Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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 bleutooth one value 127.99 And 2nd parcel stollen last week and an empty bag delivered yesterday for Marshall Headphones vzlue 121.99 all sold via virifiable links and invoices and all fully covered tonits value, and payment all prooven 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.    
    • I can't remember if we mentioned that Door Matt was offered a job as UN envoy to help Africa to recover from Covid.   According to several people on Twitter, the UN seem to have read the joint select committee report on the UK's handling of the pandemic and withdrawn the job offer.
    • Everything that you think you might need during the hearing – you have to disclose in advance to the other side. If you're making allegations of false representation then he has to have a chance to know about it in advance so he can then consider his position and decide on his responses. On the other hand, you disclose this evidence but you don't need to disclose in advance the comments you are going to make about it. So you don't need for us to say that this is a false representation. You simply need to include documents which show the website et cetera. He may ask himself why on earth are these documents being disclosed – but he will have to wait until the hearing in order to discover that. We are going back once again to the beginning where it was a shame that this wasn't included as a head of damage. It would have been extremely serious and the damages available to you would have been far greater.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Are the banks going for the backdoor?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4996 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Anyone else's ears twig at today's news that RBS and Barclays are offering to take on part of the Northern Rock "debt" out of the goodness of their hearts?


Ok, the national news services have been pretty light on details, but the gist - as I understand - is that RBS and Barclays are willing to assume upto £12billion of NR's portfolio, and guarantee this sum in respect to the tax payer.


Now me, being a cynical sod, thought "why? whats in it for them". And the most obvious thought is "bank charges".


The general expectation is that the test case is going to go in the consumers favour. That exposes the banks to significant exposure vis-a-vis refunds.


How best to offset that? Well, a nice little property portfolio wouldnt go amis, especially if it was bought at a knock-down price, with nothing other than a guarantee to pay £12b. But what if it was also a "sweetner" to the govt to ensure that a friendly judge happened to hear the charges case?


Sure, a decision to acquire some of NRs portfolio wouldnt have been taken lightly nor in haste, but I cant see why it has taken this long to announce. All the banks would have done a financial analysis the week the crisis broke, so why havent the banks announced until now?



Of course, there is probably a tax break in there, and maybe a way to shift some sub-prime risk onto real, worthwhile, portfolio, and I'm just being overly cynical. I've just never known *any* financial instituion doing someone out of respect to the tax-payer. The shareholders, sure. Mr Joe Public... nope!

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...