Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Penny v Egg


pennypenny
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5715 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Penny,

 

Egg does require photocopy of passport or drivers licence, plus 2 original utility bills (returned). You can have a list of penalty charges only for £5 within days or a comprehensive one-inch pile of paper for £10 which can take 40 days. Inclusion of cheque will speed up the response.

 

 

Egg used to pay without stalling or waiting for legal cohercion, but this admirable practice has noticeably slowed down, in some case stopping, since the announcement of the test case at end of July. For history of winning Egg cases see V-E Day: Victory over Egg 5

 

 

The OFT bank penalty charges test case hearing is expected (as per OFT) "at the beginning of 2008". When a High Court judge pronounces a lawful penalty charge to be £XX, I would be surprised if this figure has no bearing on credit card reclaim hearings in Small Claims Court -- where the card does defend. Although one hearing is for banks and the other for cards, judges have repeatedly said they seek consistency not lottery of verdict. Imho it is hard to see how Small Claims judges would have any appetitite to substantively deviate from the High Court figure following the cause celebre. Small Claims judges could of course develop an appetite for a separate verdict for credit cards, staying hearings if another test case is in the offing.

 

The High Court verdict will put an end to 100% refund of bank penalty charges. As this hearing draws ever closer --

 

OFT press release 15OCT2007:

 

"8. When will the test case take place?

There is a trial window between January 14 and February 28 2008 within which the trial will take place. We expect it to last between eight and fifteen days.

 

10. Does the test case have any read across to credit card default charges?

The present case concerns only whether banks' charges for unauthorised overdrafts on personal current accounts are subject to the test of fairness in the UTCCRs and, if they are, the case may continue in order to determine whether those charges are unfair under the UTCCRs."

 

managements of cards such as Egg will realise they only need to stall a few weeks and then they will be able to refund less retrospective charges to claimants, or even to refund nothing at all, bearing in mind the OFT set a £16 intervention threshold for Egg on 5th April 2006, and the possibility of a comparable figure adjudicated by High Court.

 

 

Imho therefore, claimants who want 100% refund of charges are in a race against time. For OFT press release on 15OCT2007, see

 

Information about the test case?

 

PS. To encourage Egg onto the path of virtue you might consider informing Egg that if they refuse to refund on the strength of your letter in plain English, you are minded to take your case to the FOS, who will immediately charge Egg a fee of £360 win lose or draw.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
Not updated this thread in ages, but Egg capitulated today, just under £1000 refunded.

 

Interestingly, I claimed interest at 16.9% on my charges, simply based on the date of the charge. This wasn't quite right as I hadn't paid interest on the charges during periods when the account balance was zero. I couldn't do this as a number of charges on my account didn't have values assigned to them, so I couldn't calculate my balance each month.

 

Egg have calculated the interest properly for me and then refunded that too. Very good of them.

 

I myself would not reclaim debit interest if in any month there was no debit interest levied, e.g. the account had near zero balance. Precise calculation of debit interest compounded monthly on penatly charges is not simple, as cardholder monthly payments go to pay off different debit items in a pre-set order described in the T&C, e.g. cash advances wiped out first.

 

Egg is so cooperative these days that they redid the arithmetic for Paul above and refunded in short order, so no need to get your computations 100% right, only a computer using known formulae can do that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe if Egg agree to pay yourself instead of into your card, then rather than the less secure option of sending a cheque they would prefer to transfer money into the bank account in your own name which you nominate.

 

Good luck Penny!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pennypenny, Eggegg no longer has the appetite to resist garden variety charges refunds. Claimants beyond count have received full refunds, many with interest as requested, and many within the week to the amount of £1,000, after just a proven template letter or two in plain English. All this has been reported continuously on V-E Day thread.

 

So if Egg stiffens and stalls, let us know. The Queen's English can in cases have effect faster than the law.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Penny, the reply you received came promptly because it was a computerised template letter. If you check against some of the initial responses from Egg, as listed in V-E Day thread, you will find the text to be identical -- so it was not targeted at you.

 

This procedure has become a ritualised choreographed dance, as one dancer goes forwards another goes backwards. Egg staff have been instructed to go through the motions just in case they succeed in bamboozling innocents. If you completely ignore the adverse letter, but adapt the template letter below to your own particulars and send same, then Egg's next response is likely to be -> ££££. The less you deviate from the template the better, as that is a signal that you know that they know that you know that they know how it will end, so no point pussyfooting any more.

 

Good luck!

 

03 weeks - 22 JAN 2008 - WINNING TEMPLATE LETTER - andrew_nwide - WON!! Egg Smashed £900

Edited by Mistermind
typo
  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

01 weeks - 30 APR 2007 - WINNING TEMPLATE LETTER - Eggmail then 2-day payout - moc1982 v Egg

 

That was the first variant of the winning letter. Egg management know the text by heart now. The above simpler variant will need less adaptation. Over 30 senders of this template reported a quick result, with none disappointed, so this route is proven to work faster than the legals.

 

If Egg have no appetite for spending more money and wasting staff time, least of all going to court, they will not split hairs with your text. Ignore their standard "hard to get" letter. No need to wait. This is the scripted one-two, the scripted slow-slow-quickquick-slow, proven many times.

 

;)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Penny, no harm investing in 66(?) namesakes of yours, and sending both ways, each message referring to the other. It is peak holiday season now with many staff away, and whichever Eggployee is still awake and reads the message first will pass it onto the authorising manager.

 

Hope the Pimms will soon be on you. :grin: :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So many happy endings have been reported, some before 7 eggs have been boiled for breakfast, why would yours be any different? The kettle boils faster though, when you go off and do something else......

 

The teas are on Penny when she wins. Mine's F and M Royal tea, with milk and no sugar (sweet enough you see). :grin:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Penny, refunds + 8% is Egg's norm. Some claimants, not all, did get more than 8% depending on whether the refund manager of the time waved it through. I myself accepted an offer similar to yours, deeming any potential reward probably not worth the struggle.

 

Over the past 12 months the roof fell in on Citigroup who lost US$ 47 billion, closely followed by Merrill Lynch on $46 billion and UBS $42 billion. An atmosphere of digging heels in has evidently taken hold. No doubt job cuts are reaching Egg House.

 

You have now obtained 108% refund, starting from an opening offer of £4, so have done well already.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...