Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Should this ever happen to me, I will make an appeal at the first stage to avoid any problems that may occur at a later stage. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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

Over The Top


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5997 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

In the interests of fairness I think it is only right that I am able to correct some inaccuracies made by the op in the thread 'Over the road'. I'm not interested in reopening the debate of a closed thread but setting the record straight.

 

In the thread the op claimed that the site in question was not answering threads. But a little mathematical analysis would seem to suggest otherwise. Of all the individual bank forums on CAG, 22 percent of threads remained unanswered for at least 24 hours. Over the same period, in the corresponding forums, the other site had answered all but 4 per cent.

 

I do not know if the op is a member of the site but I suspect not. If the op wasn't they would have only seen the first post in each thread. And If the op was a member they would not have seen much in the way of unanswered threads and significantly less than this site. Either way the op could not have drawn the conclusion they did with any credibility.

 

The op also complained of posts on the site containing disparaging remarks about CAG in a post that contained disparaging remarks about the other site.

 

This renders the op guilty of the very offence he was complaining about and leaves CAG and the op the subject of the op's own criticism.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

that thread was created because the OP was sick of people from other sites coming on here & making comments about how posts arent answered & generally critising the mods/site helpers.

 

if your numbers are accurate, then good for the other sites but why do they need to come back here at all if only to stir up trouble.

 

as CB says were all aiming for the same goal here so why all the petty bickering?

Link to post
Share on other sites

that thread was created because the OP was sick of people from other sites coming on here & making comments about how posts arent answered & generally critising the mods/site helpers.

 

Well thats very odd. The op makes no mention of that whatsoever in their thread (?)

 

And Mods from CAG should really know better than to openly boast that they're ''baiting'' on the site in question.

 

I'm not backbiting, I'm biting back. The op's views were unprompted and

factualy incorrect about a site that i'm associated with. It was unjustified

and I had every right to point that out. And I'll continue to reserve that

right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day i was merely making a point that people shouldn't make opinions about CAG and the way Mods and Admin run it, coz the fact is NO site is perfect all has teething problems and all differs in advice given,and at no point of time did i ever mention a specific site,so i am baffled at how i'm being accused of aiming it at a site the crfx is associated with.

As for the chinese whispers remark about another site,well this is now getting more known and as you have stated crfx you reserve the right for your opinions well so do i, it's called freedom of speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your going to have to excuse me here but I'm genuinely struggling to make any sense of what you're saying.

 

 

You're now claiming you were ''merely making a point that people shouldn't make (sic) opinions about CAG and the way Mods and Admin run it'' (and then oddly ending the post defending freedom of speech).

 

 

There is no mention of this in any of your posts on the thread! If there is then please point me there. But if that is your view then why do you find it acceptable to voice your opinions about OTR and the way their Mods run it in your original post? I find this very difficult to understand.

 

 

I'm in no doubt that the site you are referring to is Legal Beagels. It is the only site that refers to CAG as OTR. It's hardly baffling.

 

 

And finally I'd be very grateful if you would kindly take on board that these Chinese whispers you seem to think hold such significance are something I'm not remotely interested in and frankly I couldn't give a monkeys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The op's views were unprompted and

factualy incorrect about a site that i'm associated with

 

I never named a site???And i don't know or care what other site you are with.

 

I'm in no doubt that the site you are referring to is Legal Beagels.(Wrong) It is the only site that refers to CAG as OTR. It's hardly baffling.(Are you sure about this)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in no doubt that the site you are referring to is Legal Beagels. It is the only site that refers to CAG as OTR. It's hardly baffling

 

actually it's not the only site that refers to CAG as OTR

Link to post
Share on other sites

The op's views were unprompted and

factualy incorrect about a site that i'm associated with

 

I never named a site???And i don't know or care what other site you are with.

 

I'm in no doubt that the site you are referring to is Legal Beagels.(Wrong) It is the only site that refers to CAG as OTR. It's hardly baffling.(Are you sure about this)

 

 

So what site are you referring to ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just spoken to myself,myself answered my question,the answer myself gave was i have no need to name any site,i asked myself why,myself replied for the same reason other sites refer to this site as OTR,myself was happy with that answer.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is LB then...thanks

 

Once again i asked myself did i state anywhere who it was,myself said hang on i will have a look,myself has just answered my question,no can't find it anywhere,myself is also happy with that answer.

Myself did also say to myself that YOU have named another group and no one else,i agree with myself.

THANKS:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5997 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...