have traded for 40 years (according to your own posts).

If it looks like a duck, quacks, and waddles when it walks : chances are it's a duck.

Sounds like a business to me, and the court can reach the same conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course letting properties is s business, but HMG do not think so. I am taxed on SA and the properties are not incorporated into the company. I suggest that it is a platypus.

 

In any case would chummy pass the "clean hands" test?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course letting properties is s business, but HMG do not think so...

 

No....HMRC might take that view (I've not checked so can't confirm), that does not mean the the independent courts have the same view.

 

In any case would chummy pass the "clean hands" test?.
Could be irrelevant if not directly linked to the case. Edited by 416GSi
Link to post
Share on other sites

....I very much doubt if chummy will take me to court over a few pounds...

I'm not clear why its worth your time either.

 

 

....Also he appears to be unfamiliar with the process, I sent him a letter marked "without prejudice" and he accused me of being prejudiced...

Now that is funny!

 

....He is also unlikely to be able to produce a compliant LBA without legal assistance...

Thats not difficult he only needs to Google LBA and he will get loads of templates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You were prepared to pay £181 + VAT before so why not now?

 

 

Where did I say that? In any case that figure included vat.

 

 

Bear in mind that locksmiths undergo training of between a few days and less than a year. It is hardly rocket science.

 

Not sure why I received no further notifications regarding this post so apologies for the delayed reply.

 

My mistake, £181 incl VAT, but the point in my post remains...

 

That afternoon he phones me, office has reduced the cost to £181 including v.a.t.

Ask for an invoice. Invoice arrives next day for £254.00

 

Query this with head office, (a one man micro company), and next day they send a revised bill for £181.

 

So you asked for a £181 invoice after the alleged threats he made, (eventually) got a £181 invoice, but now want to pay £140... or £125... or some other amount.

 

Again, anything else is just handbags... In your first post you said when he was going to charge you £281 and you asked for a VAT invoice which is when he turned nasty... Nastiness aside - were you ever going to pay the £281 if he sent you the VAT invoice?

 

In any event you got him down by £100 to £181 and are now, for want of a better word, extorting him for a further discount...

 

My suggestion - pay the £181 and get on with your life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I complain to the company and the customer service chappie sends (to the wrong address), an insulting reply saying they are not charging me and offering 15% discount on future work (as if)." - https://uk.trustpilot.com/users/55b299cf0000ff0001cf0f1b

 

Looking at your other review and replies in this thread you seem to think the world owes you something, you need to grow up and get a grip. An insulting reply ? They aren't charging you and offering you a discount for a mistake that in all honesty has probably cost you nothing. What is more insulting is the way you treat these people that are trying to do a job you have asked them to do. As others have said just pay the £181 and stop with the small willy waving thinking you are the better man, because from here you just come across as a complete and utter fool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...