Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks @FTMDave. I suppose I felt my defence would be that it was an honest mistake and even the initial £60 charges seemed unjust, let alone the now two £170's he is now demanding. There is no Justpark code for 'Sea View' and the first/nearest car park that comes up when you're in the Sea View car park is the 'Polzeath beach car park'. If I have to accept that I need to pay £340 to avoid the stress of him maybe taking me to court, then so be it. If people here advise me I don't have a case then I will just have to pay.
    • What you've just written complicates things. No, the snotty letter now needs to be changed so don't rush and send something off just yet. We see you've done your reading up - well done - so you'll have seen we have several cases with our mate Kev.  His MO is to hide signs in the undergrowth where no-one will see them, and ignore consideration & grace periods, so he can issue his invoices.  His antics mean that motorists are legally in the right not to pay his invoices.  And so far he hasn't had the bottle to do court. However, your case is different.  As much as we despise Kev, you didn't pay for the private car park that Kev "manages" but instead gave the money to a completely different car park run by the council.  In that case Kev does have the right to be miffed.  I've just a mock booking for Sea View car park on JustPark and it works no problem. I think you have two decisions to make. 1.  Do you want to do a chargeback with your bank to get back the £60 you paid?  I did a chargeback about a year ago for the first time, i didn't have a clue what to do, but the regulars here guided me and everything was painless. 2.  Although you are probably legally in the wrong and may have outed yourself as the driver do you want to refuse to pay Kev for the other two?  If Kev won't do court then after all his bluster you'll be in the clear. However, as there are two tickets involved (potentially three if you go for chargeback) Kev's geed might win over his lack of backbone and he may go for court. There's no easy solution.  Your choice.  We will of course support you all the way with what you decide.
    • Ok thanx  I keeping coming across this term “ holding defence”. Can someone explain what this is. Thanx. 
    • Thank you @lookinforinfo and @FTMDave.  The car park I paid for by mistake instead of this one was Cornwall council, not Alliance. Will the letter still be ok in this instance? Thank you so much again for your help. When you open the Just Park app in the  Alliance car park (Sea View) the first car park that comes up is Polzeath Beach. Both car parks are on the beach. The signs do not give a code for 'Sea View' anywhere. I also have not been able to find the landowner to complain. (not on land registry.) Please confirm whether above letter is ok to send, thanks again.
    • OK thanks, I noted them down when I checked the report - 3 have already expired, although if I'm adding the 14 days on then it'll be another week or so for those. The others are; end of July (so into August is that right?), end of August (these two are the big ones) and a couple of grand on Shop Direct at the end of November but seeing as this furthest one is Lowell and they have already missed those first 3 then I feel pretty safe with that one. Are these DN dates on the credit report that dates I should be looking at +14 days when their anniversaries come up this year as the time when I can be sure the debts are SB?  I won't be rushing to send the SB letters anyway until the final one has passed and I can just do them in one fell swoop.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

accident claim - advice please! help!

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6039 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

Hi there,

just checking what people think!


We run a basic cleaning firm where we clean people's houses. yesterday, when one of the cleaners went to do a house clean, (where the people supply the cleaning materials) the man who owns the house slipped on the floors. Now, firstly the floors were damp and drying and he was told to be careful. Secondly, it transpires that the floor cleaner supplied was polish not "pledge wooden floor cleaner" and so the floors were slippy. The cleaner went back and redid the floors as soon as we all realised what had happened.


do you think the customer has grounds for claiming as he suppplied the floor cleaner and was told to stay off the wet floors?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Id suggest it was contributory negligence on both sides. The householder may have supplied the products, but there would have been a duty of care that the cleaner should have realised the floor treatment was going to be problematic. Also against you is that despite this arrangement, the householder could argue that the polish was never meant to be used on the floor - just his grand piano - and had not realised the pledge wooden floor cleaner was empty. Hopefully, a common-sense solution will prevail. Why not offer (without liability) to do the house free for a month as a gesture of goodwill? If it looks like getting nasty, a solicitor is a must.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it don't come to anything Mc and I think Buzby's idea is a great one and the cost would be negliable.

Just to bring to your attention. A few years ago a woman slipped on an commercial building floor that had been washed and there were signs around saying take care slippery floor, won her case for compensation as the judge said that putting those signs out was an admittance that the floor was dangerous.

You can't win can you and don't know what to do for the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he injure himself when he slipped?

For most claims regarding health + safety you need to have Negligence, Loss and a link between the too. Dependent on the amount of warning given to the client, the injury occurred and whether that injury prevented him from doing anything else would weigh heavily on any claim against you.

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slips, Trips and Falls the most common accident off the roads.

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem these days is that many insurance companies will pay out when really they should fight the case. I have several clients who have been faced with increased premiums because staff have injured themselves (most of the time through their own negligence) but instead of investigating and fighting it the insurers just pay up and charge everyone who has public liability insurance.


Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON


LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON


Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON




GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...