Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
  • 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
      • 160 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

Lewisham Parking just won't stop biting!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2002 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

Just an outline.

 

My father parked near his home where he was not aware that it had become a parking zone. Parked on the road side where he did not notice any signage stating he was not able to park in that area. He later received a parking fine and disputed it sending evidence of where he parked and where there was no parking signs stating he could not park in the area as well as the information below:

 

On page 52 of the Department of Transports booklet ‘Know your traffic signs, 2015 and relating to controlled parking zones, it states ‘The times when these operate should be shown on signs at the bays; these times may not be the same as those shown on the zone entry sign’.

 

There are no bays on the road and there was no signage.

 

The letter was sent to them on 1st January 2018 in response to their letter dated 21/12/18.

 

During this time they stated that they sent my father a 'Notice to Owner' dated 15/02/2018, however he did not receive this until the date for response was past. He wrote to them on 2nd April explaining this. However in this letter they also rejected my father's appeal and a request was made to pay the lower rate of £65.

 

They did not respond to my fathers letter until 13th June 2018, over 2 months later. At this time my father was abroad burying his brother and visiting other sick relatives and returned to the UK on 9th July 2018. (He left the UK on 11th June). By this time the time limit for completing a Witness Statement or responding had run out and although the reason for this was explained to them and copies of his passport and ticket was sent to them, they stated it was 'unfortunate' that he did not receive it in time and increased the amount to £195. They also did not respond to his request to pay the lower amount in this letter.

 

My father then sent a postal order for £65 instead of the £130 in a letter dated 14th July, and they have now responded in a letter dated 28/9/18, over 2 months later stating that he did not make representations to the Notice to Owner dated 15/2/18 or pay the full amount and as a result the amount was increased by 50%. An £8 fee was further added for and Order of Recovery with a Witness Statement attached.

 

They sent an Order of Recovery on 11/7/2018 with a Witness Statement attached but instead of completing the statement a letter was sent instead dated 14th July.

 

The have waited over 2 months to then state that the £65 cannot be accepted as full and final payment and still want him to pay £195 minus the £65.

 

Although they have stated 'Should you have grounds to file a Witness Statement out of time he should contact Northampton County Court but then go on to state that filing a late statement will not cancel the PNC or reduce the outstanding amount, I think this is quite pointless as nothing would be achieved.

 

I hope this is not too complicated.

 

Is there anything that can be done considering my father's predicaments and their inconsiderate behaviour:?: :sad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see there's much he can do.

 

The timeline above is confusing:

 

The letter was sent to them on 1st January 2018 in response to their letter dated 21/12/18. - What letter of 21/12/18, if he only wrote to them in January? Why would they write him a letter?

 

During this time they stated that they sent my father a 'Notice to Owner' dated 15/02/2018 - that's not during this time - it's afterwards.

 

He wrote to them on 2nd April explaining this. However in this letter they also rejected my father's appeal and a request was made to pay the lower rate of £65. - why did he write to them in April? And how did THEY reject an appeal in the letter HE wrote?

 

The upshot is, if there has been any mix-up or cross-over in letters, the option is to file a Witness Statement when the Order For Recovery arrives.

 

As you say, he received the forms but didn't do this, instead he opted to send yet another letter.

If he doesn't follow the statutory process, he's defeated himself.

The whole point of the Council sending him those forms was to give him a mechanism to challenge the charges.

 

 

He belatedly paid them £65 which he could have done in the first place, but it's too late for that.

I don't know how they have been inconsiderate.

It appears he's opted to dig his heels in and play cat-and-mouse with letters.

Sadly, this is where it will end up.

 

You can't beat the system with magic letters, unfortunately.

It looks like he will have to pay, and sooner rather than later, as they will instruct bailiffs otherwise and add even more charges on.

 

Sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, but it's the truth.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the reply.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

The letter on the 21/12/17 was the parking fine and he responded to them with a letter dated 1st January 2018 with evidence of why he parked in the area but they sent a rejection notice.

 

They stated that he could appeal on a Notice to Owner however it did not arrive until the appeal time had run out and he was unable to appeal.

 

He sent a letter to this affect on 2nd April and they stated it was 'unfortunate' and he should contact the post office regarding his late mail.

 

I understand that the timeline is a bit confusing with all the letters back and forth however I disagree that my father has opted to dig his heels in as his evidence clearly showed that there was no signage on the bays and actually no bays.

But I do understand what you mean.

 

I will consider what you have said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification. So he wasn't served with a PCN on the vehicle? It was served by post?

 

And he appealed, and lost the appeal, then waited for an NTO?

 

When the NTO is issued, it affords 28 further days to appeal, so when you say it didn't arrive until the appeal time had run out, you mean to say that it took more than a month to get through the postal system?

 

To be honest though, it's all academic.

He really needed to respond to the Order for Recovery

- that was his chance to address the whole thing and re-set the clock by filing the papers they sent him.

Not doing so was a mistake.

I don't see how this can be resolved now, other than by paying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they sent a rejection notice clearly showed that there was no signage on the bays and actually no bays.

 

 

There will only be signs within a controlled parking zone if the restriction at that location (bays etc.) is different to the zone restriction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...