Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'unscrupulous'.
Found 3 results
I called Autoglass for a replacement windscreen quote. As it happens the windscreen on my new car is fine but I wanted to know how much a replacement would cost for insurance purposes. The telephone sales person took the registration and looked up the model. I was asked did I need it replacing now" and I answered yes. "That will be £950". I said OK thanks. I was then asked "did I want to book an appointment?". I said no thanks.... "but you said you needed it now" Yes but its too expensive, I'll look elsewhere. "If you book an appointment today you'll get 10% discount £855" No, I still think its too expensive and I'll look elsewhere "just before you go I'm authorised to offer you another 12% discount if you have it fixed today" making it £752" No thanks, I'll still look elsewhere. A staggering £200 reduction in just 3 minutes. Had I really been standing next to a vehicle with a shattered windscreen or a person a little more vulnerable I probably would have taken the first price.
Good morning Firstly I wish to extend my thanks for providing the inspiration and the means to support the victims of unscrupulous behaviour. I would like to seek advice. I live in a borough with a known shortage of residential parking spaces. The Council acknowledge they issue more residential parking permits than spaces available. After a very late and long drive I was unable to park outside my house and so parked my vehicle at the end of my road. My vehicle was not visible from my window and I had no cause to walk past it for a few days. When I returned to my vehicle it was plastered with 3 x PCNs based on the fact that I had parked in a 'Business Permit Holders' only bay, which surprised me, because there are to my knowledge no businesses on this road. Considering there is a shortage of parking spaces I was surprised the Council would reserve spaces for businesses as it seems to perpetuate a known problem. I believed (and still do believe) I had reasonable grounds to appeal and did so. My first appeal was rejected so I appealed again providing much more evidence. My second appeal was rejected. The Council repeatedly ignored my attempts to discuss the matter further by telephone or in writing. I visited the Council offices and requested to speak to somebody, stating I would even be willing to pay the fines in spite of the fact I believed they were unfair, on the grounds that a member of the Council would speak with me so that I could ensure my concerns pertaining to confusing signage, inadequate lighting, etc. were at least acknowledged. I was refused an audience and was forced to wait for a Notice to Owner to appeal further, thus losing my right to pay the reduced fine. The Surrey Parking and Traffice Appeals Service conceded that only 1 of the 3 fines was lawful and ordered me to pay (in full) the first of the 3 PCNs. At the time I was a student and only had £200 in my bank account. The £110 full fee thus represented over 50% of my entire life savings! I have now graduated and am seeking employment. I am receiving Jobseeker's Allowance and my bank balance has not improved! I would like to understand if there are any procedures I can follow to recover £55 from the Council. This is based on the fact that had they only issued me with 1 x PCN, I would have paid the reduced rate. I refused to pay on the grounds I was certain the Surrey Parking and Traffice Appeals Service would cancel all 3 x PCNs because £330 (or even £165 at the reduce rate) was a ridiculous amount to charge somebody with only £200 in their bank account. Additionally I believe I still have more than legitimate grounds for the original appeal. There are a number of issues that were not acknowledged by the Council, including: - The 'Business Permit Holders Only' sign is unlit. I was unable to see it in the dark. It is also taller than the residential signs and thus harder to read in low light conditions. - The 'Business Permit Holders Only' sign refers to an 'outside area' but it is not clear what this area is. - The sign is not adequately differentiated from others in the road. I believe it is there as a 'trap' to make money from people, particularly seeing as there are no businesses down a road with a shortage of residential parking spaces. - The road markings are unclear. - Although I was parked within 10 metres of the 'Business Permit Holders Only' sign (the reason I believe Surrey Parking and Traffice Appeals Service did not cancel the original PCN), I was parked within 5 metres of a 'Residents Parking' sign. Do I have any rights to further pursue this issue? Many thanks for your time.
The Government is to give the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) new powers to suspend a consumer credit licence with immediate effect. It follows outrage from consumer groups after companies that have been censured for breaking the rules are allowed to continue operating. The most high-profile case was Yes Loans, which charged would-be borrowers up to £70 for loans that they would never be offered. The new measure will help the OFT clamp down on rogue companies that provide any goods or services around credit, lend money, collect debts or help people with debt problems – like payday lenders and debt management firms. The new power, which will come into effect in early 2013, allows the regulator to act fast when consumers need urgent protection. The move, announced by Consumer Affairs Minister Norman Lamb and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury Mark Hoban, comes in response to growing concerns that these rogue firms can continue trading despite the decision to revoke their licence being a clear indication that the regulator thinks they are unfit to operate. Currently the OFT has the power to suspend or revoke a consumer credit licence, but businesses can appeal this decision and can continue to trade during the appeal period, which in some cases can last up to two years. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2176054/OFT-gets-power-clamp-rogue-credit-firms-payday-lenders.html#ixzz21BKGWqVZ