Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • i dont think the reason why the defendant lost the case means anything at all in that case. it was a classic judge lottery example.
    • Hello, I will try to outline everything clearly. I am a British citizen and I live in Luxembourg (I think this may be relevant for potential claims). I hired a car from Heathrow in March for a 3-day visit to family in the UK. I was "upgraded" to an EV (Polestar 2). I had a 250-mile journey to my family's address. Upon attempting to charge the vehicle, there was a red error message on the dashboard, saying "Charging error". I attempted to charge at roughly 10 different locations and got the same error message. Sometimes there was also an error message on the charging station screen. The Hertz 0800 assistance/breakdown number provided on the set of keys did not work with non-UK mobiles. I googled and found a bunch of other numbers, none of which were normal geographical ones, and none of which worked from my Luxembourg mobile. It was getting late and I was very short on charge. Also, there was no USB socket in the car, so my phone ran out of battery, so I was unable to look for further help online. It became clear that I would not reach my destination (rural Devon), so I had no choice but to find a roadside hotel in Exeter and then go to the nearest Hertz branch the following day on my remaining 10 miles of charge. Of course, as soon as the Hertz employee in Exeter plugged it into their own charger, the charging worked immediately. I have driven EVs before, I know how to charge them, and it definitely did not work at about 10 different chargers between London and Exeter. I took photos on each occasion. Luckily they had another vehicle available and transferred me onto it. It was an identical Polestar 2 to the original car. 2 minutes down the road, to test it, I went to a charger and it worked immediately. I also charged with zero issues at 2 other chargers before returning the vehicle. I think this shows that it was a charging fault with the first car and not my inability to do it properly. I wrote to Hertz, sending the hotel, dinner, breakfast and hotel parking receipt and asking for a refund of these expenses caused by the charging failure in the original car. They replied saying they "could not issue a refund" and they issued me with a voucher for 50 US dollars to use within the next year. Obviously I have no real proof that the charging didn't work. My guess is they will say that the photos don't prove that I was charging correctly, just that it shows an error message and a picture of a charger plugged into a car, without being able to see the detail. Could you advise whether I have a case to go further? I am not after a refund or compensation, I just want my £200 back that I had to spend on expenses. I think I have two possibilities (or maybe one - see below). It looks like the UK is still part of the European Consumer Centre scheme:  File a complaint with ECC Luxembourg | ECC-Net digital forms ECCWEBFORMS.EU   Would this be a good point to start from? Alternatively, the gov.uk money claims service. But the big caveat is you need a "postal address in the UK". In practice, do I have to have my primary residence in the UK, or can I use e.g. a family member's address, presumably just as an address for service, where they can forward me any relevant mail? Do they check that the claimant genuinely lives in the UK? "Postal address" is not the same as "Residence" - anyone can get a postal address in the UK without living there. But I don't want to cheat the system or have a claim denied because of it. TIA for any help!  
    • Sars request sent on 16th March and also sent a complaint separately to Studio. Have received no response. Both letters were received and signed for.  I was also told by the financial ombudsman that studio were investigating but I've also had no response to that either.  The only thing Studio have sent me is a default notice.  Any ideas of what I can do from here please 
    • Thanks Bank - I shall tweak my draft and repost. And here's today's ridiculous email from the P2G 'Claims Dept' Good Morning,  Thank you for you email. Unfortunately we would be unable to pay the amount advised in your previous email.  When you placed the order, you were asked for the value of your parcel, you stated that the value was £265.00. At this stage the booking advised that you were covered to £20.00 and to enhance this to £260.00 you could pay an extra £13.99 + VAT to fully cover your item for loss or damage during transit, you declined to fully cover your item.  Towards the end of your booking on the confirmation page, you were then offered to take cover again, to which you declined again.  Unfortunately, we would be unable to offer you an enhanced payment on this occasion.  If I can assist further, please do let me know.  Kindest Regards Claims Team and my response Good Afternoon  Do you not understand the court cases of PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729)? In both cases it was held by the courts that there was no need for additional ‘cover’ or ‘protection’ (or whatever you wish to call it) on top of the standard delivery charge, and P2G were required to pay up in full for both cases, which by then also included court costs and interest. I shall be including copies of both those judgements in the bundle I submit to the court next Wednesday 1 May, unless you settle my claim (£274.10) in full before then. Tick tock…..    
    • IMG_2820-IMG_2820-merged.pdfmerged.pdf Case management was this morning. Here is the Sheriff’s order. Moved case forward to 24/05.   He said there was no signed agreement and after a bit of “erm, erm, yeah but, erm” when he asked them, he allowed time for sol to contact claimant.  what is the next step now? thank you UCM  
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2074 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

Hi All,

 

Last year Islington Council put a really nasty bus lane * camera at the entrance to the street I parked on..

 

I thought I had got away without falling foul of it, as I'd used the lane several times prior to a friendly neighbour warning me of its presence,

 

this morning I found that's not the case as my car is currently clamped for 5 outstanding PCNs!

 

I'm not wishing to dispute the PCNs as it's a fair cop and I should have been more aware, but I would like some advice on how to handle Equita today.

 

I called the EA at 07:20 asking for PCN details and explained that I'd most likely be submitting OOT forms to TEC; he obliged and said he'd call back, was pleasant to deal with, everything seemed OK.

 

However, at about 10:20 I got a call from a recovery driver asking if I'd like to hand over the keys when they tow my vehicle.

 

I called the EA right back to explain and he eventually gave me the PCN numbers, so I called Islington council to get the details and submitted my forms to TEC.

 

I've done all I can for now, but am sat in my van and cannot leave because they've sent someone to tow it.

 

That whole thing seemed really suspicious to me, but I can't take the risk as it would be incredibly annoying to have my car towed prior to TEC giving the EA notice to cease recovery actions.

 

Can anyone advise?

Am I just destined to spend the day sat in my van?

If I were to leave and they towed it, then TEC gave notice to cease enforcement,

 

is there anything I could do other than pay towing & release fees?

 

*It's not really a bus lane, I just don't know what to call it.

The road used to have a traffic island in the middle with two very narrow passages either side, but the council removed the island and put a wide lane through the middle.

 

I used this lane as the passages were only just wide enough for my van and did so for about 2 weeks until a neighbour stopped me to explain it's for exiting only and pointed out the camera.

 

From my call to Islington Council, I have EIGHT outstanding PCNs from the first 8 days of this restriction being in place - five of which are involved today.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moved to the bailiff forum

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

 

I thought I had got away without falling foul of it, as I'd used the lane several times prior to a friendly neighbour warning me of its presence,

 

this morning I found that's not the case as my car is currently clamped for 5 outstanding PCNs!

 

I called the EA at 07:20 asking for PCN details and explained that I'd most likely be submitting OOT forms to TEC; he obliged and said he'd call back, was pleasant to deal with, everything seemed OK.

 

I called the EA right back to explain and he eventually gave me the PCN numbers, so I called Islington council to get the details and submitted my forms to TEC.

 

From my call to Islington Council, I have EIGHT outstanding PCNs from the first 8 days of this restriction being in place - five of which are involved today.

 

From your post you appear to be mentioning a fair amount about the unfairness of the offences but there is no mention whatsoever as to whether or not you have received any previous correspondence from Islington and if not.....why?

 

For example, did you move address?

Did you updated your address details on the V5C (Log Book) with DVLA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.

 

Yes I had moved address and neglected to update the V5; I didn't include that info as I had already submitted my forms to TEC so wasn't looking for advice there.

 

The above has come back to bite twice now, as I picked up several PCNs within a short space of time while moving house - some were paid, some were not present on the vehicle, but the majority were CCTV-related with no physical ticket (as OP) so I was unaware of them until the van was clamped.

 

My forms have all been approved by TEC and sent to Islington Council, who have sent notice to the EA, but my van remains clamped. I'm chasing the EA this morning but no joy as yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My forms have all been approved by TEC and sent to Islington Council, who have sent notice to the EA, but my van remains clamped. I'm chasing the EA this morning but no joy as yet.

 

Given that you have multiple tickets I really do hope that you sought advice before submitting the forms to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. After all, Out of Time witness statements are County Court procedures.

 

The forms have not been 'approved' by the Traffic Enforcement Centre. They have been 'processed' by them and notification has been given to Islington who in turn, would be obliged to inform their bailiff provider to temporarily cease all enforcement. As you had only submitted the forms to TEC yesterday, I would expect the enforcement company to have received notification this morning.

 

I am not sure why you would be chasing the enforcement agent this morning?

 

Just so that you are aware, there is no legal obligation on him to remove the clamp. You should not expect to receive a decision from the Traffic Enforcement Centre for approx a month to 6 weeks. Many enforcements agents will remove the clamp but others are not so willing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't seek any legal advice, if that's what you mean. I was honest on the forms, however, so I don't expect to have any issues.

 

They have been 'processed' by them and notification has been given to Islington who in turn, would be obliged to inform their bailiff provider to temporarily cease all enforcement.

Just so that you are aware, there is no legal obligation on him to remove the clamp.

 

Is this not contradictory? If the EA has been notified to temporarily cease enforcement, yet they keep control of the vehicle, are they not disobeying the instruction? Further, if there is no current order for enforcement, due to the LA's instruction, are they not therefore seizing the vehicle without grounds?

 

I'm chasing the EA as I am self-employed and this is my only means of doing my job. I'm now missing two days of work and income.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is this not contradictory? If the EA has been notified to temporarily cease enforcement, yet they keep control of the vehicle, are they not disobeying the instruction? Further, if there is no current order for enforcement, due to the LA's instruction, are they not therefore seizing the vehicle without grounds?

 

By applying an immobilisation device, the bailiff has merely 'taken control' of the vehicle. As the warrant has now been placed ' on hold' he cannot continue with enforcement by removing the vehicle for sale.

 

Your comment that there is no 'current order' for enforcement is incorrect I'm afraid. The order is the warrant of control and that has not 'ceased'. A temporary hold has been placed on taking any further enforcement action. That is all.

 

As I have said above, many enforcement companies will remove the clamp but this does not mean that they all have to. Whatever you do, do not threaten the enforcement agent with complaints/litigation etc. That would be the wrong approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks for clarifying.

 

I've been on good terms with the EA throughout and he's been nothing but polite and professional with me, thankfully.

 

He's said he will remove the clamp as soon as he gets notice through but this is the bit that seems to be taking time

- I assume because there are several PCNs involved and it's a complex case.

 

I'm going to continue to be polite as that's of course the best way to get a reasonable response.

Plus he's just doing his job.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

He's said he will remove the clamp as soon as he gets notice through but this is the bit that seems to be taking time - I assume because there are several PCNs involved and it's a complex case.

 

Being 'complex' would not affect the timing of enforcement being placed on hold.

 

It is always the case that each Out of Time witness statement should be sent to TEC by way of separate emails. In that way, you would receive individual notification from the Traffic Enforcement Centre of safe receipt and it would be easy to identify whether an application has 'gone astray'. TEC is an extremely busy place and much more so in the past 2 years since the introduction of Dart Charging. Given how amicable the enforcement agent is being, I would expect that clamp to be removed by mid morning tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes all forms were sent one PCN at a time in separate emails, and all got receipts.

 

From speaking to the various parties involved, TEC have sent notification to Islington but they have not processed it yet, and the EA is waiting for the info to trickle down. I'm hopeful the clamp will be removed tomorrow morning as you also mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...