Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • 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

Comet - Acer Aspire 5102WLMi

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6031 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

I bought my Acer laptop from Comet online in November 2006. On delivery, I unpacked it and plugged it in and quickly discovered that the card drive didn't work. I took it to a local Comet store who told me I'd have to deal with Acer directly. I argued my consumer rights and after a lot of hassle they suddenly agreed to replace it and I took home a new laptop.


At the beginning of October this year, still within the 12 month warranty, I left the room for 10 minutes and returned to find that the laptop had failed. There was a black screen full of 'fatal error' messages and the top left surface of the case in front of the keyboard [Fn Alt] keys had actually melted and caved in. I touched it and burned my finger and realised that it was a catastrophic failure and also a fire risk. This time, I took it back to a Comet store in Leeds area. They again tried to fob me off by asking me to ring Acer. I said I'd bought it from Comet and that I only wanted to deal with Comet. I pointed out the two failures, said I'd lost faith in the product and wanted a replacement of a different make. They were extremely hard-nosed and said that after the first 28 days all they would ever do is return faulty items to the manufacturers. So back to Acer it went.


My laptop was returned to the store for me to pick up a week later. I took it home and switched it on. It booted up OK but then failed again within about 4 minutes. The keyboard, mouse and USB ports were all dead and there was a plain blue screen with only faint vertical bars showing. I phoned Comet head office in Hull and spoke to a character called Mark Lambert. He told me that it would have to be returned to Acer yet again and that nothing else would be done in terms of a refund or replacement. When I tried to argue my case he simply held his ground. I sat and thought the situation over carefully and felt dismayed by their attitude. I actually rang him back to plead my case further. His actual words: "Oh ... I thought we'd finished our little conversation", in a sickening and patronising tone that dismissed any notion I had that I was dealing with a decent company with any concern whatsoever for its customers. I took it back in, it was sent off to Acer once more and I have not heard any more for the last 4 weeks. I have been without a working laptop for around 7 weeks now.


My overall impression is that Comet's attitute stinks, their customer service is abysmal and that their only interest is to take our money and then we can just sod off. I contacted consumerdirect.gov.uk who advised me to write to the credit card firm I bought it through, since they are jointly liable. I've done that and the original transaction is now in dispute. It has also been passed up to Trading Standards who called me back today. They say that the whole business of 'reasonable period' and proved 'unfit for purpose' are grey areas and that ultimately I may have to take it to the small claims court. They said I might expect a reduced refund value since I've 'enjoyed some use of it' over the 10 month period. I fully accept that and had already told Comet I'd be quite happy to pay extra and buy a better make and model if they would at least offer some form of store credit. But no; they don't want to part with a single penny it seems.


I do not want it back, regardless of Comet's sales patter and arrogance as I simply don't have any faith in the product's safety, (especially left unattended), nor in its reliability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

with all retailers these days, they are not commision based and are pretty much all on minimum wage with little to no training.


this is how laptops are now retailing for £299. yes you may not see why this is relevent but keep reading.


retail staff are only trained with company guidelines and policies. they are not law graduates or engineers to be able to assess the cost or repair and compair it to the cost of a replacements to be able to fully offer a remedy which by SOGA is remedied within a reasonable time and without extra costs in comparison to other remedies.


the companies legal team, head office, engineers can asses this. this is why store staff canot be very helpful for anything SOGA related.


with their lack of wages and training and the fact that they are personally not legally accountable for SOGA issues they do not care about consumers soga rights.


advice to you.


write to the highest department you can. above the call center stock checking phoneline. try the complaints department or writing a letter to the chief executive.


under SOGA you have allowed them the opertunity to remedy the issue and they have repaired or replaced it already atleast once. this is enough to now request a partial or full refund/recission.


store staff will be unhelpful. so dont stress yourself out with them. it has only been proven to get action out of store level staff if you word your grievance loud enough for other customers to hear and make them rethink their purchases, without being insulting or abusive enough to get banned.


this is hard to acheive so going the legal route by contacting trained staff or staff that are accountable to deal with your SOGA rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred and thank you for a useful post. I agree with you about lack of staff training, motivation and responsibility and that is why I quickly resorted to Comet's head office in Hull. Even there, my telephone conversations with a so-called manager led nowhere so I then put my complaint to them in writing and copied it to Trading Standards. My credit card company are now looking into the transaction. The offending laptop is STILL away 'under repair' several weeks later. I've had to first borrow and then purchase another one since I use it both for work and also to keep in touch with friends and family being partially disabled. I've now seen a few more posts describing other peoples' dire experiences with Comet and have serious doubts about finding any acceptable solution outside of a small claims court. My laptop cost £500 so wasn't all that cheap either. I will post any updates here, negative or positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing someone who works at Comet, it is pretty much company policy to fob off every customer who comes in with a product complaint. As far as I am aware, you are perfectly entitled to have the store deal with any issues with the product, it is up to you wether you go to Acer or the store (both can have their advantages, depending on the situation).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised to hear that, Delta. Since I bought the offending article from Comet, I assumed my contract of sale was with them. I did subsequently phone Acer's service department and explained what had gone on and asked if under these extreme circumstances they will write the machine off and instruct Comet to offer me a refund, but they wouldn't even discuss it with me. They pointed out that if I'd bought it from Comet I would need to speak with them only. After all this time, I doubt I will see the laptop again and even if I do get it back I would never leave it switched on and unattended ever again, let alone trust it with vital work or financial information. If this had happened with an item bought from Argos or other highstreet stores, they would have exchanged it without question. Low prices are no justification for zero after-sales service and a cavalier attitude. Once bitten and all that ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...