Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is the letter headed Letter of Claim/before Claim or similar? If not, it sounds like more of the threatogram chain. If you're not sure, post up an anonymised copy of the letter and we'll check. HB
    • So guess what, we have received a final demand letter for £100. It states if payment is not made by 11/06 they will have no option but to forward the case to their litigation dept with a view to commence County Court Proceedings. So just wondering if anyone has any advice. Do we ignore this? or do we need to take action? Thanks 
    • hi dx, thanks for helping just re-reading everything this morning and I must have missed this one from uncle in his thread "What you should not do, is not contact the Banks and simply default on payments. "  are you in disagreement with this based on your last sentence?
    • Thanks for the reply and clarification, that might just explain why in my case contact has pretty much ceased. Though with such companies it doesn't mean they won't ever threaten to return to court as a tool to force one's hand if they feel they are not self informed on their chances etc.  But concerning how last year they tried to use the CCJ to get a charging order and the court granted an intirum order on our mortgage using the CCJ that would have been a good 2-3 months beyond the 6 years, should the court not have checked the age of the CCJ in the first case or would they always grant an interim order simply off the back of a CCJ being produced without even checking the age of it?.  Had I not defended that action at the time they may well have got a default using a CCJ older than 6 years which could be a concern going forwards. At the time when I contacted the court to question the paperwork for a final order application the clerk suggested people don't get informed when companies apply for interim charging orders, they are automatic if a claimant has a CCJ and people only get contacted once a date for a final order application goes through. kind of begs the question if such companies can continue a seemingly backdoor method to attempt default action if un-defended if the initial application doesn't need to check the age of a CCJ?.
    • Hello!  Wondering if someone can help with this.  I suspect not but worth a go.  I appreciate the "contract is with the seller" line, which is what Evri has fed me but wanted to see if someone with experience in these things could suggest anything else I could do here.  I appreciate there are many topics about lost parcels - My parcels weren't lost, until the driver walked up to my door with them and then decided to make them lost/stolen... I'll summarise what has happened.  Wednesday of last week - Evri delivery driver stole / walked off with 3 of my parcels.  -  Arrived outside my properly, took photos (3 separate photos as its 3 separate deliveries) of the tops of the parcels (pointlessly zoomed in on just the labels, couldn't see anything else, other than a small piece of the pavement and a little weed, which doubly confirms it was outside my door as I can see the same plant), marked the order as delivered and walked off with them.  He's marked on the Evri GPS marked that he was outside.   -  3 different deliveries, from the same company (same boxes etc.), but 3 separate tracking numbers. -  Went through the Evri bot which opened a case on each tracking number.  I then phoned them and left a voicemail explaining what had happened. -  24 hours later had a canned response asking me if the packages had turned up and to check around etc..  I responded explaining again what happened and that they've definitely been taken. -  4 days later,  this morning, I get a response telling me to ask the merchant to refund me. I've responded to this message with a long email, repeating what I said, that I believe the driver has stolen these packages and that he took those suspicious top down shots of the packages, marked them as delivered without ringing or knocking etc.  I've said that I expect them to investigate further, but I gather they won't. In my several messages to them initially and later, I told them I don't care about a refund and wanted the parcels.  They contain some sentimental stuff, nothing of high monetary value, hence me going to this trouble.  I only paid £25 for the contents. I did contact the merchant when this first happened and they asked me to wait a few days.  They ended up refunding me despite me asking them not to and that I wanted them to escalate it with Evri because this appears to be a case of theft.  They didn't seem bothered - Refunded me and told me to go back to Evri and escalate it with them? So - Is there any way to compel Evri to conduct a proper investigation with this driver?  Search for my parcels? I have quite a lot of deliveries handled by Evri (not out of choice) - They used to have a fantastic chap and I rarely had any issues.  He has been replaced by a new guy and I believe the route is handled by this same guy who I believe has taken my packages.  Naturally, I fear this is going to happen again in the future if no investigation occurs. Appreciate any assistance - Thanks for reading. Al.  
  • 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

Combined parking Solutions


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5170 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

It will no doubt have come to the notice of regular readers of this forum that there is a PPC in existence trading under the name of "Combined Parking Solutions"

 

As a matter of curiosity, given the 100 thousand plus members that

the CAG forums have, can anyone hold there hand up and say that they have received a "parking charge notice" from this partnership and if so would they care to either PM me or post the documentation here ?

 

Also, any correspondence or Court documents would be most welcome, given that this is a trading partnership with 8 partners and twelve staff then the revenue stream to support this huge organisation as well as paying "the highest level of compensation in the UK of £25 for every ticket issued" then by the simple law of averages we should get at least one.

 

You do not need to identify yourself and all information received will be treated in the strictest confidence unless you otherwise wish it disclosed.

 

Many thanks

All posts by myself are without prejudice and do not constitue legal advice, they are purely for the discussion of points of law and consumer rights.

I am however not affiliated in any way shape or form with any financial institution or parking company. And if i am elected I will make it mandatory that all persons posting on this forum make such a declaration just so we can all see who the trolls are :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

OK, in view of the lack of response so far I'll broaden the subject :lol:

 

Has anyone seen an area with one of their signs on it ?

 

warning-sign-a.jpg

 

Help me here guys I'm tring to track down a huge company that must have revenues in excess of 3 million pounds so that we can help them see the light of day on consumer rights ;-)

All posts by myself are without prejudice and do not constitue legal advice, they are purely for the discussion of points of law and consumer rights.

I am however not affiliated in any way shape or form with any financial institution or parking company. And if i am elected I will make it mandatory that all persons posting on this forum make such a declaration just so we can all see who the trolls are :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, in view of the lack of response so far I'll broaden the subject :lol:

 

Has anyone seen an area with one of their signs on it ?

 

warning-sign-a.jpg

 

Help me here guys I'm tring to track down a huge company that must have revenues in excess of 3 million pounds so that we can help them see the light of day on consumer rights ;-)

Im a bit confused with this sign, if this was out side the shop i was going to shop at I wouldnt shop there .. reasons being.. 1. I am disabled and I certainly dont like to be told how long I can shop for and the fear that I may not get back to my car in time would cause a stressful shopping experience. 2. If I wanted to return an item I would have to wait an hour to return it. Being a disabled person I may not have the opportunity to return after the hour has lapsed.

It says nothing about disabled parking at all and I wouldnt class the wording 'designated' as to refer to disabled parking. Not being picky here but I for one would not shop /visit etc where I saw this sign and I doubt many disabled people will either, thus this business will lose my custom and money. Very Very disabled unfriendly .. I hope shops /business's consider very carefully placing one of these signs out side their place of business as they may risk losing customers.. sorry for the hijack :oops:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the FAQ gives it away if the numbers are really true.

 

Only 5% of people refuse to pay. If now the costs are offset, which are marginal, almost all money can be booked as profits.

 

I'm not for a moment disagreeing with you - just interested in where the figures come from.

 

5% refuse to pay means 95% pay, are people really that gullible? I think I'll set up a business selling Tower Bridge to the Americans - thought it was an urban myth, but there may be some truth in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not for a moment disagreeing with you - just interested in where the figures come from.

 

5% refuse to pay means 95% pay, are people really that gullible? I think I'll set up a business selling Tower Bridge to the Americans - thought it was an urban myth, but there may be some truth in it.

 

If you look on the faq page of combined parking solutions, it states that they take 5% to court, 10% are unenforceable, and the remaining 85% pay in the stages without taking it up to the hearing.

 

Certainly, we don't know if the numbers of such a website can be trusted. However, if you look at the letters, the misrepresentation they contain, and the fact that they are given the impression that it is a criminal matter.

 

I have made a unscientific survey among people I know, have to unfortunately say, I can imagine that the number of people who pay without a fight is very high, maybe not as high, but very high. That is exactly the percentage game that is played. It is not different that any other [problem] con-artists play. They don't have to be successful everytime, but unfortunately they are more often than not.

 

Also, don't forget, the scheme is built in such a way that people are not given time to make an informed decision (one of the attributes, the OFT describes scams with). I would think 99% of people have never heard about the fact that it is a [problem]. They either have never encountered it, or believed the notice was sent/given by the local authority.

 

There is still not enough public relations to educate people. The only real way to stop these con-artists, is to make sure everybody knows the facts. Beating some of them up here, may be nice strokes for the ego, but at the end will not stop them.

 

Same as with those banks. As long as nobody knew how illegal their actions are, they got away with it. The few, who protested got a refund in order to keep it quite. However, most times people either didn't bother, or didn't know that they could fight it, or didn't know how to.

 

The knowledge of people about PPC must get to the same level or even higher. No profits, the necessity to really work, is the best way to send those Sheriffs of Nottingham to the places they belong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look on the faq page of combined parking solutions, it states that they take 5% to court, 10% are unenforceable, and the remaining 85% pay in the stages without taking it up to the hearing.

 

Doesn't this mean that 2 out of 3 tickets issued are unenforceable, even by perky's standards. It's just that 85% of people, across the board, pay up anyway.

 

(Assuming the tickets judged unenforceable are ruled so at the end of the 'threat process' rather than the start.)

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done a little bit of on-line detective work on these guys. They are not listed under webcheck at Companies house under either Combined Parking or Combined Parking Solutions. I checked current, recently dissolved, dissolved, previous and proposed names.

 

I also checked the domain registrants details held by nominet.

combinedparkingsolutions.co.uk

Registrant: Combined Parkin

Registrant type: UK Limited Company, (Company number: 3821971) Registrant's address: Combined Parking Solutions, PO BOX 4487, Wolverhampton

West Midlands

WV1 9BP

GB

Registrar:

Pipex Communications UK Ltd t/a 123-Reg.co.uk [Tag = 123-REG]

URL: Domain name registration from 123-reg

Relevant dates:

Registered on: 02-Oct-2005

Renewal date: 02-Oct-2009

Last updated: 19-Aug-2007

 

Registration status:

Registered until renewal date.

 

Name servers:

ns.123-reg.co.uk

ns2.123-reg.co.uk

 

WHOIS lookup made at 11:37:37 22-Nov-2007

 

Another check made at Companies house based on the company number gives

 

 

Name & Registered Office:

 

OI MEDIA LIMITED

HIGHLAND HOUSE

LECKHAMPTON HILL

CHELTENHAM

GLOUCESTERSHIRE GL53 9QH

Company No. 03821971

 

This is listed as a computer company. They may or may not be related to CPS. They may have set the website up for them and this may be the extent of their relationship.

 

Hope this helps.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was Perky's own post on the subject.

 

Ok, Seen many silly posts on here and just to confirm the status of our company.

 

It is unincorporated, it has 8 partners to which I am one (I have NEVER stated anything else).

 

We have 12 back office staff processing tickets (9 of these work remotely).

 

We dont need to hide behind incorporation, why would we want to/need to ??

 

We (togeter with other PPCs) pay towards 2 members of staff who look at appeals on our behalf (working away from office at home) - we find this the only way we can be as independant as possible in appeals. (you will also note we DO NOT ask people to pay for their appeal to be considered ... EVER !! - unlike some PPCs which I have openely slated)

 

I (and partners) often cancel tickets myself/ourselves that have obvious errors on, issued unfairly but ones we dont ALWAYS get referred.

 

The PO Box number is to manage post - 4 of our partners work out of the office and have appeals directed to them directly at different PO BOX numbers under the same company - it saves us time & money.

 

You cannot hide behind a PO BOX, 1 call to Royal Mail will always tell you where it is being delivered to

So he is claiming that it is not a limited company
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest interesting
Help me here guys I'm tring to track down a huge company that must have revenues in excess of 3 million pounds so that we can help them see the light of day on consumer rights ;-)

 

I have a horrible feeling with a provocative comment like that, this thread could also get out of hand, the OP has stated for people to PM him as this is obviously a personal thing (with the history between muggerbee & perky so well documented).

I see this thread could turn into another silly one and would ask for the peace of the forum it be closed, it will still remain so people can PM the OP if required, which is what he asked for but will prevent things going crazzyyy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't this mean that 2 out of 3 tickets issued are unenforceable, even by perky's standards. It's just that 85% of people, across the board, pay up anyway.

 

(Assuming the tickets judged unenforceable are ruled so at the end of the 'threat process' rather than the start.)

 

Well, good observation. And it is not even considered how many court actions are won, and how many of those are won due to poor defence. The ratio of unenforceable actions could even be lower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this thread could turn into another silly one and would ask for the peace of the forum it be closed, it will still remain so people can PM the OP if required, which is what he asked for but will prevent things going crazzyyy.

 

In my experience, ignoring inappropriate things are usually the best thing. Let the mods do their work in silence, and let's focus on the topics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'...

All posts by myself are without prejudice and do not constitue legal advice, they are purely for the discussion of points of law and consumer rights.

I am however not affiliated in any way shape or form with any financial institution or parking company. And if i am elected I will make it mandatory that all persons posting on this forum make such a declaration just so we can all see who the trolls are :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit to lurking, but from an outsiders viewpoint and from comparing posts etc, it looks to me like interesting, green and mean, perky88 and several others are either the same person or work together, I mean if you compare the posts, every time perky gets into trouble, intersting pops up and says lay off, I might not be able to read that well, but i'm not bloody stupid !!!

 

Seeing as this is meant to be a forum for people getting shafted by these sort of people then i must say i find it disgusting that the mods allow this behaviour.

 

I came in for some advice about a parking ticket i got in aldi but it seems that it depends on who you ask as to what answer you get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but it seems that it depends on who you ask as to what answer you get.

 

I fear that can be said about any especially legal issue.

 

You know the saying? 3 lawyers = at least 6 opinions. Because every lawyer must be able to argue for either side :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest interesting
I must admit to lurking, but from an outsiders viewpoint and from comparing posts etc, it looks to me like interesting, green and mean, perky88 and several others are either the same person or work together, I mean if you compare the posts, every time perky gets into trouble, intersting pops up and says lay off, I might not be able to read that well, but i'm not bloody stupid !!!

 

Seeing as this is meant to be a forum for people getting shafted by these sort of people then i must say i find it disgusting that the mods allow this behaviour.

 

I came in for some advice about a parking ticket i got in aldi but it seems that it depends on who you ask as to what answer you get.

 

Sorry Private-Pile I personally think you are on old member who has just joined in order to stir up this subject up again.

Your comments about people being perky are unfounded and for someone who joins and then starts posting comments like yours are just too obvious.

As you for problem with ALDI parking ticket please scan the ticket (removing personal details) and we can all take a look at it and advise, I am surprised you have not mentioned it as you joined the site to get advice on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest interesting

I think Private-Pyle is muggerbee logging on as a different name.

I get notified (dont know why, there must be a way of switching it off, but thats another thing) when someone types a message and I received this email:

 

Dear interesting,

Muggerbee has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Combined parking Solutions - in the Parking / Traffic Wardens forum of The Consumer Forums.

This thread is located at:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-wardens/121160-combined-parking-solutions-new-post.html

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

I've been hanging about for a couple of days and even i can see that Perky is has a demonstrative egotistical personality and believes everything he does is right, does that remind you of any austrians in the 1930's ? also from an outsiders view it appears that he has at least, interesting, green and mean and electron99 as either employees or partners in his business. I am amazed that the original ambitions of bankfodder have come down to this. It is just like a certain 1930's european dictator with a posse of rent boys and if no one else can see that then i'm amazed, this will be my first AND last post here as i feel totally let down that bankfodder could allow this sort of crap on a forum that was meant to defend consumer issues...

Sometimes, as much as it hurts the previously mentioned austrian might have had a point regarding certain elements of the community.

Also if i ever win the lottery, or even a few grand, i know what social project i will be investing it in !!

***************

 

Then the post gets deleted, as he obviously realises hes done it wrong and a very similar post is made by a new member ???

Can anyone else see the link ?

 

MODS ... As I suspected this thread is being used by the OP to stir things up, it should be closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that I am accused of being an employee of perky, or other PPC's.Just what is it with these people.You dare question what they say, and you are automatically a troll, or a parking company under a different user name.What arrogance.I have been a member here for over a year, and although I have not been able to contribute much;I hope one day I shall.I have also been around long enough to know that the internet is notorious for mis-information, which was why I asked for transcripts of cases where the arguments used by the Peppipoo mafia resulted in a victory.They may well be right, but if in the future I need to use their information as a defence I want to be ABSOLUTELY sure, and that means a little more evidence than "Muggerbee says on the internet it is right, so it must be so."

Link to post
Share on other sites

:-D The fact remains that the best advice available for dealing with Private Parking Companies is contained in the Pete Jones post:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-wardens/65341-private-parking-companies-charges.html

 

Congratulations to members of both this forum and to members of www.pepipoo.com for enlightening so many previously uninformed individuals about the unenforceability of Private Parking Charges.

 

Some recent posts made over the last few days on this forum are clearly from individuals who have a vested interest in Private Parking Companies – I personally consider that their advice should at best be regarded as dubious for obvious reasons.

 

Perhaps the excellent advice given on this site (and Pepipoo) is beginning to hit the pockets of someone! :D :D :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

G&M has been around a ;oy lomger than Perky and has in-depth knowledge of PCNs.

 

I would be 99.999999% certain that he is not Perky

 

 

Aww thanks Pat!! I may be many things but Perky is not one of them, its very hard to be perky at my age anyway!! :D I have been known to be 'interesting' but sadly not on this forum. This is getting like that scene in Spartacus, I'm expecting people to start shouting I'm Perky...no I'm Perky at any moment!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have never considered you to be perky :lol: but have tarred you with the same brush, we all have our views on whats right or wrong, thats morality for you, it's subjective and you're entitled to yours as am I.

 

And you know my views on these outfits :-x

All posts by myself are without prejudice and do not constitue legal advice, they are purely for the discussion of points of law and consumer rights.

I am however not affiliated in any way shape or form with any financial institution or parking company. And if i am elected I will make it mandatory that all persons posting on this forum make such a declaration just so we can all see who the trolls are :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aww thanks Pat!! I may be many things but Perky is not one of them, its very hard to be perky at my age anyway!! :D I have been known to be 'interesting' but sadly not on this forum. This is getting like that scene in Spartacus, I'm expecting people to start shouting I'm Perky...no I'm Perky at any moment!

 

Ah, GM, you are interesting, dear. I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you on private parking issues, but if I ever get a Council or Police ticket, you and Pat are definitely the ones I'd go to for proper advice :)

-----

Click the scales if I've been useful! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, GM, you are interesting, dear. I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you on private parking issues, but if I ever get a Council or Police ticket, you and Pat are definitely the ones I'd go to for proper advice :)

 

 

I never give advice on matters I know nothing about such as contract law but can never say no to a good argument is there is one going! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5170 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...