Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, I don't think there is any downside to doing this. If they decline then you can say that in your witness statement
    • Ok! Do you still want me to work on that letter you discussed above in post #26?
    • Thank you for posting up the required details and well done for apparently not revealing the identity of the driver. I am assuming you are the keeper? The depth of ignorance of the parking companies is absolutely amazing. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 is the law relating to private parking and allows those rogues to be able to transfer the charge from the driver [whose name they do not know] to the keeper after 28 days . This is dependent on them complying with the Act. So many of the don't and Alliance is no different. It would help if we could see what you appeal was and to post the back of the PCN as it is lacking so much of the wording necessary to make it compliant so that in your case only the driver is liable to pay the charge. And of course just entering the ANPR arrival times means that they have failed to specify the parking time which is a requirement..  Because the car park was so busy you had to drive around for quite a while before finally finding a place to park which is when the parking period may  actually begin. The poor dears at Alliance have not grasped that particular part of the legislation as yet. To be fair the Act has only been in place for 12 years so one must make allowances for their stupidity . We shouldn't really mock them- but it is fun. You weren't to know but the chances of winning an appeal against Alliance and the IPC is around 5%-and that is high for them. If they allow you to cancel they lose the chance of making money and they would have had a field day when you were there with so many people being caught overstaying because of the chaos in trying to find a parking space then trying to pay.  Your snotty letter could go something like this- Dear Cretins, Yes I mean you Alliance. After 12 years one would have thought that even you could produce a compliant PCN. Did you really think I would pay you a penny extra considering the time I wasted trying  to pay with  long queues at the parking machine, then trying to get a signal to call Just Park. On top of that you then had the cheek to ask for an additional £70 for what dubious unspecified pleasure? You must have made a killing that day charging all those motorists for overstaying because the queues to pay were do long and even walking to pay from the over flow parking fields takes time. And yes I did take photos of the non existent signs in the fields so please don't give me the usual rubbish about your signs being clearly visible. Oh yes that £70. Please tell me and the Court whether that charge included VAT and if it did, why am I being charged to pay your vat? I am sure the Judge would look carefully at that as well as the Inland Revenue. The truth is you had no reasonable cause to ask the DVLA for my data given the chaos at your car park and I believe that you therefore breached my GDPR...................... I expect others will give their views as well.          
    • opps this is going to get messy then if they don't refund. you should never keep util accounts in credit.
    • https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/new-private-parking-code-to-launch-in-the-uk-later-this-year/ The newly created gov petition 'Immediately Reintroduce Private Parking Code of Practice' is from Stanley Luckhurst, the 85-year-old old Excel Parking took to court. Excel lost the case and the pensioner's been campaigning for regulation of PPCs since this unpleasant experience. https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/24085471.gerrards-cross-pensioner-takes-nightmarish-private-parking/ I would urge anyone on this forum who supports the petition statement "We believe the private parking industry is trending toward anarchy and must be brought to order by re-launching the Government Code immediately" to sign and share it. 168 signings at 4pm today https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/660922 If the gov new parking code is not launched before parliament dissolves (for the general election) then the legislation is at great risk of being shelved. And we'll be stuck with ATAs new joint code which does not address motorists issues such as a cap on parking charges, debt recovery or an independent appeal process.  https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/wash-up/
  • 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

'National Awareness' Message


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5835 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 was minding my own business, when the phone rang, - a 'No Number Avilable' call, seemingly coming from outside the UK. If the link below works, you can hear it - a UK voice explains I'm to recieve a 'National Awareness' message.

 

Was the world going to end imminently, and Gordie was calling me to climb into the wardrobe :)

 

[Link removed: It would appear that the advertising supported audio-store isn't too fussy about the adverts it hosts]

 

 

My complaint, is that without pressing '5' you cannot identify the source (and probably not even then). Does anyone recognise this as a [problem]?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is still going on (March 2008). I have just received the same phone call, but after the first few words, realised it was a recorded message and so I cut off. I thought it was an American/Canadian voice. It must be working or they would have given up by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is the pits - the illusion that it is somehow a 'government' inspired message that pushes all the right buttons (except No 5). If I get another, I'm tempted to find out who is behind this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thats useful to know. It would appear your company switchboard has an ISDN30 or better connection to the public network, this means you get the actual number of the outgoing line being used, rather than what they 'flag' as the number being unavailable. I'll try to take this up to OFCOM as an abuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

your company switchboard has an ISDN30
Yes, that's correct. Though our switchboard doesn't usually show withheld and unavailable numbers. So possibly not a withheld number, but a call from overseas using an ID that some telcos don't pass on. Also interesting is that lennyman gets exactly the same number, but without the 00 prefix implying Liverpool rather than USA. But I think it has a digit too many to be Liverpool, so perhaps USA is more likely.
Link to post
Share on other sites

On second thoughts, it could well be a call from a UK number, using a "bodged" presentation ID intended to make it look like a USA number so that OfCom looks at it and says "nothing we can do about that, its from overseas" when maybe it isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three more calls last night from 0015179312162 -- one to my home phone (which is an ordinary BT line with caller ID enabled) and another two to further numbers on our work switchboard. The work numbers are all 020-8443 and the home number is 020-8805.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 00 initial digits are inserted by BT and don;t form part of the number that is transited... assuming as you say, these are coming in from the USA. All of which of course means that being on the TPS list means zip UNLESS we actually answer one and find out who is behind the call/advert.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hrm. They did that to our phone, and we put the phone down;)

 

Bunch of [problematic], IMHO. (n.b. this message doesn't say it's from the national debtline, but, to be frank it should be unlawful to operate in this way).

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get these every week at work, have done for months. I've never listened for more than 2 seconds :rolleyes:

I hate Alliance + Leicester

BT: No longer a customer :)

HSBC: £1222 refunded 28/5/06; Second claim of £737-24 refunded 9/11/06; PPI + interest on personal loan refunded 27/7/08

MBNA: £100 refunded on first claim of £112; £208 refunded on second claim for £108 24/9/07; PPI £256-28 refunded 8/4/08

NatWest: £1581-71 refunded 16/12/06; personal loan CCA agreement not provided

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This miscreant is now making yet more Unsolicited Nuisance Calls using the caller ID 0012697682013

 

Has anybody heard of any progress on identifying any UK culpability in any of the previous calls? Somebody really needs to single out whoever's behind this and launch a high profile prosecution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The format of this number is clearly North America - Michigan, in fact. If you check this link, you'll see complaints from folk who have reported unsolicited calls from this area code;

Reported Phone Numbers in 1-269 Area Code

 

The bottom line remains, there is NO UK culpability whatsoever, the laws only protect those from UK callers, and to a more limited extent, the EU. With no possibility of enforcing any viable sanctions against an overseas caller (no crime is being committed), they can carry on with impunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are in the US, it is unlawful under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 , and you can sue the FCUKers in the american courts. Te right of action is worth $500 for each contravention.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an IVA, mate. And they are really, really not advised for much more than 1% of people... most people should go bankrupt before chosing an IVA. IVA's are the next misselling scandle waiting to happen.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"there is NO UK culpability whatsoever"
"

 

Not even if it can be proved that details of respondents are passed TO a UK person ?

 

If so, then there's an obvious error in the law that needs rectifying very urgently, otherwise every UK company will be routing their Unsolicited Nuisance Calls via USA to escape prosecution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"you can sue the FCUKers in the american courts."

 

Is OfCom willing to handle such a prosecution? And if not, why not? As it would clearly be in the public interest to do so as a high profile prosecution and discourage others.

 

There is clearly enough evidence here alone -- and if the miscreant has been making these Unsolicited Nuisance Calls to a susbtantial part of the UK, as seems to be the case, any necessary additional evidence would surely not be hard to find. Indeed, it seems unlikely that OfCom itself has had many of these calls and can provide the evidence by itself.

 

Failing that ... if its as simple as the above, there must be good scope for a No Win No Fee lawyer already in the States to take on the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are in the US, it is unlawful under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 , and you can sue the FCUKers in the American courts. Te right of action is worth $500 for each contravention.

 

Not when the call is delivered outside their (US) jurisdiction. This would be a Federal crime in the US, but without local representation, no UK resident would be advised to try and force the issue, and you can bet UK's OFCOM won't want to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is OfCom willing to handle such a prosecution? And if not, why not? .

 

How about, because it is not against any law?

 

And lets assume they work on a cooperative deal with the FCC to stop it - these centres will move to other jurisdictions that don't - india, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...