Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes typed it, how would I input it any other way, probably timed out took over half hour. H
    • You typed it in? actually typed it all out? if so, maybe you took too long or something, like session timed out. Does the status show defence filed or no change?
    • Hi just typed all defence clicked next and it's deleted all. Any help
    • I forgot to say, there is one last possibility and that is that they will receive your letter of rejection and simply fold, accept the rejection and refund you. Don't wait too long for this. Seven days maximum – but in that seven days you could send your letter of claim anyway and when that you don't hear from them or when they start mucking around at least you are seven days closer to beginning the legal action – and they will know it (which is the important thing).
    • Okay that is excellent that you have an email between the garage and the warranty company confirming that there is a serious problem with the gearbox. That is very powerful evidence. I think the situation is this: you have sent them a letter of rejection but the reputation of big motoring world is that they won't take a lot of notice and they will try to prevaricate and maybe even blame you. Clearly you don't want the car any more and anyway it sounds as if the cost of repairs is going to be enormous. You don't know if the warranty company is going to step up to the mark but the whole thing is going to take a long time and I understand that you have lost confidence in big motoring world because of this event and also their reputation which you are now discovering on Facebook and on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. On the basis that you don't want the car any more and you want your money back, you need to hurry things along. I think the first thing is that you need to decide if you are prepared to bring a claim in the County Court. Even without the warranty money, the claim is worth more than £10,000. For actions less than £10,000, you bring a "small claim" and this means that even if you lose the case you won't be liable for the other side's costs. If you win the case then not only will you get your money plus interest but also you will recover all of the costs of the action. For actions more than £10,000, you go to something called the "fast track" and in the event that you lose the case, then you could be liable to reimburse the winner some of the costs. This means that in addition to not recovering your own money, you would lose your own court fees and also you would have to to bear the costs of the other side probably something less than £5000 – but as a rough guess. If you bring your court claim then your chances of success are almost 100%. Frankly if you brought a court claim then I can imagine that big motoring world will put their hands up and pay you out rather than face go to court and losing and getting a judgement against them. However, it you need to consider that this is a risk factor – although my view it is a negligible risk factor. If you did bring a court case, it wouldn't be instant. If they put their hands up then it would probably happen very quickly. If they didn't put their hands up then you could take anything up to a year for the matter to be resolved and during that time you would be without your car and without your money and in the middle of litigation. I'm explaining this to you say that you understand how it works. Bring a court case would be really the last resort when everything else has failed. However, I'm quite certain that you would win and it would be stupid of big motoring world to try to resist. In order to bring a court case you would have to send a letter of claim giving them 14 days to accept rejection and organise the refund otherwise you would begin the claim. Don't imagine that you could bluff this. If you did send a letter of claim then you would have to go through with it otherwise you lose all credibility and you might as well pack up and go home. So with this in mind, here are possible courses of action you could take. You can simply wait and see what their reaction to your letter of rejection will be. However they may not reply or else they may find some other reason to delay and of course during that time you will be without your car and without your money blah blah blah, not knowing if big motoring world were going eventually to start acting sensibly and respectfully towards you. The second thing you can do – and I think this has been suggested on Facebook – is that you can go along there and simply make yourself present and talk to other customers and generally speaking make a nuisance of yourself and embarrass them to the point where you would be explaining to other potential customers to be careful, to look on Facebook, and to do some careful research before they put their business to big motoring world. This has a reasonable chance of success although you would have to be careful. You should go accompanied by a friend and there should be no anger, no arguments, nothing that could be considered as being overly aggressive so that big motoring world would have no justification in kicking you out or even worse, calling the police. If you did this, then I would suggest that you record everything on the telephone carried in a pocket. A fully charged battery will probably keep a voice recorder and a telephone going for more than 20 hours or 30 hours. The other person can video any incidents so that everything is clear and you can inform big motoring world then it will be going up on the Internet. If you did this, my favourite option would be to issue the letter of claim giving them 14 days, and then going along to big motoring world with a copy of your letter of rejection and a copy of the exchange between the mechanic and the warranty company and a copy of your letter of claim – all settled together – and probably about 20 or 30 copies in all and I would start handing them out to any customers who came in. Big motoring world will soon get the picture and they will either move your the premises in which case you stand outside and carry on doing it or they will finally give in. Of course there is a chance that they won't give in and they will simply call your bluff – but in that case I think you have no choice other than to follow through with your 14 day threat in the letter of claim and to begin the legal action. At the same time you should be putting up reviews on Google and also trust pilot explaining exactly what has happened and also explaining that the mechanic has confirmed to the warranty company that there is the serious problem, that you have asserted the right to reject and that this is been ignored by big motoring world and that you have now sent a letter of claim and that you will be starting a legal action in 14 days. Once again, don't bluff about the legal action. If you threaten it – then you must mean it – and on day 15 you click of the claim. You don't need a solicitor for any of this. It's all fairly straightforward and of course we will help you all the way that it the decision is yours to make and I think you need to make it fairly quickly. I think the cost of starting an action for about £13,000 is 5% and then also if it goes to trial which I would say is almost impossible – there would be an additional fee. You would claim interest at 8%. A judge might award a lower figure but frankly if you can show that big motoring world is attempting to ride roughshod over your very clear statutory consumer rights, I can imagine that the judge will want to show displeasure by awarding the full 8% which is a pretty good rate – even though it's not compensation for the hassle and the distress you are going through. If you decide to get solicitor, then if you win the case, because it is over £10,000 you will recover some of your costs but you won't recover all of them. If the solicitor begins by having exchanges of letters then I doubt whether you will be up to recover the cost of those and you could easily find that you're chalking up 500 quid or even a thousand simply on initial exchanges of correspondence. Also you need to bear in mind that if after having exchanges with a solicitor, big motoring world cave in – then you definitely won't get those costs back because you won't have gone to court and therefore a judge will not have made the order for payment of those costs. I suggest very strongly that you avoid paying any money for a solicitor and that you do it yourself. It's not a big deal – although you will have to you react quickly to the help we offer on this forum. Also, an additional benefit is that you will learn a lot and you will gain confidence and eventually you will feel good about suing anybody else who gets in your way. Nothing not to like! If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must take control of the solicitor. Most of them prefer to sit in an office writing letters on the clock. If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must instruct the solicitor very firmly that they should send one letter of complaint giving seven days. A second letter – a letter of claim giving 14 days and that they must then begin the action. If you don't do this. If you don't take control then it will simply cost you money, you will be without your car even longer and of course without your money. The whole thing is a nightmare. I think I've laid out the options but please do ask questions. I hope you can see that this is the kind of advice that you won't be getting on Facebook. Nothing against Facebook. It's good as a meeting place and to make people realise that they aren't on their own – but after that the advice given is weak and confusing.  
  • 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

private parking tickets


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5770 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

Guest susancole9390
no such thing as landmark case in the county court - nor is it even binding.

Seems the in-house legal dept may need to brush up a bit !

 

I would agree with you lamma, that is what the newspaper article posted seems to be saying about the case that is why I am very sceptical what I read in the newspapers as they have a tendancy to over hype things to put across a story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest susancole9390
Not binding but persuasive certainly. And it is the first case as far as I am aware that a PPC turned up to a properly defended case. In the past they ran a mile when confronted with a decent defence, despite what CPS would have you believe. The fact that they lost when faced with a decent defence says it all really.

 

Is there anywhere where the full story rather than that of a local rag shows the case, I would like to see what the points of the case were (as it might be the same as mine and that would give me some hope) ?

The newspaper article seems to state a person received 3 tickets but did not get them, mine was attached to the vehicle.

I also see the sign in the newspaper did not say anything about how much it would be etc, Daniels Silverman advise the signs in my case do but this is another thing the postman will be bringing me.

The newspaper article is also a little outdated as in the banks OFT test case it was decided that charges were not penalties but clearly defined charges and I suspect they might state the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest susancole9390
What do you mean? Who is this person?

 

I dont know who this southpaw or leegomery is, sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CPS identified him on their website. Not something I am prepared to repeat here as I have no wish to promulgate what looks to me like things the ICO will be interested in. Really seems to me that CPS have 'lost it big time'. Anyone know who runs this 'business' ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest susancole9390

The letter I received about a month afterwards were sent by Paul Scott, if thats any help, The daniels silverman ones were sent by Daniels Silverman himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CPS identified him on their website. Not something I am prepared to repeat here as I have no wish to promulgate what looks to me like things the Information Commissioners Office will be interested in. Really seems to me that CPS have 'lost it big time'. Anyone know who runs this 'business' ?

 

From previous posts it appears to be a character called Mike Perkins who runs a cafe, presumably when he is not handing out tickets. Appears to be known as "perky" and seems to be well known here for claiming victories when the defendant fails to turn up.I agree the internet posting on the CPS website is bizarre - an accuastion of dishonesty like this is not something a rational person would make without very convincing evidence. I also hope for "perky's" sake that is not the chaps real name. If it is then I think perky would be sensible to get a good defamation lawyer sharpish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest susancole9390
the CPS person - daniels silverman seem to be just leeching on leeches as it were.

 

I have a name of Paul Scott from CPS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest susancole9390
Not binding but persuasive certainly. And it is the first case as far as I am aware that a PPC turned up to a properly defended case. In the past they ran a mile when confronted with a decent defence, despite what CPS would have you believe. The fact that they lost when faced with a decent defence says it all really.

 

Just looking at the dates of the 7 judgements on the website that all seem to be defended actions, 6 of them seem to be dated before the newspaper article about Excel.

I presume people don't adverise the fact they lose a case and that's why we never hear from them.

I must admit the de brunner case seemed like it was argued well with relevant points and he still lost, that concerns me as I was parked next to the sign, if they have photos which they claim to have but I have not seen.

In light of reading the de brunner case I do not see how I can claim its a penalty as that judge states it was a charge and not a penalty, plus with the bank charges supporting the fact if a charge is clear then its not a penalty.

Time will tell in my case

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary the de brunner case was woefully argued. It was not a defence at all. There are at least five vital points which were not put to the judge. The same is true of the other cases. A proper defence will in my experience always see off these [problematic]. Perky's summation of the legal issues is a joke but then he is an rank amateur lawyer (and a very bad one) of the type he despises.But as perky and his cronies regularly scan these pages I would not advise you to discuss detailed legal issues or any other specific aspect of your case further here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest susancole9390
On the contrary the de brunner case was woefully argued. It was not a defence at all. There are at least five vital points which were not put to the judge. The same is true of the other cases. A proper defence will in my experience always see off these [problematic]. Perky's summation of the legal issues is a joke but then he is an rank amateur lawyer (and a very bad one) of the type he despises.But as perky and his cronies regularly scan these pages I would not advise you to discuss detailed legal issues or any other specific aspect of your case further here.

 

I have not come across perky but you seem to know lots about him for someone who only joined yesterday ??

 

Thanks for your advice regards posting, the postman came and went with nothing for me, until I receive their evidence I have no further info to post, will see what Tuesday brings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

previous perky cases are of no relevance to yours. They are not precedent nor binding. Do not forget that cases concern Facts and Law.

And those case were woefully argued.

Geronimoman speaks straight.

 

don't fall for the hogwash on the CPS site - unless your roses need it !

Link to post
Share on other sites

no such thing as landmark case in the county court - nor is it even binding.

Seems the in-house legal dept may need to brush up a bit !

 

Landmark can also mean 'a development' so may have been used in this case to distinguish from 'precedence'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'development' - for a non binding county court case that by its nature can not develop anything.

its just the usual bogus claim by a PPC - to go with all their other bogus statements.

Find just one PPC that has been open and honest it its statements - you won't. any and every statement from a PPC should be treated with the respect it deserves i.e none at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - I've read all the posts here and on other sites with interest...but I'm not sure where I stand -feeling a bit daunted.

My partner has just received 4 parking charge notices from a PPC on a Lidl carpark in Scotland. I should explain that he was driving my car so the notices have been sent to me as the registered keeper.

If he pays within 14 days the charge per ticket will be £45 otherwise it will be £70 with an addition charge of £40 for administration if payment isn't received within 28days (yep that's a minimum of £180 and a possible £440).

Until recently he had a small restaurant and used to shop at LIdl a couple of times a day. He was under the impression that they wouldn’t ticket him or would withdraw the tickets because he was such a good customer…not realizing it was a separate company handing out the tickets…He started parking there and taking our baby into the town and then shopping at Lidl for dinner (or maybe it was withdrawal!!) before coming home… I know it was ‘wrong’ but he has literally spent thousands with them….

They don’t give out tickets but use reg plate recognition of the car driving in and then out… so it was a week before we got the first one and knew he had a problem…and by then he had parked there 3 more times…(and they came much more quickly!)

He phoned them when he got the first one – he can’t remember exactly what was said or if the call was recorded –basically he told them he spent a fortune with Lidl. In reply he got sent copies of the CCTV image of the car driving in and out.

If it was one and it was instant (a ticket) I would feel like it served him right and he would pay but the way they have done this is like a deliberate way of trying to make as much money as possible…

So my questions are…I’m in Scotland –so is anyone sure yet if the law is the same? Do I treat each ticket individually or pool them all together? I get the impression that the parking comps are more likely to take people to court to stop people trying to get out of paying. Will they be more likely to try and take me to court because there is more money at stake? I can quite honestly tell them I wasn’t driving...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contract law is based on the similiar principles whether you are in Scotland or England. You as the registered keeper cannot be made privy to a contract without you knowledge or consent. Any contract therefore is with your Husband. With your RK hat on you could deny liability and get them to persue the matter with the driver. You don't have to name the driver that is for them to find out and prove.

 

If they know your husband was the driver and have his address then your defense will be on the Penalty Charges issue and the unfair terms in consumer contracts act.

 

They will have to prove that your husband agreed to a contract prior to parking. Just having a sign on display is not necessarily enough to prove the contract.

 

They also have to show that the amounts claimed are actual damages arising from a breach of contract and not a penalty charge.

 

Also they have to prove that the terms of the alleged contract do not breach The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which apply nationwide.

 

1. Terms which have the object or effect of-

 

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

 

The template letters in the stickies section do not quote any law and are therefore usable in Scotland and the rest of the UK.

 

If you haven't done so already have a read of the Private Parking Charges Guide in stickies section as the principles are valid even if some of the cases quoted are in English courts. (There will be Scottish equivalents).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Perky is not the only one with something to hide! :rolleyes:

 

You're right but not in the way you expect. This poster susancole or someone purporting to be "her" has just posted on Pepipoo a bizarre message and has been outed there as a PPC troll. Didn't know the PPCs had this level of subtlety in them. Usually all they are able to do is sign up under some stupid name like Justin Piddlepot and make pointless popsts telling people to pay up.Regards me and Perky I know of him. Who doesn't? You only need to read the historic postings made by him and his skivvies like "interesting" if you fancy a good laugh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not come across perky but you seem to know lots about him for someone who only joined yesterday ??

 

Thanks for your advice regards posting, the postman came and went with nothing for me, until I receive their evidence I have no further info to post, will see what Tuesday brings.

 

I SMELLS TROLL!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy to say it now, but I did start to suspect, even before the stuff got really personal.

 

The answer to this PPC thing really is easy. We should all, without exception, refuse to pay. Even if the PPCs could win every time in court, which they emphatically can't, the business model simply falls over if there is so much resistance. The PPCs depend upon misinformation and fear to continue their dishonourable "profession".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...