..

Thanks for the replies, it is interesting to hear another perspective. I think the signage, visible from the car, is unlawful. It doesn't provide the full facts, which is the minimum that anyone undertaking an agreement (contract, T&C etc. etc.) should expect. In this case, I didn't ignore the T&C's I had seen on the sign as I parked in the zone. Only when I was at the machine and it rejected the coins was I made aware that there was an extra clause. However, at this point, are the contract details as seen from the car, now void? The sticker on the machine is an extra clause, although I agree it was out of the council's hands, it's nothing to do with me if their machines haven't been configured incorrectly, where a sign specifically for drivers states that you have to pay at the machine to park. Yes I had a few choices, but I had fulfilled my obligations as a driver, in reference to the permanent street signs; I paid money into the machine. As ever with agreements, it comes down to semantics!

I had the correct change, I'd say it's the council's responsibility to operate machines that accept legal tender. To expect persons to use certain types of tender is asking too much when the issue is that the machines aren't configured correctly. Sorry to disagree, the signs state that you can park for 1 hour if you pay at the machine - a contract I can accept or decline. Yes, it uses legislation, but it's based on law or it's pointless. In this case, it's contract law. Now, how the council argue is another thing!! I suspect you are right in your assumption. However, based on facts, I think they would lose the case in court if I decided to make a complaint against them.

No, but potentially someone could say they did - it's a fair walk to the nearest shops. However, I would say that you have consented to the contract if that's what you state you did. The fee is 40p. I had old and new coins but not enough of the old for it to work. Yes someone could 'overpay' into the machine (and not receive change).

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad you've looked at the contract side of things because this is where I feel the problem lies. Yes I received a ticket/PCN by the way, which I am expected to pay within 14 days (if I want to take them up on their cut-price deal!!). So from you're argument, would it be fair to say that I should be able to see the label (stating that new 10p and 5p are not accepted), from where I park my car; that is, before I get out and walk up to the machine? For the record, I parked next to the machine, but the label and coin entry area faces away from the road and is only visible when standing infront of the machine (interestingly, other machines on adjoining streets, face the road). I guess we are saying that I am in contract as soon as I park in the designated zone - is this how these schemes work? If so, then I don't have full disclosure because the information signs I could see from my car failed to mention that only certain coins work in the machine. I am wondering how deeply they review each case, because intricacies of the contract doesn't seem like something a council agent sitting behind a desk would comment on.

Hi, I was wondering where I stand with a council PCN I received today. I parked, mid afternoon, on a quiet side road with a contolled scheme. I tried to purchase a ticket from the on street parking machine but it kept rejecting the new 10p I had. When I looked closer, there was a printed note that had been stuck on to the machine that said it wouldn't accept new 5p or 10p. Now, potentially I could use the excuse that I left my car because I went off to get the correct change for the machine. However, I am wondering if the council parking legislation is effective where a machine doesn't work correctly, warning note or not? Any info appreciated.

Hi, I have an ongoing dispute about an investment with Natwest/RBS. In the correspondence they've always said I should refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service if I'm not happy with their replies. In the latest letter they haven't answered any questions because they believe they've already looked at the matter enough and simply point towards the FOS (stating that my right to use FOS runs out soon). Firstly: can I rebut the deadline given to me about my right to use the FOS? Surely, I can decide if and when I need to use them? Secondly: I'm wondering if going to the FOS weakens my case against RBS? I'm aware that the decision from the FOS isn't final if it's in RBS/NatWest favour, but I wonder if the small claims court will think my argument isn't as strong if I went to the FOS first as opposed to straight to the small claims? I also wonder if NatWest/RBS are aware of this?

As it is the first time I've had dealings with Roxbrughe, I wasn't sure. However, I am happy to ignore them because as far as I'm concerned, my dispute is still ongoing with TalkTalk. I've been trying to sort this out from start of November. I wasn't happy with the price rises for the service provided but the real issue TT have is that I stopped my direct debit. I knew they would take more money so it was the only option as far as I was concerned. As a gesture of goodwill I paid my bill up to the point that the TT service ended. My contract had actually started a few years back with Tiscali. However, they are now citing early closure of my contract, costs due to me stopping the direct debit and payment for services past the service end date, as reasons for the payment demand. What really annoys me is there 'customer service' department - so far I've written 4 letters. Each reply has been from a different TT agent. All I have been asking for is a breakdown of the charge and proof that I agreed to start the contract. TT have told me it will cost £10 to gather the evidence I require, adding that they might have no records of phone conversations in relation to renewing the contract (they sent me no physical evidence stating that the contract is continuing). They have also asked me for security passwords, usernames, account numbers etc., before they will send the breakdown of the charge I'm asking for. Thus far I have been unable to get the breakdown because they are saying I have not provided them with the correct info. To me this is ridiculous, especially as they are sending the correspondence to the address on the account!!! I have had enough of their 'service' and they are basically digging themselves a hole with each reply I get. I have told them the next stop is the Managing Director, who will also be getting a Notice of demand for administrative costs.

Hi, I received a letter from Roxburghe Debt Collectors today demanding £80. this is in ref to disputed and confusing TalkTalk charges (total £50) for early closure of my broadband/phone account. Underlined in the letter it says: 'do not contact our client as we are now appointed agents'. I have been corresponding with TalkTalk to try and get a breakdown of the disputed charges but have been unable to get any information thus far. I received a 'final demand' letter in Nov which TalkTalk state 'if no attempt is made to clear this balance within the next 7 days; your details will be passed to a Debt Collection Agency for further action'. I referred to this 'final demand' letter in the letter I sent to TalkTalk the same week. Rightly or wrongly, I assumed that because I am trying to deal with the disputed charges, TalkTalk would hold off on debt collection action, so it's surprising to see a sentence saying 'do not contact our client' in the Roxburghe letter. I am very hacked off with TalkTalk and their non-existent 'customer service' dept, who have failed to answer any questions from the 4 letters I've sent. In fact, in my last letter I began charging a fee for time wasted sorting the matter out. So, my questions are: is it okay to ignore this Roxburghe letter or is it better to reply? Apart from threatening letters, what is the likelihood that Roxburghe will pursue this charge if I continue to ignore them? Thanks

Anyone heard of this lot? Originally got PCN from UK Parking Control (UKPC) - went through about 8 letters of threats. Now, about 4 months after the last letter, a 'Debt Purchased' letter. Claiming that a different company (Parking Collection Services Limited) has purchased the debt and is going to pursue it.