Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mossycat last won the day on September 21 2008

Mossycat had the most liked content!


316 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. One of the questions they would have asked your girlfriend when she insured the car was "Are you the owner and the registered keeper", I'm guessing she said yes because at that time she was, however, that is no longer the case and I would strongly advise you to declare that fact. Worst case scenario, you have an accident, your insurers state that a material fact was not declared and they void the insurance, you are then left to pay all the costs. It's not worth the risk, tell them NOW Mossy
  2. OK quick update, one of our team got a Parking Charge Notice today, so now we can send our letters to the PPC together with pictures of the sign clearly on display inside the car and demand our money. I can't wait to see what their defence is. And before any of you ask, yes we fully intend issuing proceedings on them if they ignore or fail to pay, either way we get the publicity, which will hopefully highlight just how absurd their penalty charges are. Game on Mossycat
  3. All I can say is 1) Learn the law 2) Learn to spell Mossycat
  4. OK for those that missed it, I'll spell it out. The thread was called just for amusement because of the irony of a parked vehicle displaying a sign that echoes the signs around the car-park, a sign that informs them that if they do something then they enter into and agree to the terms of a contract for which a penalty will be imposed if they don't so per se (a bit like when they argue that your tyre was touching a white line in the car park). The reason for upping the ante and actively provoking them is to hopefull force their hand and annoy them so much that they do issue and take me/us to Court because as far as I'm aware the changes in legislation which make the RK responsible for the actions of the driver if they do not disclose has not yet been tested and the Parking Companies are trying to convince the unwary that this now makes the punitive damages payable (which anyone who knows the Dunlop case will know full well why they are not). By antagonising them in this way we hope to force the showdown and at the same time maximise publicity regarding their business practices. Mossycat PS Thanks lamma for pointing out to josephbloggs what I really couldn't be bothered to type, which by the way you did far more eloquently than I would have
  5. You are missing the point completely. First off, the Company cannot take any action, I know it, they know it and most users of this forum know it. Secondly, if you are going to give an analogy then at least try and think of a suitable one. I think you have failed to see either the amusement or the irony, try re-reading it again Mossycat
  6. I'd be interested to know exactly how this is abusing private parking.A family go to a retail park, the mother and kids go shopping in the retail park, the dad (car driver) leaves the retail park on foot and crosses the road, they meet up about 90 minutes later (well within the 2 hour limit) and find a ticket on the car. They are then hounded by the Company for payment and eventually give in and pay it. That is what triggered this action by a few of us who work with the person concerned.This particular car-park is well known for the car parking staff watching new cars pull in and then following/observing the occupants to see if any of the party leave the retail park.
  7. So, for the odd 'offence' it's OK in your eyes but not for repeated 'offences'. Your argument is a joke, either it is OK or it is not OK, Using your logic then I suppose you would argue that it's OK to shoplift once or twice, but not all the time.And before you get on your high-horse about we shouldn't be 'mis-using' private land, we are not, it's a retail car-park, a well known one who actively ticket people who stray out of the complex. We are actively targetting this car-park and the Company involved because of their actions.And, you might also like to learn the law, we'd love this to go before a judge, the local paper is already aware of our campaign and the actions of the Company.Mossycat
  8. Having had about 50 or 60 Parking Charge Notices (all of them ignored) the Parking Enforcement Company has now stopped bothering sending me letters, I still get the notices stuck to my windscreen but the Company isn't bothering following them up (presumably to save postage costs), so I've upped my game and started winding them up with a little provocation. So far the best we (there's a few of us that are bored) have come up with is an A3 notice that we leave in our cars, clearly visible from the outside, which states in bold letters. Attention Parking Attendants (or whatever you call yourselves). Notice, you may attach notices to this vehicle without charge, however in so attaching notices to this vehicle you are entering in to a contract. Your notices (or anything else you attach or fix) must be written in latin and every letter must be in blue, black and red ink consecutively. Failure to comply with this will result in the issue of a penalty charge notice against you personally and/or the Company that you act on behalf of. The penalty charge is £50, rising to £90 if not paid within 14 days of notification. By fixing or attaching a notice to this vehicle you have agreed to accept the conditions of this contract and agree to pay the amounts stated in this notice. So far I've noticed two of them read it and one of them actually got out his mobile phone and was obviously reading it to the person he was ringing. So far I haven't had a ticket
  9. Err no it doesn't work like that. Tresspass is a tort so whenever you see signs saying Tresspassers Will Be Prosecuted they are meaningless (well except for Mininstry of Defence Land and certain Royal Residencies). Before any action could be taken against you the land-owner would need to take out an injunction against you, and then if you return to the property then and only then could some action be taken. What they have done is issue a banning order, presumably that bans you from the store (which they are quite within their rights to do so), but given the circumstances and the presumed lack of CCTV that's hardly likely to be enforced (well OK the guy who issue it might recognise you but anyone not there won't know you have been banned). I'd take this up direct with Asda and also the local paperMossy
  10. Hate to say this but it looks bad for the OP's son.Driving a vehicle whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol is something that most (if not all insurers) have a condition in the policy that allows them to recover any and all costs that they have to pay out.Personal Injury is sadly one area that gets abused, both by the 'injured' party and those involved in the process of getting compensation. The figure of £25,000 isn't actually that high in terms of a 'typical' claim, and as has been said £10,000 of that is the costs of the TP solicitors.Basically, the OP's son is liable for ALL costs that the insurer has had to pay out, and that includes the damage to the TP car, or it's write off value. Even if the TP has comprehensive cover, the TP's insurers will have paid out for that directly to the TP, then the TP's insurers will have requested reimbursement from the OP's insurers, so it's correct that that item is included. It's not just uninsured losses that are recoverable, it's ANY and ALL losses, whether paid for by the TP directly or by someone on their behalf.Mossycat
  11. Actually Crem most (if not all insurers) do now load a policy for a non fault accident.They justify (or try to) this by citing statistics that show that an individual involved in an accident is more likely to be involved in another one and this justifies an increase in premium.Last year my car was parked up whilst I was on holiday and was damaged by another driver, by going to a comparison website I entered all my details for a quote on the basis that I hadn't had an accident, and then re-did the quote disclosing one non fault accident, my premium rose by £40. Since this affects me for 5 years I claimed £200 (£40 x 5) as uninsured losses from the responsible party on the basis that if they hadn't hit my car I wouldn't have to pay this increased premium, after a bit of arguing the threat of a County Court Summons made them pay up.Insurers want it both ways, they want to increase your premiums because of a non fault accident but they don't want to have to pay out for this increase as uninsured losses, which to me is totally wrong.Mossycat
  12. OK both you and your girlfriend have committed offences.You drove a motor vehicle without insurance.She allowed it to happen.The decision about how to deal with an offender is to a certain extent left to the officer dealing with it, yours was the most serious offence and you were quite rightly arrested, however the officer may have decided that it was more appropriate just to have a word with your GF and point out that she had committed an offence and leave it at that, given what you say about her being unwell/unfit to drive the officer may well have taken that into consideration.I'm not sure what you wanted from your first post, it almost reads like you are complaining that your GF wasn't arrested Mossycat
  13. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/car-premiums-rise-40-as-parasitic-claims-fleece-u-k-grandmas.html Worth a read
  14. OK assuming this isn't a wind up. 1) They are highly unlikely to ever do a serial number check, even if they came round to your house for whatever reason, they would most likely just see the unit and assume it was the one that they had supplied 2) If for whatever reason they take back or you return the goods then again a serial number check is highly unlikely, if they did do one and noticed the difference the fact they have got back a unit matching the description would likely negate further action, they would probably quietly decide that someone had noted the wrong number down. Finally stop worrying, there is ZERO chance of you being sent to jail, ok you threw away property that wasn't yours but you have replaced it with an exact model so there is not attempt on your behalf to steal or defraud anyone.Just keep making the payments and nobody will be any the wiser Mossycat
  15. As has already been said there is no harm in asking for interest, but if they refuse then I think you will find it difficult to convince the courts that you are entitled to it. If the RAC offer to refund monies taken then that would satisfy their obligations to you, it may sound a bit harsh given that they have had your money for quite a few years, but the onus was on you to be aware of what was going out of your bank (test of reasonableness). Mossycat
  • Create New...