Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm at work now but promise to look in later. Can you confirm how you paid the first invoice?  It wasn't your fault if the signal was so poor and there was no alternative way to pay.  There must be a chance of reversing the charge with your bank.  There are no guarantees but Kev  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09766749/officers  has never had the backbone to do court so far.  Not even in one case,  
    • OK  so you may not have outed yourself if you said "we". No matter either way you paid. Snotty letter I am surprised that they were so quick off the mark threatening Court. They usually take months to go that far. No doubt that as you paid the first one they decided to strike quickly and scare you into paying. Dear Chuckleheads  aka Alliance,  I am replying to your LOCs You may have caught me the first time but that is  the end. What a nasty organisation you are. You do realise that you now have now no reason to continue to pursue me after reading my appeal since you know that my car was not cloned. Any further pursuit will end up with a complaint to the ICO that you are breaching my GDPR.  Please confirm that you have removed my details from your records. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I haven't gone for a snotty letter this time as they know that you paid for your car in another car park. So using a shot across their bows .  If it doesn't deter them and they send in the debt collectors or the Court you will then be able to get more money back from them for  breachi.ng your data protection than they will get should they win in Court-and they have no chance of that as you have paid. So go in with guns blazing and they might see sense.  Although never underestimate how stupid they are. Or greedy.
    • Thank you. Such a good point. They did issue all 3 before I paid though. I only paid one because I didn’t have proof of parking that time, only for two others.    Unfortunately no proof of my appeal as it was just submitted through a form on their website and no copy was sent to me. I only have the reply. I believe I just put something like “we made the honest mistake of using the incorrect parking area on the app” and that’s it. Thanks again for your help. 
    • They are absolute chuckleheads. You paid but because you entered a different car park site also belonging to them they are pursuing you despite them knowing what you had done. It would be very obvious to everyone, including Alliance that your car could not have been in two places at the same time. Thank you for posting the PCN so quickly making it a pity that you appealed since there are so many things wrong with it that you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. They rarely accept appeals since that would mean they lose money but they have virtually no chance of beating you in Court. Very unlikely that they will take you to Court given the circumstances. Just in case you didn't out yourself as the driver could you please post up your appeal.
    • Jasowter I hope that common sense prevails with Iceland and the whole matter can be successfully ended. I would perhaps not have used a spell checker just to prove the dyslexia 🙂 though it may have made it more difficult to read. I noticed that you haven't uploaded the original PCN .Might not be necessary if the nes from Iceland is good. Otherwise perhaps you could get your son to do it by following the upload instructions so that we can appeal again with the extra ammunition provided by the PCN. Most of them rarely manage to get the wording right which means that you as the keeper are not liable to pay the charge-only the driver is and they do not know the name and address of the driver. So that would put you both in the clear if the PCN is non compliant.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5684 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 moved in 17/11/2006 Term 6 months.

 

I recently contacted the LA to ask if my deposit was protected and told it didn't apply to me as I moved in before April 6th.

 

However since reading, renewals are classed as new agreements and so my deposit should be protected. I also just agreed to change to a periodic tenancy starting when this term ends 16/05/2008.

 

Could I make a claim against the LA for the 3 x deposit.

 

Thank you

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to read the two recent cases; one positive one not. Does anyone have links?

Also what is this about if they comply after you issue a claim for non-compliance then you cannot proceed for the compensation?

 

Where is the legislation regarding the actual non-complinace?

Edited by robert_harper_2000

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob,

 

Don't worry about the thing that Ed999 posted. It is not accurate.

 

From what we know, it seem that you have a solid case for the 3 x penalty. I am not computer literate enough to post links but can you use the search facility?

 

Also, the thread started by ABitOfAPickle regarding the Tenency Deposit Scheme has almost everything in, and contains other links. If someone could post a link to that please...

 

Good luck Rob.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On which date was the most recent occasion that you signed a contract for a new tenancy agreement? Allowing the tenancy to lapse into a periodic does not count.

 

If you moved in on 18th Nov 2006, how long was the fixed term? Did you sign a further agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 month term so after November (dec, jan, feb, march, april, may) must have signed around June then (july, august, sept, oct, nov, dec) signed around Jan now feb, march, april, expires this May 17th tomor infact. I've def signed two contract for a further six months since I moved in and this time I re-arranged term to be periodic. So the fact is it should have been protected twice before.

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hmm now I think I know where you are coming from. LL so far has promised to check, week later promised to get wife to check through and get back. Week later explained don't worry either I or Palms have it and it will be looked after... well no I want it to be protected and I am only holding back from suing you, even though I'm deep in my overdraft and could do with the cash because I wanted to give you the chance - I don;'t want to sue him if he is innocently doing this but feel he is taking the mick abit

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

At last a response. LL has said that the deposit is with LA

LL

have called LA and they confirm that they do hold your deposit .

The regulation on managing deposits came into force April 2007 and you singed up the tenancy on November 2006 .

Nevertheless it has always been LA's policy to hold all deposits .

 

If I make a claim it will be against the LL but I feel he just doesn't understand and is being led by the LA. Can I not claim against the LA instead?

Help me to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Not your problem if he doesnt understand anyway!

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The landlord can sue the agent for his loss if it is due to their negligence.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably would explain that - but yes he can. If you explained that he is legally the person you have to sue, then if he is reasonable then he shouldnt.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. That would probably be my personal opinion.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am agreed with water bottle up to certain extent .

 

Up to what extent??????

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I doubt he would be quite so considerate once I started proceedings. I guess I could always wait until I move out and see if he becomes unreasonable as there is no limit on when I can sue, is there?

 

Bear in mind that there is one case, the link I can't find at the moment, where an action was taken out for non-protection. In this case, the tenant took the action after they had left the property. The judge took the view that as the tenant was no longer a tenant, having left the property, then as he was no longer a "tenant" he was not entitled to take out an action.

 

Many posters regard this ruling as wrong, but unless it is appealed to the high court it will not be regarded as case law.

 

The law as drafted has a number of shortcomings - it is poorly thought out in places. Thus until this and other anomalies are sorted out in the higher courts and clarified by case law, there is a risk that an action will fail for any one of a number of technical reasons.

On some things I am very knowledgeable, on other things I am stupid. Trouble is, sometimes I discover that the former is the latter or vice versa, and I don't know this until later - maybe even much later. Read anything I write with the above in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...