Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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 the 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. So if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place and park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and then unload the children followed by reloading the children getting seat belts on etc before 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.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
    • Hi  no nothing yet. Hope it stays that way 😬
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Norwich Union wont check other cars details


dazzlin73
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5872 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

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

you are clutching at straws now pal:wink: But that is your choice and good luck to you

 

And yes if there is an accident it will have played a part in it as gizmo says.

 

So you would partly blame the skip........skip.....you do not have to say anything when questioned but if you don't say something which you later rely on in court.......................huh

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you would partly blame the skip........skip.....you do not have to say anything when questioned but if you don't say something which you later rely on in court.......................huh

 

no i did not say it would be anyones fault - that would be discovered when the accident occurs if one does but the driver that left that skip would have played a part in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

whatever :D:D:D:D:D You think a skip can talk :confused::eek::lol:

 

And the one thing you have failed to notice whilst you were trying to show how right you think you are.

 

 

You have also shown the blind vindictiveness of which you accuse the OP

 

Give someone enough rope and ....... :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

blind vindictiveness:confused: ...................against a skip:confused: wattsa matter losing the argument:rolleyes:

 

 

Argument - what argument we are expressing opinions

 

Would i argue with someone who appears to believe that leaving a skip, car etc in the middle of the road is a sensible thing to do

 

 

mmmmmm :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, If I park my car in such a place and manner that it causes a hazard and this hazard leads to an incident/accident, then I have contributed to the accident/incident.

An actual case. A person parks vehicle on wrong side of road around a blind corner with headlights on at night. Car,driven by person not familiar with the road, comes around corner, jumps to the conclusion that the parked car is on the other side of the road and thus tries to pass said parked car on the left and hits the wall. Passenger is killed. Do you suggest that driver of parked car has no responsibility for the death?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Argument - what argument we are expressing opinions

 

Would i argue with someone who appears to believe that leaving a skip, car etc in the middle of the road is a sensible thing to do

 

 

mmmmmm :rolleyes:

 

Sorry your missing the point.......It's all meant to be tongue in cheek & to demonstrate that blaiming the skip is as daft as blaming a car

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry your missing the point.......It's all meant to be tongue in cheek & to demonstrate that blaiming the skip is as daft as blaming a car

 

sorry you are missing the point nobody is blaming the skip. it did not put itself there, its the person who put it there, he cant be held responsible by current law but is he completely devoid of all responsibility ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Children lets keep it civil, everyone is falling out and trying to gain points over each other, its like lreading the minutes to Prime Ministers question time. Come on guys you are better than this if you can't help/support the OP, just have you say and back off.

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Old_andrew2018

Hi letshelp,

 

How are you, I thought this thread had run its course and died as no one replied for over 3 days, and still nothing from the OP.

I wonder if they have taken professional advice on their quiery/s.

 

Well now the thread is revieved shall we say, we may recieve an up-date.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Old Andrew,

 

I didn't wish to revive all the bitterness I was just making comment that it got a bit nasty in places and thats not what we are about. Or, I don't believe it is. I can see both sides of peoples argument here but dislike the aggressive tone displayed by some, I believe it could be counterproductive and may put people off posting.

regards to all

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Old_andrew2018
Hi Old Andrew,

 

I didn't wish to revive all the bitterness I was just making comment that it got a bit nasty in places and thats not what we are about. Or, I don't believe it is. I can see both sides of peoples argument here but dislike the aggressive tone displayed by some, I believe it could be counterproductive and may put people off posting. The problem you will agree is that forum members were not able to give the OP the advice he wanted, although one might argue that if they split the three separate issues as qymzo eleqently put it in Post #29, then they may have recieved different advice.

regards to all

 

Regards

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is when people blindly re-iterate the same point without any regards to what is being said. In other words, banging head against a brick wall. It would be different if those who disagree raised counterarguments or questioned details, which did happen but then reverted to old ground.

 

I am a stickler for what I say. I have had disagreements with other members - some on matter of preference, others on matters of law or fact. The diffence is being able to say that one is the correct position and being able to back it up, or saying that ones own position is wrong in the face of other evidence.

 

That has unfortunately not happened here. The problem has occurred because people simply wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. After reiterating the same point over and over, people, rightly or wrongly, get het up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...