Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About RT1970

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. EE customer services were both candid and useless - the guy on the phone said it was clearly a [problem], probably because the salesperson was on commission, but then advised us to 'contact Ofcom and get a reference number from them to take to the shop' either not knowing or knowing but not caring that Ofcom would only refer us to OSC and they in turn would need a deadlock letter or eight weeks without a resolution. Anyway, we returned to the EE shop and confronted the manager about the second contract. I have to admit I expected h
  2. Thanks for the quick reply! The second contract was taken out in store 3 days ago but it seems that cooling off period does not apply to in store sales. However, I really feel that the advice she was given was misleading - she was told she could not buy a PAYG phone and put the monthly SIM in it and that the only solutions were to take out a second contract or to buy a phone somewhere else (Carphone Warehouse was mentioned, but there was no branch in the same town). So I think this counts as mis-selling and she should be able to cancel for this reason. I will find out how long the fi
  3. Hello everyone - I'm looking for some recommendations following a problem with an EE contract and phone. This is the current situation: My partner has a monthly contract with EE. Her phone stopped working so she took it in for repair under warranty. When it came back it was reported to be unrepairable due to water damage, even though it has been nowhere near water. She asked if she could buy a replacement phone to use with the existing monthly contract and was told by the guy in the EE shop that there was no way to do this because EE only sold phones for PAYG purposes not fo
  4. Interesting post on the prankster's blog today: "To dissect their incompetence, Wright Hassall have started out by misquoting 9(2)(b), which states nothing of the sort. They refer to registered keeper, while the Act refers to keeper. The two are not necessarily the same, as the Act makes clear in 2(1). They then misquote 9(2)(e), somehow turning an obligation of the operator into an obligation of the keeper. Along the way, they once again mangle keeper into registered keeper, and state that a current postal address of the driver is required. This is wrong - the Act defines the requirement
  5. Sorry, my post was a bit ambiguous in that regard. Short answer: no. More precise answer: I replied immediately to the PCN to tell them I wasn't the driver and offered to send them the driver's details (I was actually expecting them to send me some sort of form to fill in - I was unaware at the time how these companies operate so naively I thought there would be a proper procedure for this). Then they replied a month later, upping the fine and inviting me to appeal directly to them, by which time I had read some of the threads on here and was a bit more clued up, so I wrote back and
  6. Absolutely correct. In my first letter to the PCC I informed them I was not the driver at the time of the alleged overstay and let them know that the driver was happy for me to supply his details so he could take over the correspondence with them. I'd lent my car to a friend while his car was off road, and when I showed him the NTK he agreed that I could send them his name and address and he would sort it out with them. But they ignored that information and waited a month to reply (just enough time to exclude me from POPLA, funnily enough!) and invi
  7. Thanks all, donation made Here's the redacted letter, obviously only suitable for those in the same situation although I guess bits of it could be used if appropriate for related scenarios. DRP Plus Ltd PO Box 411 Dukinfield SK14 9DD Your reference XXXX– Parking charge notice XXXX – Date XXXX Dear XXXX I have endured protracted correspondence with your company about the parking charge mentioned in your latest letter dated XXXX despite making it abundantly clear that I dispute the legitimacy of the charge and have no intention of paying it. My position h
  8. Out of interest, I followed this line of enquiry and received the following reply from East Riding of Yorkshire Council: "A planning application was approved on xxxxx for the retention of a pole and 2 CCTV cameras. The documentation does show some signage and other signage on site would not likely require planning permission." I could not see any information in the documents about applications for specific signs on poles, so it seems some councils are less strict with their requirements than others.
  9. Blimey - I've just received an email from the BPA (to whom I copied my latest correspondence with Highview, along with a summary of all the reasons I thought the PCN was incorrect/unenforceable) and they say Highview have decided to cancel the PCN and have written to me to confirm this. It's a relief not to have to go to court, even though I think my defence is rock solid and they would have been stupid to try it on. I'm happy to post a redacted copy of the letter I sent if the wording would maybe help others in a similar position? I'd also like to make a donation to the forum runni
  10. I've done a bit of digging at the land registry tonight. The car park in question is operated on behalf of a well known supermarket, but neither Highview nor the supermarket own the land. The land is owned by a property company and the supermarket leases a unit from them. The lease presumably allows them to use the adjacent land as a car park. I have searched for the property company at Companies House and although their accounts are up to date they are listed as 'dormant'. BPA code of practice: "7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you mu
  11. This might be my misunderstanding but I thought that the liability for a parking charge was always against the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident and only after POFA 2012 were the companies legitimately able to pursue the keeper. (Until POFA 2012 it was possible to escape these charges simply by claiming not to have been the driver at the time and challenging the parking company to prove otherwise). If the companies can only pursue the keeper under POFA 2012 then they must be bound by that legislation, and if that legislation says they can only ever claim the amount on the PCN a
  12. But that surely means that most if not all of these historic cases are unenforceable, solely on the basis of the additional fees, and further that the additional fees are illegal and the companies issuing them could be prosecuted?
  13. Thanks everyone for the advice so far. I have written to them today solely to make sure they are aware of my new address so they can't get a default by serving papers at my old address, and I have reiterated that I deny the debt. One thing I wanted to check out is the wording of POFA 2012. The letter I got demands not just the amount on the original PCN but also various late payment charges etc so is now double the amount shown on the signs in the car park. According to POFA 2012 Schedule 4 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted): "(5) The maximum sum w
  14. Ah yes... an honest mistake guv I will ignore the speculative invoice. Out of interest - what applicable laws or codes of conduct are they breaking by chasing up dormant cases?
  • Create New...