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

Sofology Fellini sofas not fit for purpose!


Xander4343
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2238 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

We purchased a 3 piece Fellini suit (one 1-seater, one 2-seater and one 3-seater) which arrived in July 2017.

This sofa had to be returned due to significant damage (what looked like tooling marks) and significant discrepancies in the leather quality to all 3 items.

 

We received a replace set in August 2017 which also had discrepancies in the leather quality

This was noted (and photographed) by the delivery person and we were told that if there was any issues we could follow up.

We also commented to the delivery person that the leather surfaces on all 3 seated items appeared to be too large for each seat and was significantly looser on these replacement items compared to original.

However he said this was normal and that we should push the "excess leather to the sides" to have a tighter and smooth surface.

 

After confirming this should not be the case, after checking this with Felinni sofas on display in both the Glasgow and Edinburgh stores, we wrote and called Sofology for feedback.

 

Since September we have contacted Sofology numerous times including photos to document issues without follow-up to my calls.

 

In the absence of a reply from Sofology (call/email)

I again visited both the Edinburgh and Glasgow stores to compare the leather on the Fellini sofas on display and to show the staff the pictures of our 6 week old sofas.

 

In both stores staff were very surprised to see how loose the leather was on our sofas as stated that this is not how the leather should be especially considering the age. Moreover, they also commented that the leather on the Fellini display sofas was in much better condition and much tighter despite being tested by customers daily.

 

Both the Edinburgh and Glasgow stores said that the leather on the Fellini sofa should not look as ours does and that the leather should remain tight for a long number of years. They suggested that I retake/resend some additional pictures to highlight how loose the leather is on all 3 items as this is unacceptable with a sofa set costing in excess of £2,000.

 

We are extremely dissatisfied with the level of customer care that we have received/are receiving from Sofology. This is now the 2nd Fellini sofa set that we have received from Sofology which is not fit for purpose. Not only does the leather look terrible due to the excess material used, it actually looks like it has been cut to the wrong size.

 

After a visit from HomeServe to inspect the sofas we have waited over 8 weeks for a reply from Sofology despite being contacted 5 times by email.

 

We are now being offered a repair despite HomeServe confirming (after inspection) to Sofology that this is a manufacturing defect.

 

We are still trying to get resolution on this as we are unwilling to accept a repair as these issues were identified at delivery.

We have now had 2 Felinni sofas (6 pieces in total) all of which have manufacturing issues.

We now no longer have confidence in the manufacturer of this Felinni sofa.

 

While Sofology do obviously have many beautiful sofas and many satisfied customers our experience to date cannot be described as anything short of shocking with a complete lack of customer service and customer satisfaction. If you are looking for a reliable sofa retailer stay clear of Sofology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how did you pay?

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

then the finance Co are equally responsible get them involved

 

don't forget the consumer rights act too.

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...