Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep   Matt Hancock United Nations job offer withdrawn WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Anti-poverty campaigners protested over his role in blocking vaccines for developing world  
    • I hope you noticed that your posts have had to be restructured first of all my my site team colleague and then your second post by myself. Please can you present your posts properly spaced and punctuated. It's extreme difficult for people to follow when they are in solid blocks of text – especially when people using small screen such as telephones. Thank you. Please stand by for a fuller reply later
    • So far the declared value is confirmed and documemted the first Claim got agreed and they kept delaying saying the refund will show 5-7 days for BACS but that not true!   I VE been chaising this since 28th september, told on 2nd October I needed to send my bank details again as they seemed they got it wrong but not my fault yet they had it since 2nd October! Thats over 2 weeks! I   GET Money via bank bacs and from Europe and recently in 3 Days and in the UK its same day and instant!   They re messing me about and nothing else!   For contents its a Marshall  speaker small Bluetooth one value 127.99   And 2nd parcel stolen last week and an empty bag delivered yesterday for Marshall Headphones value 121.99 all sold via verifiable links and invoices and all fully covered to its value, and payment all proven as well as refunds.   The first claim was agreed but still no payment   2nd Claim had to file it yesterday and he re the empty bag!
    • Yes it will be straightforward – but you may as well give us better information so we can check that everything is in a row. What was in the parcels? When were they sent? Was the value correctly declared? I understand you had insurance.   Have you been formerly declined compensation? If so then what was the reason given?   Also, you need to spend some time reading up on the Hermes threads on this sub- forum so that you understand the way it goes. It is pretty well always the same. It's essential that you understand the steps and so it is essential that you do the reading. In addition to answering the questions above, please confirm that you have done the reading or the you will be doing it.
    • In order for an NTK to be compliant it has to comply with PoFA. If it is not compliant then the keeper cannot be held liable for the PCN.  I have included the wording from S8 though  s9 is identical in the part I have copied below. You will see that at the beginning  "The Notice  'must' " which in Law means the wording  is to be stictly observed (2)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; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; (c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f); (d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is— (i)specified in the notice to keeper, and (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4)); (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; (f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; (g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available; (h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made; (i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).   If you compare that with the NTK you weresent you will see that your one does not include  "   (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) " Your NTK also states that if you don't pay the £100 that you will be liable for debt collection charges up to £60. this contradicts section 4 of PoFA where it covers the right of the parking crooks to pursue motorists [5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).   So their NTK is non compliant in two places.    In any event Ambreen is wrong to declare that if they cannot pursue the keeper than they can assume that the keeper was the driver. The court will not entertain that idea -VCS need to provide strict proof that the keeper is the driver. So despite Ambreen claiming that they can proceed against the keeper she is wrong. [17,18 and !9 of her WS]. They quote Parking Eye v Beavis   [22] which is irrelevant since that was a free car park and yours is a residential parking space covered by a lease which VCS cannot overturn.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Disproportionate Penalty Level


CrispDust
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 955 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

I cannot find mention of this on any thread or FAQ.

When considering which punitive charges to claim back, what is considered a punitive charge i.e. the level of charge relative to the level of “transgression"?

 

For example, a £25 bounced direct debit, which attracts a £29 fee from the bank, is punitive. How about a £125 or a £525 transgression?

Or does the level of transgression not matter?

Thanks in anticipation of a reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that I don't get the impression at that you have read around very much.

Thhis question is dealt with several times.

 

The disproportionate nature of the charges is that it fails merely to reflect the actual expenses incurred by the bank as a result of the customer's transgression.

 

Please go and read the FAQs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, gentlemen, I have read the FAQ from top to bottom again (code 586GJKEE4) and cannot find anything that deals specifically with my question.

I apologise if the answer is obvious and I'm missing it. :oops:

For the meantime. I will take it the level of transgression is not a factor.

 

A damn good site, chaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 955 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.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...