Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I am a local authority tenant and was in a 3 bed house. At the end of last year, my last child moved out and so did my spouse as we are now going through a divorce which meant that I was in the house alone and decided that I needed to downsize not only for myself but to offer the property to a family that needed it. I registered on the local authority housing bidding site as i was asked to do and I was accepted and given a priority banding as I was downsizing and they were desperate for my house. I have been extremely lucky and after about 6 weeks was accepted for a new build from a housing association via the housing gateway. I viewed the property 2 weeks ago and had to sign the tenancy last week when they were doing bulk signups for the houses and that is the day I moved. In between viewing and sign up, I contacted my current local authority landlord and asked how I give notice as I had been accepted for a property I had bid on and was moving.  The lady told me how to do it online and then said that I needed to give a full weeks notice which wasnt a problem as I had enough time.  (I was also told a weeks notice was what i would need to give by another staff member about a month ago when I phoned up for another housing related question.  I dont have any of this in writing.) I have now moved, handed back the keys and I am now being told that I need to give 4 weeks notice which I cannot afford. I hav e spoken to the council again explaining that I was told a week and that to be honest, if I knew they were going to charge me 4 weeks I would not have been able to move and would have stayed in the other house.  I thought I was doing the right thing. They said that calls are recorded and they asked me when I called in and was told a week and they would listen to the telephone conversation and if it was correct what I was told, they would see what they could do to reduce the notice period. They have now emailed me back and said that they have listened to the conversation and the lady said 4 weeks notice and I am liable for 4 weeks rent.  Now I may well of misheard her when I thought she said a full weeks notice she may have said 4 weeks notice but I am sure she said a full weeks notice and i was told a week by another member of staff a few weeks ago. I have emailed her back and said that I may of misheard but I would like to listen to the phone recording myself.  As yet they havent responded. I think its unreasonable for them to make me give 4 weeks when I had to sign the new tenancy with little notice or loose the property.  And it was all done through their gateway, and they will have a tenant in there pretty much straight away getting rent from them. I am on a very low income, I am on my own, I have serious medical issues and I am really getting myself stressed out over this. Any advice would be so appreciated.  Can I insist they let me listed to the recording? RH  
    • Susan Crichton is at the Inquiry today. She seems to have trouble remembering a lot of things but seems to find it easier if it's something that shows her in a good light.
    • Send them a letter of claim straightaway. No point hanging around. Given 14 days in the letter of claim and if they haven't paid you by then, issue the claim on day 15. The amount of time is more than adequate for them to get going. Post your draft letter of claim here. A look at. Then log onto the MoneyClaim website and start preparing your claim and post your particulars of claim here for us to have a look at. Don't bluff. No point in it.
    • That's what we thought, but the store manager is inferring that, as the jeweller we used was not a member of the NJA, no one  would give what he said, any credence. The Jeweller we used is in fact, a long established, well respected company, with 2 store and rather than just being a retailer, they craft the most exquisite jewellery inhouse!  I wish my Fiancé would have bought from them rather than H Samuel! Do you think we do need to get another report from and NJA accredited Jeweller ?
    • Really pleased that you won. UKPC know that you have supremacy of contract but still they persist because so many motorists blindly pay them.   Muppets.
  • 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

G24 PCN - Bangor, Unauthorized parking.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2037 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

hmm it did seem a bit too easy to find my PCN and use as a service, they are just another registered company probably owned by the same lot... its just this time they are trying to bring the company into respute rather than myself... which is causing me some grief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi

Just to cover your back (and if you haven't already done so) tell the lease company not to pay this charge. On occasion, we have seen where a lease company has paid the charge and then added the admin fee.

 

One other thing of note. G24 haven't taken anybody to court in the last 3 (and a bit) years. They know their charges are bogus and don't want to risk throwing good money at this.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pointless going to the IAS as it's an 'old boys club' where fairness is sadly lacking. I would just ignore anything but court papers.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

it will backfire for more than one reason so dont be tempted. Will and John like you to use their premium service which is binding on you and costs you money just the be lied to so let them do their wort at their own expense as it wont make the slightest difference to the outcome.

Also it states I can appeal via the Indipendant appeals service, is this one that would back fire on me if I were to go through this?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Will & John are IAS so being naughty.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

its just the fact that they are writing to the company directly which is causing me the biggest issue. I dont mind them trying to take me, but they are trying to hold the company liable which is nothing to do with them. do I need to go down the ICA route for any reason legally? or just wait for a court summons?

 

Regards,

Lee

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the company are the hirer. The only way to get around that is to name yourself (or for the company to name you) as the driver. But on the bright side, at least the lease company are out of the picture now. :thumb:

 

Whilst it wouldn't normally be recommended. I honestly don't think that being named as the driver will make very much difference in this case. The signs are prohibitive, so there's no contract for you to accept or breach. Therefore G24 have no case no matter who they're going after.

 

There's still no point in appealing to the IAS though. Waste of a stamp. :-(

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you dont need to go down the IAS route and that is why they like you to be bound by it, they arent honest.

 

You are a long way from court and G24 know this. they also knoe about VCS v Phillip, where VCS tried it on for a prohibitive sign claim and not only lost the claim but had to pay £500 for a breach of the DPA counterclaim as well. This was the first one in court that accepted the principle of Google v Vidal Hall where you dont ahve to show a quantum for damages, just that the law was broken.

 

Several other people have followed suit and all have been successful. Bit like getting money for injury to feelings (impossible at this level) , normally a high hurdle but now decided the rate is £250-1000 so a question of how much rather than whether it is due. If they continue to try their luck you remind them of this case and the consequences

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will instruct our guys to name me as the driver and only 'attempt' to take action for me - if they persue the company further instead of me, is there anything I can do to limit me getting any fallout from this?

 

thanks for the help guys much appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also noticed that my PCN qualifies for a 'Standard Appeal' which is free;

 

You may use the IAS to appeal FREE of charge.

 

The result will not be binding on you but will be binding on the operator.

 

Is it worth trying this to get the company out of the loop claiming me as a driver? They really do not like this and are quite threatened by it for some reason -.-

Link to post
Share on other sites

VCS v Phillip, could be fatal to their claim if they tried it on, no contract could be formed as it is a prohibition of parking outside store opening times, so any monies demanded would be an unlawful penalty. It may be argued that ParkingEye V Beavis would support that contention rather than VCS claim.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one has ever won an IAS appeal, they have been shown on television with undercover reportage rejecting all appeals without reading them using a standard reply. We keep telling you this but you seem hell bent on shooting yourself in the foot. Why? Just do things that help your situation, not make it worse

Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow EB's advice.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks EB, I will inform our guys not to pay anything to them and also to direct them to me if they try to chase the company they will hopefully hit a dead end, but it seems the people here just want me to pay it - I will be stubborn on this I am not paying anything to them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Had a nice letter waiting from G24 today.

 

see attached pdfs. They said they would not respond to the previous correspondence. full of empty threats, I await them to either drop it or see them in court.

 

any recommendations if they do call me to court :)

parking eye page 1.pdf

parking eye page 2.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

they don't call you to court

the court does via an N1

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

Bet if I phoned G24 and said I had entered their car park after hours on a pushbike or a mobility scooter, did so and their cameras caught images of said bike or scooter and gave them my contact details they would issue a similar invoice for "parking" outside permitted hours to me. It is a prohibition, there can be no consequential loss, as it is trespass, and their demand is a Civil penalty which is a no no.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me their names and addresses and I will send them some spurious invoices on headed paper and we can split the money.

 

haha I have only just seen this one. Imaginary Invoices incoming :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

name and ref no's showing - hidden

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

  • 4 months later...

They have named me as the driver and correspond to my home address now.

 

Since this last rejection letter I hear nothing for months.. until another PCN appears, the same as the original but with the missing (NO IMAGE) magically now appearing.

 

I have replied to them and they have sent another rejection letter. Its going around in circles now constantly. They clearly haven't got a leg to stand on!

Penalty Charge Notice - 2 September 2018 Scribbled.pdf

parking for forum post.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

You are falling for the old trick of responding to them. Whilst you are writing to them, they will keep thinking that you are scared.

 

 

If you do choose to send them one more letter, I would use just four words. "See you in court."

 

 

You cannot breach a prohibitive notice. Simple as that and any judge worth his/her salt would know this but I doubt it will get that far.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...