This topic was closed on 10 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

@Marrcoss - relax and take a deep breath. Nothing is likely to happen. VCS are very well known for this method of operation and for the tickets that they issue. They operate the same in John Lennon Airport in Liverpool, also owned by the Peel Group and issue thousands of tickets each year to unsuspecting motorists like yourself. They want everyone to use their car parks to drop off people, where everyone has to pay for the privilige of parking for a couple of minutes. So they made up these silly rules that nobody could stop on the approach roads to set down or pick up passengers, and that if they did, they would be liable to pay heavily as a breach of contract, that the driver was alleged to have entered into when they drove past signs. The only problem they have is that a) nobody can read the signs doing 30 mph and therefore can never have entered into a contract b) they have no idea who the driver is, and have no right to hold the registered keeper to court, because the rules for parking and traffic are covered by bye-laws, and nowhere in them does it say the registered keeper can be held liable. Even if they wanted to have you charged for a breach of bye-laws they can't. That has to be done within six months, and they wouldn't see a penny. Of course, VCS do not want you to know this, so they lie through their teeth and try to make out that they have every right to impose their own regulations. THEY DON'T. They have recently even tried to claim that the approach roads are treated as car parks for their purposes and you are not allowed to stop in them. Ever heard of a car park that you can't park in and has no markings? No, didn't think so. Despite the thousands of PCN's that they have issued at both John Lennon and Doncaster, not one has ever reached court to my knowledge. In fact, there are discussions ongoing on how to FORCE VCS to take one of these to court, because doing so would almost certainly expose the fraudulent behaviour that they are pulling in collusion with the owners of the airport. In the meantime, you can freely ignore anything other than begging letters from the debt collectors, because that's all they are, begging letters for money that they are not entitled to and have no right to ask for.

NGPM's enforcement is very dodgy anyway and does not comply with PoFA, so they can only take action against the driver, not the registered keeper. The method of operation is a man with a hand held camera, who wanders the car park, looking for "violations" and taking a photo of the vehicle. The vehicle registration details are then used to apply to the DVLA for the RK's details and a notice to keeper/owner/hirer is sent out, usually within 14 days of the alleged offence. To comply with PoFA, and hold the RK responsible in such circumsances, a notice has to be placed on the vehicle, and the details only applied for after 28 days. So it is only the driver they can try and take action against, and you are under no obligation to name the driver. Their signage is also abysmal. They claim a breach of contract in their paperwork. However, in order for a contract to be formed, the terms and conditions MUST be clearly available to the driver at the entrance to the location. Their signage is too small, too close to a major road junction and 20 yards from a busy roundabout which requires all of the drivers attention on the road. The signage is also too far to the left of the road for the driver to safely read. Their terms state that parking is free as long as you park in accordance with specific conditions, but £100 per day if you choose not to park in accordance with those conditions. There is no method of paying that £100, should you choose the latter option, so no contract can be formed. The land is owned by Aberdeen Asset Management, who hired and management company to manage the retail park, and it is they who hired NGPM, who have no legal standing to bring any sort of action against you. I do have a contact name within Capital Retail Park with regards to parking issues. You can email [email protected], and mark it for her attention.

Received notification through the post today from my electricity supplier SSE informing me that I had been selected to be one of the first to have my meter replaced by a smart meter. This was despite me having informed them 18 months ago that under no circumstances would I entertain having one fitted. The publicity makes a lot of all the benefits to customers and suppliers, and used phrases such as the Government has said that ALL homes will be fitted with meters where possible by 2020. What was more concerning was that when I contacted the call centre listed to reaffirm my intention to opt out of the scheme, (which they did have a record of), the call centre operator still reiterated that I would have to have one by 2020. I have logged a complaint with SSE concerning the false information being provided and the lack of any mention that acceptance of these devices is not mandatory. I'm all for anyone who wants one taking advantage of the offer should they believe that in their circumstances that to have one would be beneficial, but DON'T lie to customers if they wish to reserve the right to decline.

Saw that story this morning and added a couple of comments (CK)

Most Sky users who have a Truecall machine will be aware that they haven't been able to synchronise the unit with the server since early this year. Truecall haven't given up on the issue and as of yesterday, my control unit was able to synchronise with the server via the weblink for the first time since April of this year. I'm hoping that this is a resolution to the problem once and for all. Although the issue didn't stop the unit from working at all (it stopped over 60% of all my incoming calls over the last six months, none of which will be missed), it meant that I wasn't able to update my "recognised numbers" list, which was a minor inconvenience to some people who had to go through the full recognition process to get through. If you have a Sky line and a Truecall unit, it will be worthwhile logging on to your control panel and trying a synchronisation to see if it works. If it doesn't, suggest you get in touch with Truecall to make them aware that you still have a problem. In fairness to Truecall, I have to say as well that their customer service has been superb. As well as keeping me informed of progress, I told them that their was not much point in renewing the subsription for my control panel in July, because it couldn't be updated. I was happy to renew if and when they sorted the issue. I've just checked my account and have seen that they renewed the account for me anyway back in July anyway, which was much appreciated.

Just to update on the situation with Sky and Truecall. They have been working for several months to resolve the issue and yesterday, my unit synchronised with the Truecall server for the first time since April. The good news is that I haven't lost any data at all over the time that the weblink has not been able to synchronise. Hopefully, it is an indication that Sky have finally resolved the issue. Anyone with a Truecall unit who is with Sky, please check your control panel and attempt to synchronise your unit. If you are still unsuccessful, I would suggest dropping the Truecall support line an email.

I always use interparcel.com for booking couriers and have never had a problem. They book with ups, dhl and a number of other firms to collect from home and deliver to home in 24 or 48 hours whichever you choose. I've sent some pretty high value items with them.

Once again it's all bluster and bull, intended to mislead you and frighten you. Such a pity that they neglected to included section 31.1 of the CPR, which is equally applicable. Scope of this Part 31.1 (1) This Part sets out rules about the disclosure and inspection of documents. (2) This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track. In other words, all that is written there is totally irrelevant to your situation and can be happily ignored.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I had a similar expereince with the National Trust last year. No change for a car park in Snowdonia, stair rods for rain and the only car in the Car Par which wasn't even marked as a pay and display. Came back off an aborted train journey on the Welsh Highland Railway (got a mile and a half and had to reverse due to flooding), to find a notice on my car. Instead of the normal rubbish it simply asked me to pay for my parking and send the ticket in to them. I was quite happy to drive to a local pub, get some change and settle up since they asked so nicely. Of course, a greedy driven PPC wouldn't be interested in that approach because there's no profit in it for them.

One of the primary reasons for the easier sale is that a car can be driven away from point of sale with just one phone call to the insurance company. If a car is not taxed or MOT'd, the purchaser has to arrange for an MOT, arrange the insurance then wait for a cover note to arrive before the car can be taxed. As there is no guarantee that any vehicle will pass an MOT first time, there may also be a requirement for a great deal more outlay of cash, even before the car gets on the road. Having the MOT and Tax already on the car makes buying and selling a car a lot less hassle all round.

Just to clarify things a little. Truecall works with Sky, insofar as it allows the user to block unwanted calls just as the advertising says it will. What the issue is currently is that some change in Sky's equipment is preventing the Truecall box from dialling in to the main server, making it impossible to synchronise the Truecall unit with the web service which Truecall provide. That means that you cannot add to your lists to telephone numbers that you wish to block or allow direct access to your phone through the internet, although you can still add to your "star" or "zap" lists during a call. I've not been able to synchronise my Truecall unit since the end of April, but it still working just as effectively as ever in blocking out the unwanted calls. Anyone else who wants to get hold who is not on my existing Star list just has to follow a couple of simple instructions to get through to me. It may be a pain for those who know you to have to go through the rigmarole of having to prove they are human

Looking at what you can see of the junction off street view I would say the answer would have to say that traffic signal three, beyond the junction, is there to protect a pedestrian crossing from traffic which should only be coming from the direction of Wood Lane Southbound, since northbound traffic cannot turn right at this junction. There is a continuous cycle route along Wood Lane across the junction from North to South from the traffic lights on the North side as far as the junction with the Westbound off slip of the A40 (under the flyover). If you were to continue straight on from lane 2 you would come into conflict with this cycle route as well as potentially blocking up Wood Lane if the pedestrian crossing was in use. Of course, it really depends on what the indications/signs are on the traffic signals on the eastbound off-slip at the junction with Wood lane, which you can't see on street view. I would expect to see at the very least the proceed aspect would be a green right hand pointing arrow for lanes 2 and 3 and a mandatory right turn sign on the signal post. If the traffic signal head is a solid green, then you may have a case.

Interesting comment regarding how the firm may well have gone into administration if they had tried to defend the case. With a court win overturned on appeal in front of a circuit judge two weeks ago based on their charges being perceived as punitive, the firm found guilty on over 50 counts of fraudulent activity including misleading signeage, I wonder about their decision to take the Ingress Park case to a multi-track route in County Court with a barrister at the helm. What chance they now have of winning that case now, leaving themselves wide open to costs being claimed. Maybe the end is neigh for OPC.

Let's hope that he is aware of it and is permitted to use it in arguements. Either way, it's a great basis for any appeal if the worst happens.

This could be an interesting development for Zeb77's Ingress Park case, which has been chosen to be representative of the many stayed claims by OPC against residents. Last I saw that is supposed to be heard today. I wonder if OPC will bother turning up in the circumstances.

PMSL have appeared in several threads in this forum and in the local press for the Hoddesdon area. It would seem that they are still attempting to obtain money from anyone who stops for any reason on this road, which is marked as a private no access road. The "owner" of PMSL parking is apparently a leading member of the Hoddesdon Rotary and tries to claim money off anyone stopping in the road, despite the afct that there is a doctor surgery half way down it which traffic obviously needs to access. Suggest you do a search on google for Legra Avenue and you will find a number of informative articles.

I'm not sure this forum can be much help, as it's UK based not US based. The laws are very different in the UK I'm afraid.

From the ask the police website If you choose to drive your vehicle on a road without displaying a valid tax disc then you commit an offence and risk getting fined. However there is an exemption for the first 5 working days of the month from displaying a valid tax disc. The exemption will only apply in the month when the tax disc commences and where an application for a new tax disc has been made before the old one expires. Drivers should continue to display the previous tax disc until the new one arrives. After 5 days the offence will be committed if the new tax disc is not displayed Purchasing a tax disc on line can take up to 5 days so make sure you do it in plenty of time.

That's the thing though Buzby, they do have an English address, in Liverpool at which staff are located. The correspondence so far has been sent to, and received from Liverpool and it is an address which the company lost on their website as the UK contact address. That said, other advice suggests that I would be better off going via the regulatory authority in this instance, although it may take a lot longer.

Perplexity. I have neither the time, the inclination nor the understanding to go trawling through EC regulations you quote in your reply, in order to find what should be a simple yes or no answer. If you wish to assist, please do so in simple terms that this layman can understand. Linking to or quoting specific sections of regulations to back up advice given is often helpful, simply quoting regulation names is meaninless to an average person, especially one who loses the will to live after reading the first five lines of most documents of legal jargon. Sorry to be blunt.

Cityboy. The address I was going to file against is the address to which I sent my original claim for reimbursement and from where the reply was addressed (it was also postmarked Liverpool). The same address is carried on the letterhead paper and on the Lufthansa website as the UK contact address for the company. Lufthansa German Airlines, Customer Feedback Europe, PO Box 1289, Liverpool L69 3AX, UK. As far as availing myself of existing insurance cover, that was my first thought. However, their reply was that they would only pay as if it were a delayed flight, at a maximum rate of £25 per day (as per their schedule). They have maintained that it is for the airline to cover any additional costs. This is the same scenario that was widely reported when Ryanair declared that they were not going to reimburse anything over the ticket costs, and they quickly got shot down. KLM are also declining more than one nights accommodation costs and have also been threatened with prosecution by the European Commission for their stance. I suspect that all claimants are getting the same letter, just to see how many the airline can dissuade from continuing their claim in order to lessen the liabilities that the airline carries. We shall see anyway, because I've given them until September 23rd to reply.

There is a good chance that I shall have to try and recover about £400 from a German company who are refusing to comply with EU law.. Am I correct in my understanding that this can be done in the UK via the small claims procedure, providing that they have an address in the UK to which documents can be posted? The company has a UK postal address which is a PO Box number in Liverpool for the purposes of customer feedback, which also appears on correspondence received from them.

Similarly, do you honestly believe that Morrison's would be ask you to pay £50 because you have forgotten a vital ingredient for tonight's dinner and had to return to the store within x hours. If you read the signs carefully, that's generally what Morrison's signs say. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?275140-morrisons-and-cps-parking The prospect of the negative publicity that such a demand might generate would be far more damaging than any loss of a parking space.

After nearly four months of waiting, I have finally received a response from Lufthansa, declining reimbursement of costs incurred after my flight back from Munich to LHR was cancelled in early May. My flight was scheduled to depart 30 minutes after closure of the airport, although I was denied check-in as that was closed 90 minutes prior. Knowing that it could be several days before another flight was available, I took instruction from a Lufthansa staff (who I have named in correspondence with Lufthansa) to find an alternative method of transport back to the UK. I also raised the subject of reimbursement with the same staff member and was assured that the previous closure had resulted in Lufthansa agreeing to reimburse expenses and saw no reason why the same would not apply. Upon it being confirmed that my flight was cancelled, I made my way to Munich station and booked a train ticket the next morning, before returning to the hotel that I had stayed at for the weekend, receiving a preferential rate, further reducing costs. I have only claimed for the second class rail travel, and one nights hotel. I have not claimed for meals or any additional ticket costs for travel to and from airports etc. Lufthansa have responded thus: "We are of the opinion that the volcanic eruption was a force majeure event, and therefore well beyond our sphere of influence. We as an airline, unfortunately, had absolutely no influence over the cessation of air traffic and the consequences involved. We made every feasible effort to minimise the effects of the airspace closures to your journey and we would ask, in the most polite terms possible, for your understanding that we are unable to refund expenses you incurred."I will be responding to them, reminding them of their obligations under Regulation (EC) 261/004 and their initial failure in duty of care by not offering to make alterative arrangements, preferring to guide me towards alternative services at my own expense with a suggestion that reimbursement would be made. However, I would like to know if it is possible to file a court claim against Lufthansa in a UK court in the event that they continue to decline my claim. They have a UK address in Liverpool for Customer Relations to which court papers can be delivered, and the original booking was made via a .co.uk website. If so, I will head the letter as a "letter before action."