Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • hahah except I can't locate the courier to frighten them with it hahaha   
    • Dx100uk according to the ICO office, who I spoke to at some length earlier today after getting the email from the court, Equita are the data controller if they have instructed the contracted EA. The ICO have noted the case, and stated very clearly that the court has the higher standing in terms of dealing with, and punishing either party if they fail to adhere to the district judges order and any action they take will not be criminal.    but they also stated very clearly that with what I’ve told them, and on the basis of accepting what I’ve told them as gospel (which it is with written confirmation from both the courts and the police) then there is some major red flags being raised on both sides with them blaming each other.    they’ve advised me to essentially keep my powder dry until there is a charging decision and an outcome from the seperate proceedings with the EAC2 complaint, and then come back to them with the case and they will be in a stronger position to act against Equita and the EA as there will be established facts and evidence that have already been laid before a court.     
    • urm.. i seem to recall another assault case whereby the approved bailiff company claimed the body camera was nor theirs but a pers one of the bailiff, i think they got in serious trouble for it. i believe that breaks certain gov't approval for a bailiff company/firm regulations/laws  if memory serves me right?
    • have a look at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/451423-pra-letter-of-claim-old-barclaycard-debt/?do=findComment&comment=5256506 the docs in this thread are what you should get. if the agreement the correct date for signup and does the PRA or BC cover letter use the word reconstructed? dx
    • sounds like lesley. They'll respond some rubbish I'm sure.  
  • 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

Car parking fine firm, Double Yellow, contracted by Leicester City Council, has stoically defended its decision to fine King Richard III, the princely sum of £10, 000, 000, including royalties, for a 533-year overstay in a city centre car park...joke


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2068 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

Car parking fine firm, Double Yellow, contracted by Leicester City Council, has stoically defended its decision to fine King Richard III, the princely sum of £10, 000, 000, including royalties, for a 533-year overstay in a city centre car park.

 

Poor signage, unfair terms and conditions, scaremongering, intimidation and bullying are just some of the ruthless tactics used by cowboy car parking firms in the past.

 

But now, Double Yellow has taken an unprecedented step, employing mitochondrial DNA to trace descendants of the Kings maternal line, subsequently locating living relatives of his eldest Sister, Anne of York. Several of the monarch's 14th Cousins have now all been issued with tickets.

 

"Preposterous...extortionate...and unjust," exclaimed Mary Delaney, of the Richard III Appreciation Society, "more so, because Richard was disabled, as everyone knows".

 

"Don't recall a disabled badge being found during the exhumation", replied Chief Executive, Henry MacSeventh, speaking from headquarters at Tudor House. "Rules are rules, even for Rulers... and as Kings go, he was strictly B list...he was only on the throne for a couple of years...a rather under par...King... who overstayed his parking...if you pardon the pun".

 

Enraged by this belligerent and sarcastic intransigence, Mary Delaney has vowed to take the fight to the highest court in the land.

"We won't take this lying down", she vehemently promised.

 

"Unlike Richard, then", retorted Mr MacSeventh. "Let battle commence...and let us hope they have better luck than little Dick had at Bosworth".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Car parking fine firm, Double Yellow, contracted by Leicester City Council, has stoically defended its decision to fine King Richard III, the princely sum of £10, 000, 000, including royalties, for a 533-year overstay in a city centre car park...joke
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...