Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please can you avoid posting solid blocks of text. It is difficult for people to read especially when they are using a small screen such as a telephone. Well spaced and punctuated please. I hear what you say about the evidence – but do you have copies of it? And if so can we see it please. That's the point. We want to know what you have. As long as you have the evidence in your possession then you have some kind of control
    • Hi, the vehicle went to Audi Chingford on Thursday 13th May. I did state beforehand that I only wanted a diagnostic. The technician out of courtesy opened the drain letting huge deposits of water escape the seals. Video evidence was provided via AUDI cam. The link for the audi cam has been forwarded to BMW and Motonovo. I spoke to branch manager explained the situation and he stated he would sent me an email outlining the issue. Audi state this is not really an issue and more of a design flaw. However, the seals still have water ingress. I purchased the vehicle with £0 deposit on a 60 months HP plan for £520.00. The vehicle total was £21000. I did not go for any extended warranty. I live almost 70 miles away from the aftersales centre in Peterborough. I have previously uploaded the document I forwarded to BMW however it was in word format. I have had to buy a new tyre almost three days after purchasing vehicle. BMW still have not compensated me for the v62 cost as they said they would. 
    • I would suggest that you stop trying to rely on legal theory – as you understand it. Firstly, because we are dealing with practical/pragmatic situations and at a low value level where these arguments tend not to work. Secondly, because you clearly have misunderstood the assessment of quantum where there are breaches of obligations. The formula that you have cited above is the method of loss calculation in torts. In contract it is entirely different. The law of obligations generally attempts to remedy the breach. This means that in tort, damages seek to put you into the position you would have been in had the breach not occurred. In other words it returns you to your starting position – point zero. Contract damages attend put you into the position that you would have been had the breach not occurred but this is not your starting position, contract damages assume that the agreement in dispute had actually been carried out. This puts you into your final position. You sold an item for £XXX. Your expectation was that you your item would be correctly delivered and that you would be the beneficiary of £XXX. Your expectation loss is the amount that you sold the item for and that is all you are entitled to recover. If you want, you can try to sue for the larger sum – and we will help you. But if they ask for evidence of the value of the item as it was sold then I can almost guarantee that either you will be obliged to settle for the lesser sum – or else a judge will give you judgement but for the lesser sum. This will put you to the position that you would have been had there been no breach of contract. I understand from you now that when you dispatch the item you declared the retail cost to you and not your expected benefit of £XXX. To claim for the retail value in the circumstances would offend the rules relating to betterment. If you want to do it then we will help you – but don't be surprised if you take a tumble.  
    • I was caught speeding 3 times in the same week, on the same road. All times were 8-12mph higher than the limit. I was offered the course for the first offense and I now need to accept the other 2 offenses. I just want to be ready for what might come. Will I get the £100 fine and 3 points for each of them or do I face something more severe?  These are my only offenses in 8 years of driving.
    • I'll get my letter drafted this evening. Its an item I sold, which I'm also concerned about, as whilst I don't have my original purchase receipt (the best I have is my credit card statement showing a purchase from Car Audio Centre), I do unfortunately have the eBay listing where I sold it for much less. But as I said before this is now a question of compensation: true compensation would seek to put me back into the position I was in before the loss ie: that title would remain with me until my buyer has accepted this, and so compensation should be that which would be needed to replace the lost item. But in the world of instant electronic payment, it could be argued that as I had already been paid, the title to the goods had already transferred, and I was required to refund the buyer after the loss. And so, despite my declared value being the retail price - that which is needed to return me to my pre-sales position, the compensatory value should be the value I sold it for, which being a second-hand item from a private seller is lower. I still believe that I should be claiming for the item's full value, rather than how much I sold it for, as this is the same for insurance: we don't insure the value we paid, but rather the value of the item to put us back into the position we would be in if we ever needed to claim. Its for the loss adjuster to argue the toss
  • 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

Detained by police for unpaid PCN


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5437 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

Well,

Here at last is the disappointing reply from the Information Commissioners caseworker to my complaint that Greater Manchester Police did not supply the information requested and did not do so within the appropriate timescale.

 

GMP must hold this information somewhere because otherwise without it they would not have been able to stop and detain a motorist for the non payment of an alleged penalty charge by using their ANPR system.

 

Perhaps we need to frame our Freedom of Information Act request in a different way; ideas please.

 

The reply can be downloaded here :- http://www.watchingyou.info/icoreply.doc

 

PS for some reason this site changes [i.c.o]- into its full title so the link didnt work. I changed the name on the link so it should be OK now.

Edited by watchingyou
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well,

Here at last is the disappointing reply from the Information Commissioners caseworker to my complaint that Greater Manchester Police did not supply the information requested and did not do so within the appropriate timescale.

 

GMP must hold this information somewhere because otherwise without it they would not have been able to stop and detain a motorist for the non payment of an alleged penalty charge by using their ANPR system.

 

Perhaps we need to frame our Freedom of Information Act request in a different way; ideas please.

 

The reply can be downloaded here :- http://www.watchingyou.info/ico-reply.doc

 

Link doesnt work

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read the letter from the ICO, and having taken on board the importance of the office's reliance on it's terms of reference being limited (in the main) to recorded information, perhaps if these questions were asked GMP would have to reveal the relevant details. If I have read the ICO's intended censure correctly - a damn sight quicker than before.

 

1) When was this operation to stop and detain authorised?

2) Who in GMP authorised it?

3) Who in GMP contacted or was contacted by Marstons to set up the operation?

4) What was the official response from Marstons?

5) Is there any documentation which advised that such an operation was illegal?

6) Is there any record of other similar operations having taken place?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite by co-incidence, I have today received a reply to very important question I put to Graham Marsh head of Manchester City Council parking in relation to it's arrangement with Marstons. It takes us a step further in this matter, but I don't wish to make this public at this point as Mr Marsh's answer led the way to more questions.

 

I'll let the forum know when the matter becomes clearer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Broon & his cronies are running amok. Don't they know that all to often CCJ are issued without the victim even knowing about it........ They HAVE got to be stopped

 

Also are they going to offer compensation when they get it wrong as they will as sure as night follows day

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Complaint regarding the way Greater Manchester Police, Drakes/Marstons Bailiffs and Greater Manchester City Council processed data unlawfully.

 

Despite making my request to the Information Commissioners Office in writing on 11th February 2009 together with several Email and telephone reminders and supplying all the information necessary for a review of my complaint to take place Helen Ward from the ICO has today sent me a letter asking for their form to be completed she says she has closed the complaint until such times as they receive it back again.

 

I believe there is nowhere in the rules that say a complaint made to the Information Commissioners Office in writing has to be on their forms using their pre printed form. So long as they have the complaint in writing as they have had, then that is sufficient for an investigation into a complaint so made.

 

She also asks for copies of correspondence I have had so if anyone has any extra correspondence about this matter they would like to add please send it to me.

 

The reticence shown by the ICO in asking at this late stage for a form to be filled in with information they already have is reprehensible. I can see the next move coming and she will say she can’t look into this because it’s not MY data. bah

 

This is a clear indication from the Information Commissioner’s Office which again shows their constant reluctance to investigate Government based entities.

This is the reply located on www.watchingyou.info reply_page_1.jpg

reply_page_2.jpg

Edited by watchingyou
Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the information the form requests has already been clearly supplied it does seem rather 'weird'.

 

To further the case I would fill in the form regardless.

 

Page 1 is 'weird' as well. As long as the alleged offence and the practice has ceased it is out of their remit ? ? ?

 

I must revisit the legislation. many obvious questions, e.g. halfway through an investigation and they find offences are being committed if the culprit stops is that it. case closed no action.

 

whaat ? ? ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

lamma

and have a digital voice recorder in the car and running !!
You can go further...

 

Have a small vado camera fitted to the front windscreen on two velcro squares, as you travel. Always on. (£45 from argos) takes up to 2 hrs video of what is happening in front of you. If we move slowly towards despotism, as it looks, you may need these things the same as they do, that is called in law, equality of arms.

Just a comment.

 

Crem

I thought the TEC was a "CENTRE" not a court?
See CPR 75,

TEC is a DEEMED court, with officers ACTING as court officers, and, here's the smart bit, it is a registration POINT. Get the point?

A point in space time eh?

The centre

 

75.2

 

(1) Proceedings to which this Part applies must be started in the Centre.

 

(2) For any purpose connected with the exercise of the Centre's functions –

(a) the Centre is deemed to be part of the office of the court whose name appears on the documents to which the functions relate or in whose name the documents are issued; and

 

(b) any officer of the Centre, in exercising its functions, is deemed to act as an officer of that court.

 

 

 

ACTING is the polysemous word that can be interpreted in ANY sense you like. They have fun with words!

 

Functions of court officer

 

75.5

 

(1) The practice direction supplementing this Part sets out the circumstances in which a court officer may exercise the functions of the court.

 

top_icon.gif

Review of decision of court officer

 

75.5A

 

(1)Any party may request any decision of a court officer to be reviewed by a district judge.

 

(2) Such a request must be made within 14 days of service of the decision.

 

(3) Unless –

(a) the party requesting the review requests an oral hearing; or

 

(b) the court orders an oral hearing,

 

a request for a review under paragraph (2) will be dealt with without an oral hearing.

Edited by Medusa
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did post up a reply to this earlier, but it took 4 days for it to appear:rolleyes: and when it did it found its way into the NHS forum! Lets hope this one gets posted more promptly.

 

It's necessary to seperate the initial actions of assisting the bailiffs (which has stopped)

 

Hi,

 

Can anyone tell me when the practice of police assisting bailiffs on roadside checks actually stopped

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

This illegal practice ceased on 26 July 2008 but only in Greater Manchester and not due to any police action or any realistion on their part that they had acted illegally.

 

Manchester City Council were made to realise that passing on private information was contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998. Not that MCC themselves stopped passing on private information in their possession to bailiffs but because they were limited to the impression that the bailiffs could not pass on the same info to the police.

 

Since then the formerly helpful council has failed to answer the question as to why it feels that it is exempt from the Act.

 

On February 6 2009, Westminster Council and it's bailiffs used the Metropolitan Police to illegally stop and detain motorists.

 

If anybody knows of other instances please let us know

Edited by Fair-Parking
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...