Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (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; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (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; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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

Jysmystry v Optical Express


jysmystry
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5661 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

Thought I'd keep my reply short...

Dear Sirs,

 

I refer to your letter dated 10 March 2008 which I received today and which you entitle “OVERDUE ACCOUNT” (again!)

Ref: Final CC/ 52590113 / contact lenses.

Please check my letter to you dated 23/2 and your reply to me dated 29/2 ref 002939 to find out why your letter is in breach of OFT guidelines. You may also wish to google SAR to find out what it means.

Kindest Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

hahah we got the same letter :)

 

The only difference was that yours said "Overdue Account" and mine said "final Demand".

 

I'm rather upset though that your letter was handle by a customer care manager! I only got slightly illiterate Lyndsey :(

 

wonder who will get a reply first?

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

 

DCA Theats: Jystmystry V's Wescot - I Win (link)

Default Removal: Jystmystry V's NatWest - In Progress (link)

General Debt - Jysmystry v's Optical Express (link)

 

You can run but you'll just die tired

Link to post
Share on other sites

well its that Ar$e from elbow contition again here. What do u think SP?

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that the sender of the latest final demand didn't notice that his colleague was 'investigating'?

 

Perhaps he needs his eyes testing...

 

 

lol, he should have gone to specsavers

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

 

DCA Theats: Jystmystry V's Wescot - I Win (link)

Default Removal: Jystmystry V's NatWest - In Progress (link)

General Debt - Jysmystry v's Optical Express (link)

 

You can run but you'll just die tired

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol this company are just making me laugh.

 

aybe that all need to go to specsavers.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have to wait long and Lyndsay has really excelled herself this time. As jysmystry says she really is unarmed.

As he also says she replies pretty fast. This letter is dated 14th March and it arrived today 14th March. Miraculous!

 

optical3.gif

 

I don't know where to start.

1) If the letter of 7th Dec was in response to my request for more detail, why did they just send me a balance? (Actually it wasn't. It was an apology for getting the customer id wrong)

2) I assure you I had written & phoned quite a bit 'previously and after'

 

3) I love the fact that, Inexplicably, £29.99 rises to £59.98 in the course of the letter.

 

4) The summary suggests they owe me money?

I was paying them monthly for a monthly supply of 30 disposable lenses.

(I dispute I paid them in March as I closed the account in Feb 2004) From what Lyndsay says they were only shipping them every 52 days on average. According to this I paid 6 times for 4 dispatches and failed to pay a 7th and 8th payment.

 

5) There were no lenses shipped to me in March 2004. Had there been and had their debit request been refused by my bank it's pretty certain that they would have notified me prior to October 2007.

 

6) The letter she's responding to was an SAR.

They have 20 days.

 

Shooting fish in a barrel?

Dusty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im ever so slightly drunk right now so things might be slightly better in my head than reality but this letter has made me very happy. Im excited to receive my exact same copy in the post tomorrow.

 

I think dusty we need to simply decide together on one thing. Do we seek to resolve their inevitable non-complience through the information comissioner or the courts?

 

I really want it to be the courts but will that look bad for us if we miss out the nformation comissioner?

 

I might be tempted to simply ignore lyndsey and wait for the summons. Instant absolute defense and counter claim with costs.

 

Is it really worth £60 lyndsey?

 

Bet it would be a JBD too haha

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

 

DCA Theats: Jystmystry V's Wescot - I Win (link)

Default Removal: Jystmystry V's NatWest - In Progress (link)

General Debt - Jysmystry v's Optical Express (link)

 

You can run but you'll just die tired

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jysmystry- Equally pleased to hear you're slightly drunk. I promise you it reads just as good in the morning.

Just to add insult to injury I went to OE website and the said contact lenses ONLY come in boxes of 30 and cost £65 for 3 boxes - so current price per box £21.67.

If they were only sending me 7 a year (as they claim) I was paying £51.29 a box.

 

When Lyndsey says 'Our opening are Monday...' Is she referring to when I'm allowed to 'contact her in writing' ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Im sober i'm still just as pleased by this letter. In the cold light of day I am both stunned and appauled by the number and magnitude of the holes to be picked in it.

 

None the less I take great offence at ScarletPimpernel's quoting blackadder like that! Clearly blackadder was talking about Baldrick when using that phrase and so presumably you are attempting to liken our Lydnsey to Baldrick!! As we all know Baldrick frequently came up with "a cunning plan" suggesting he did, in his own unique way, THINK and engage some form of brain activity in going about his daily life. As such the difference between Lyndsey and Baldrick is vast, he is clearly her mental superior and there can be no comparison drawn between them!

 

Anyhoo's, the main reason i like this letter is that, however hard lyndsey tries the numbers just don't add up. This was the exact point of my seeking clarity in my case and this just compounds the concern i have for their claim i owe them whatever magical figure they saw on sesame street the morning they wrote their first letter to me.

 

I reckon we are on the higher ground here bud, they can't do anything (without repercussions for them) until they have released the info. I'm still thinking about whether they will go away if i ignore them now that i know im safe to do so or whether i should push the issue.

 

I guess I'll see what my letter says when it arrives and decide from there as we sent very different responses. I expect a similar display of ignorance and unjustified assertins as this though so in the meantime ill be reading up on enforcing SAR's and the funnest remedy for non-complience :)

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

 

DCA Theats: Jystmystry V's Wescot - I Win (link)

Default Removal: Jystmystry V's NatWest - In Progress (link)

General Debt - Jysmystry v's Optical Express (link)

 

You can run but you'll just die tired

Link to post
Share on other sites

None the less I take great offence at ScarletPimpernel's quoting blackadder like that! Clearly blackadder was talking about Baldrick when using that phrase and so presumably you are attempting to liken our Lydnsey to Baldrick!!

 

Blackadder was talking about Lord Percy. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

ahh, in that case the similarity is startling :)

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

 

DCA Theats: Jystmystry V's Wescot - I Win (link)

Default Removal: Jystmystry V's NatWest - In Progress (link)

General Debt - Jysmystry v's Optical Express (link)

 

You can run but you'll just die tired

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have headed the following FINAL RESPONSE. If they make an offer (which I doubt) I'll tell them they've got to cough up to jysmystry as well (or he'll tell).

J: Is your CID reference different to your CC reference? Just that on my first call to them, they told me the letter was 'in error' and to disregard it. Since I don't tape my phone calls I pursued the fact that it was addressed to me at my address and the 'error' was quickly discovered to be an 'error'

Dear Lyndsey,

 

I refer to your letter dated 14 March 2008 which I received on 14th March 2008.

Ref: CID 52624625 / contact lenses.

Thankyou for taking the time to offer up an interim response to my request by letter of 23rd Feb. I trust the requests made in that letter are being dealt with separately and are not your dept. You must inform me if there is a charge for this service.

Although the figures submitted in your letter relating to payment dates cannot be held to be reliable, they certainly do not hold up your theory that I have an outstanding balance of £29.99 (page 1) or even £59.98 (page 2).

If they are reliable, then I was paying for 30 lenses 12 times a year and you were dispatching 30 lenses 7 times a year. Over 2 years that would equate to an overcharge of £300 + approx £190 (if you assume 8% interest over 6 years)

Since I am not the only customer currently being harassed by Optical Express for non-existent arrears, I can only assume I would not have been the only customer being cheated in this way.

I would be grateful if you would show your findings to a senior member of the management team. If true, then a court case could open the floodgates for 100s of similar claims so I would expect an offer that covers the debt with interest and acceptable compensation for the harassment I have been subjected to since October 2007.

This does not in any way relieve you of the responsibility of responding to the requests made in my letter dated 23/2/2008.

Kindest Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

they certainly do not hold up your theory that I have an outstanding balance of £29.99 (page 1) or even £59.98 (page 2)

 

I was drinking coffee when i read this! It nearly came out my nose when i was trying not to laugh!

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

 

DCA Theats: Jystmystry V's Wescot - I Win (link)

Default Removal: Jystmystry V's NatWest - In Progress (link)

General Debt - Jysmystry v's Optical Express (link)

 

You can run but you'll just die tired

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG. You're right. We're not allowed to laugh.

Last year someone else with discalcula won an out of court settlement from Barclays for wrongly granting him a loan of £20,100 as they failed to inform him about the repayments in a format he could understand.

 

Which reminds me...I sent my brother a link to this thread and he sent back this succinct reply.

 

OE NCM QED

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it is part of the DDA that things need to be made clear to ppl with anytype of disability and in a format that there disability allows them to understand

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not 100% true. The disability must affect their day to day living and section 21 allows that support is reasonable.

If, in pursuit of financial gain, people start to argue that not knowing their arse from their elbow is a disability then it's abusing the act.

As for Barclays; NOT giving the guy a loan would have been an offence as well. My mum would find that funny and she has every impairment listed in DDA Schedule 1 S4 (1) a-h. I'm not knocking the act, just its misuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but if it is a disability that apperase on the act like deafness or blindness then they have to povide the info in a formatt that is in a format they can understand.

 

You would not expect a blind person to be able to read a letter would you?

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Its been 45 days today so they have made a boo-boo.

 

I have done a bit of reading and I'm not going to bother with the Information Commissioners Office, I'm going to go through the courts and get an Order forcing compliance.

 

This is a bit more of an aggressive approach and i'm aware of that but the Information Commissioners Office will simply consider whether or not to write to them then "work with them" to help them correct their proceedures. I have no interest in helping them with their proceedures, I want the info and court will be the quicker option. The Information Commissioners Office also suggest this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

 

I do intend to recover my expenses as even though have not been considerable they have taken up my money by neglecting their responsibilities and forcing me to keep writing to them, they have stressed me out and they have wasted my evenings researching.

 

I'm off to the court today to speak to them to see if they are likely to accept it (as there are issues about whethers its small claims, fast track etc) and i'll be claiming specific performance but attempting to avoid the Part 8 Proceedure. It should be simple enough.

 

My LBA giving them 14 days to comply will be going out after the bank hols and i'll post a copy on here for the record. I'm sure the LBA will sort things out in any case and if not i'll enjoy the learning experience of my first court appearence (outside of work) which will be fun on its own.

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

 

DCA Theats: Jystmystry V's Wescot - I Win (link)

Default Removal: Jystmystry V's NatWest - In Progress (link)

General Debt - Jysmystry v's Optical Express (link)

 

You can run but you'll just die tired

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...