Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I do disagree with you regarding one thing - we are not very good with letters or these situations and are slow on the uptake. So far you have stood up to Excel and their threats, immediately given us the information in the sticky, done loads of reading up to educate yourselves, learnt from the mistake of outing the driver so you'll know not to do so in the future, got on to the organ grinder to try to get them to call off their dogs, etc., etc.  Good grief - we wish everyone who came here would do this!!! Most people who get these invoices sadly think they have been fined and if they don't pay a drone from Ukraine will be diverted and will fall on their home (or some such vague grand apocalyptic threat) and they fold and give in.  You haven't.  Well done. Don't worry - you won't be paying a penny.  Although it will take some time to see off this vile company.
    • Spot on!  You learn quickly. Who cares if the case gets sent to debt collectors?  They have no powers.  All the effort you will have to put in will be to open envelopes - and then spend time laughing at their daft "threats".  No stress at all!
    • I did ask them why, but seems they have more spare cash than we do .. ;-( .. I doubt their bank would even support a chargeback after a year has passed. Anyway I've constructed my first DRAFT Snotty Letter .. so here goes ..   RE: PCN 4xxxxx Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept, Thank you for your dubious Letter Of Claim (dated 29th April 2024) of £100 for just 2 minutes of overstay. The family rolled around on the floor in amazement of the idea you actually think they’d accept this nonsense, let alone being confused over the extra unlawful £70 you had added. Shall we raise that related VAT issue with HMRC, or perhaps the custodians of the unicorn grain silos? Apart from the serious GDPR breach you’ve made with the DVLA and your complete failure in identifying the driver, we’re dumbfounded that the PCN is still not compliant with the PoFA (2012 Schedule 4 Under Section 9.2.f) even after 12 years of pathetic trial and error. We also doubt a judge would be very impressed at your bone idleness and lack of due diligence regarding the ANPR entry / exit periods compared with actual valid parking periods. Especially with no consideration of the legally allowed grace periods and the topological nature of the Cornish landscape versus a traditional multi-storey. And don’t even get us started on the invisible signage during the ultra busy bank holiday carnage, that is otherwise known as the random parking chaos in the several unmarked over-spill fields, or indeed the tedious “frustration of contract” attempting to get a data connection to Justpark.  We suggest your clients drop this extreme foolishness or get an absolute hammering in court. We are more than ready to raise the issues with a fair minded judge, who will most likely laugh your clients out in less time than it takes to capture more useless ANPR photos. We will of course be requesting “an unreasonable costs order” under CPR 27.14.2.g and put it toward future taxis to Harlyn Bay instead.  We all look forward to your clients' deafening silence. Legal Counsel on behalf of the Vehicle Keeper.  
    • Hi,t I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right subsection but General Retail appears to be the closest to it I think... About a year and a half ago I got a new phone so I listed my iPhone 10 on eBay.  The listed stated 'UK only' and 'no returns accepted'. Considering I had had the phone for about 4 years, I myself was amazed that I had kept it in such good condition all that time - apart from being slightly scuffed around the charging port there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. It had the original box, its unopened original Apple cable, plug, and earbuds, and I threw in a case for it and It had always had a screen protector on it. Someone wanted it from Armenia, and I stupidly agreed to it.  She paid and I sent it off, fully insured. Not long after she received it, she sent a message saying it 'was not as described', so I asked to see photos of whatever was the problem.  She sent two photographs of the box.  Just the box.  I said I wasn't even going to consider refunding her unless she told me what she meant by 'not as described'.  I thought, if it's been damaged in transit, then it would be covered by the insurance. Anyway, she didn't respond at all, even though I had messaged her several times, so she opened a case with eBay. I have sold a fair few things of mine on eBay in the past buy had never had had anyone come back to me asking for a refund.  I got in touch with eBay several times by phone and by email, and found out they always side with the buyer, no matter what with their 'eBay Seller Guarantee'.  She had been told she could keep the phone and told me they would recover the money from me from my account blah blah.  So I unlinked all of my cards etc and changed my bank account to one that I never use with no money in it. My account got suspended.  I continued to try to explain to eBay that I had been scammed but I got nowhere. My account was permanently inaccessible by this point. I reported the phone stolen and the IMEI blacklisted but I'm not sure if that would make any difference being in Armenia, but it was all I could think of to piss the buyer off. A couple of months later I was contacted by email by a debt recovery company (I can' remember who now), to whom I explained I will not discuss the matter with them until I had received an SAR I had requested from eBay. As I could no longer access my account, I couldn't review the communication I needed to show I was not in the wrong. The SAR was produced but I was advised that the information I was looking for would not be included but I said I wanted it anyway.  There were so many codes etc. and hoops to jump through to access it, that even after trying whilst on the phone to them, I still couldn't get into it, so I never got to see it in the end.  I think they said they would send the code by post but they never did and I forgot about it after a while. I've just come across a couple of emails from Moorgroup, asking me to phone them to discuss a private matter regarding eBay.  I haven't replied or done anything at all yet.  The amount they are trying to recover from me is £200ish from what I remember. I know it's not that much but I don't want to pay the b*astards on general principle. I've had a lot of useful advice from CAG in the past about debt collectors but it has always been about being chased by creditors, I've never been in this situation before. I don't know what power they legally have to recover the 'debt', and most importantly, I am two years into a DRO, and the last thing I want is another CCJ to shake off if I'm cutting my nose off to spite my face.   Any advice gratefully received!!
    • Hi, I have the Sims 4 on Macbook. Over the last year I have paid for multiple add on packs spending a lot of money on them. I bought them all in good faith as my Mac met all the minimum requirements to play them. I have been playing happily for about a year and bought my latest pack just over a week ago. The games were all working fine yesterday. Then suddenly today EA released a new app to launch the games and this new app requires a MAC OS that my computer cannot use. Now suddenly none of my games are accessible and I am unable to play anything. They did not warn us about this change in requirements and if I had known they would be doing this I wouldn't have bought all these add ons as they are now all totally unusable. The games themselves have not changed, only their app to launch them and I can't afford to buy a brand new mac just to play. So my question is how can they change the minimum requirements after I have paid for a game? I agreed to pay for them based on the fact my mac met their requirements and was not informed when purchasing that this would be an issue in the future. I understand new games (like Sims 5 which is to be released next year) might not be compatible but this is a 10yr old game that they have suddenly made inaccessible due to their new launch app. Does anybody know if I can do anything or anyway to get a partial refund from them? Thanks   Here are their T&C... I can't find anything in there about them being able to do this so not sure what to do https://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/
  • 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

pipe sticking out of ground, damaged car.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5938 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

hi everyone, not sure if this is the rights spot to put this but couldn't find anywhere better.

 

hopefully you can help me with my issue and let me know wether i aint got a hope in hell, or dammit i should be fuming and be completely reimbursed.....

 

a couple of weeks ago i went to buy some carpet and pulled onto the car park of walsall carpets,

i then realised they were closed and so carried on driving across the car park and "**crunch**" i stopped,

reversed back a few feet and found a pipe sticking out of the ground approx 1 1/2 feet high, dark grey in clour,

no warning sign, no cone to point it out, not wrapped in any flourescent colouring etc etc...

it had damaged the lower front end of my car it had a nice crack in the bumper,

the lower grill was broken, and have since found out that my radiator is bent.

i reckon approx £1500 worth of damage.

 

question is

 

 

do i have a right to claim compensation to pay for the repairs thru walsall carpets?

as it was their car park and the pipe was too small to see and shouldn't be there in the first place...

...or am i having a laugh and should just make a claim on the insurance and look where im going in future??

 

please help, and if i have a claim, what letter should i send?

 

 

have a few piccies to help you visualise....

:D
Link to post
Share on other sites

That pipe is so photoshopped that it's untrue! :)

 

:D

 

Looking at the damage to the underside of the car, it is quite remarkable that the pipe is still sticking up. With all due respect to the O.P, should they be driving without glasses ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be said that in order to drive over that pipe the driver of the vehicle actually had to mount the pavement the pipe is sticking out of...

 

The driver had no reason to drive over the paved area and therefore has to bear full responsibility for the damage caused to their car...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to play Devils Advocate, but you drove into it and not the other way round. There does not appear to be anything obstructing the view of it and could be described as careless driving.

 

As a driver, you are expected to be able to see what's in front of you.

 

You give no indications of the light conditions either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be said that in order to drive over that pipe the driver of the vehicle actually had to mount the pavement the pipe is sticking out of...

The pipe is quite clearly sticking out on the edging bricks of the car park, NOT the pavement, therefore is on the carpet shop's land. However, as the pipe is right next to the kerb, it could be argued that you were moving too fast, especially to cause that much damage.

 

I would submit your claim, along with the photos to your insurance company and let them decide whether to pursue the carpet shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pipe is quite clearly sticking out on the edging bricks of the car park, NOT the pavement, therefore is on the carpet shop's land. However, as the pipe is right next to the kerb, it could be argued that you were moving too fast, especially to cause that much damage.

 

Wherever the pipe is sticking out from the ONLY way you are going to be able to drive into it is by mounting the pavement in some form or other...

 

Any claim by you for driving into the pipe will be countered by their claim that you are guilty of careless driving...

 

And anyway... you have freely admitted you were on their property after they closed... Trespass anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wherever the pipe is sticking out from the ONLY way you are going to be able to drive into it is by mounting the pavement in some form or other...

 

How do you know this?:confused:

 

It is a shop and clearly there is, in the photo, room for car parking outside, so one would imagine there is an entrance which just isn't shown on the pics.

 

What if somebody drove in to the car park and then reversed to park?

 

And then hit the pipe?

 

At night? (Which one can reasonably assume happened to the OP as he said the shop was closed, maybe after 5pm? or even later? and it is winter and dark at about that time)

 

In a 4x4? (Where the driver is raised and the pipe is only, by estimation from the pic, about a foot)

 

Any claim by you for driving into the pipe will be countered by their claim that you are guilty of careless driving... See above. Also, regardless if the OP was reversing or not there is clearly a hazard here.

 

And anyway... you have freely admitted you were on their property after they closed... Trespass anyone? No:confused:

 

It is a shop that looks as though there are no shutters when closed.

 

There are sale notices abound and also notices on the door.

 

Are people only allowed to read these notices 9 to 5 or whatever?:confused:

 

 

 

 

Take this further OP and write to the store in the first instance.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Take this further OP and write to the store in the first instance.

 

The damage is to the offside of the vehicle, and whatever direction or reversing movement took place, the only way that damage could have been caused would be to have driven with the passengers side on the pavement; unless the driver was approaching the pipe, in which case he/she should have seen it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wherever the pipe is sticking out from the ONLY way you are going to be able to drive into it is by mounting the pavement in some form or other...

Nope. The pipe is quite clearly IN the car park NEXT to the pavement. Its perfectly possible to hit that pipe WITHOUT mounting the pavement. The OP should contact his insurers especially as he states he has legal protection.

 

The shop might counter that in order to cause that much damage, the OP was driving too fast, but even so, an obstruction is an obstruction. Probably best to let insurance deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The damage is to the offside of the vehicle, and whatever direction or reversing movement took place, the only way that damage could have been caused would be to have driven with the passengers side on the pavement; unless the driver was approaching the pipe, in which case he/she should have seen it.

I don't think so. Look at the photographs (3rd one in particular) and it appears to me there are two car parks, separated by a strip of pavement, one belonging to the carpet shop and the other, perhaps a different shop. Why would the OP enter the other car park, then drive over the pavement to get into the carpet shop's car park?

Link to post
Share on other sites

just to clear a few things up,

the pipe is not on a pavement,

the part you mention just seperates two car parks,

 

 

one for the petrol station

behind where the photo is viewing.

 

 

the entrance is at the far end of the car park furthest away from the pipe.

 

 

it was dusk at the time of the accident, (day after boxing day, therfore quite dark at arount 5pm-ish.

was not going 'fast' at all,

had actually stopped just short of said pipe,

and when realised was closed pulled away and immidietely hit the pipe.

it could not be seen over the end of my bonnet.

 

 

the pipe did not bend in any way it is made from very thick metal,

and is infact still facing towards the angle where i hit it,

hence the amount of damage as it went through the grill into the rad.

:D
Link to post
Share on other sites

just to clear a few things up, the pipe is not on a pavement, the part you mention just seperates two car prks, one for the petrol station behind where the photo is viewing. the entrance is at the far end of the car park furthest away from the pipe. it was dusk at the time of the accident, (day after boxing day, therfore quite dark at arount 5pm-ish. was not going 'fast' at all, had actually stopped just short of said pipe, and when realised was closed pulled away and immidietely hit the pipe. it could not be seen over the end of my bonnet. the pipe did not bend in any way it is made from very thick metal, and is infafact still facing towards the angle where i hit it, hence the amount of damage as it went through the grill into the rad.

 

Quite right OP.

 

It's fair to say that this is a hazard.

 

If one can imagine this car park full of shoppers and then you happen to wait for somebody pulling out of the parking space which also happens to be the one space where that pipe is.

 

It is entirely reasonable that whilst then reversing into the vacted parking space, which contains the pipe hazard, one could easily not even notice it due to the small height of it, in darkness, in a raised driver's seat etc etc.

 

I can see you were not reversing, however, the point I am putting forward is to establish that there is a hazard. That is needed for a successful claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The premises freeholders (not necessarily the shop proprioters?) have a duty of care to to all and sundry and a reasonable person could rightly suggest that the pipe is a hazard to any person on those premises. For example someone with impaired sight could come a cropper!

 

Defective Premises Act 1972 springs to mind!

 

Given that you had reasonable grounds to be on the premises and suffered damage to your property, a claim on your car insurance citing property holder as defendent is not unreasonable. As we have seen, perversly even intruders are owed the same duty of care in law.

 

Only last week ASDA was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive for an horrific accident at a store in South Wales when a car park barrier slammed into a chaps moving car causing his tragic loss of life. Companies are responsible for their premises regardless. I appreciate this is a slightly different scenario.

 

H

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conniff,

 

I would suggest that damage IS consistant with being hit by said pipe.

 

Car panels are designed to deform in low speed impacts and the valence would temporarily deform inwards allowing the pipe to puncture the plastic grill and impact the radiator foils.

 

...............................

 

H

Link to post
Share on other sites

just to clear a few things up, the pipe is not on a pavement, the part you mention just seperates two car prks, one for the petrol station behind where the photo is viewing. the entrance is at the far end of the car park furthest away from the pipe. it was dusk at the time of the accident, (day after boxing day, therfore quite dark at arount 5pm-ish. was not going 'fast' at all, had actually stopped just short of said pipe, and when realised was closed pulled away and immidietely hit the pipe. it could not be seen over the end of my bonnet. the pipe did not bend in any way it is made from very thick metal, and is infafact still facing towards the angle where i hit it, hence the amount of damage as it went through the grill into the rad.

 

And I will say again that the only way you could hit this pipe, and from the damage caused to the car, is if you mounted the pavement...

 

From your picture 2: Showing the pipe, and from your picture 5: Showing the front of the car...

 

Picture 2:

If you were driving from left to right in the picture, your drivers side wheel would be on the pavement...

If you were driving from right to left then the car would be straddling the pavement...

If you were driving towards the viewer of the pic then you were about to bounce over the pavement...

And if you were driving away from the viewer of the pic then you have already bounced over the pavement...

 

By all means you should write to the store or the petrol station to point out the hazard nature of this item but as your car shouldn't have been in any position to hit it in the first place, bsically, you only have yourself to blame...

 

(For example... would you blame the store if you'd punctured a tyre by bouncing up on the pavement you so obviously hit?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I will say again that the only way you could hit this pipe, and from the damage caused to the car, is if you mounted the pavement...

 

From your picture 2: Showing the pipe, and from your picture 5: Showing the front of the car...

 

Picture 2:

If you were driving from left to right in the picture, your drivers side wheel would be on the pavement...

If you were driving from right to left then the car would be straddling the pavement...

If you were driving towards the viewer of the pic then you were about to bounce over the pavement...

And if you were driving away from the viewer of the pic then you have already bounced over the pavement...

 

By all means you should write to the store or the petrol station to point out the hazard nature of this item but as your car shouldn't have been in any position to hit it in the first place, bsically, you only have yourself to blame...

 

(For example... would you blame the store if you'd punctured a tyre by bouncing up on the pavement you so obviously hit?)

 

I think not, if you were travelling from right to left in a circular motion, ie to get back to entrance/exit, you would impact the pipe as it is clearly sticking out at an angle into the car park.

 

 

 

skb

Victory over Lloyds £890

Click!

Victory over Vodafone: default removal

click!

Victory over Lloyds PPI claim £2606 click!

Barclaycard lazygoing - £580 + £398 contractual int at 17.7 % click! (Received partial payment £110 21/11/06)

The GF's battle against RBS click! stayed awaiting the end of the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think not, if you were travelling from right to left in a circular motion, ie to get back to entrance/exit, you would impact the pipe as it is clearly sticking out at an angle into the car park.skb

 

What?? Have you seen where the damage is on the car?

 

WHICHEVER way you approach the pipe the ONLY way you can physically drive into it would involve part of your car broaching the paved area...

Especially with the damage as evidenced...

 

You *could* cause damage to the car if you nudged into it when parking your car at a right angle to the paved area, either forward, or in reverse... But you certainly wouldn't cause THAT amount of damage...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit that it looks like a raised (two curb) separation island. I would take another pic to show that it is just one sided and get that letter off to the company. Have you informed your insurance co yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...