Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • London1971
      friends paying a DCA on a 118118 PDL loan subject to ID theft - Help!

      By London1971 · Posted

      Unsettling the applecart?,  I'm going to be direct here, I know how this works , I've been in far worse situation than your relative, and I can assure you , now that there i likely a default in her name, it makes absolutely ZERO difference if she pays or not. Denzel Washington in the Equalizer , 'My only regret is that I can't kill you twice'... It's the same with a default, they can only do it once and it stays on your credit file for 6 years if she pays or not, and as it stands right now she's flushing £180 of her hard earned money down the toilet  so that the chaps at Lowell can afford a Christmas party. As for the SAR this is everybody's legal right, originally under the Data Protection act 1998 and now under GDPR, it's her right to find out everything that the original Creditor has on her file, and by not doing it the only person she is doing a massive disservice to is her self. As the father of 2 young adults myself, they need to learn at some point.. right?
    • Margot the Snail
      friends paying a DCA on a 118118 PDL loan subject to ID theft - Help!

      By Margot the Snail · Posted

      Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • grumpy59
      eBay parcel worth £265, booked via Parcel 2 Go, 'lost' by Evri

      By grumpy59 · Posted

      That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • dx100uk
      MFC The Sofa Store - New sofa + chairs not what expected - Refund possible?

      By dx100uk · Posted

      it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • honeybee13
      The sub-postmasters scandal

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

"Match day" parking ticket

Disgruntled Brit
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5644 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

Disgruntled Brit

Disgruntled Brit

Posted
Posted

I recently parked outside a friend's house in Islington on a Saturday morning for a few minutes and bought a ticket. Later in the day I returned and parked in the same bay but, as it was outside the normal hours (0830-1330), I didn't buy a ticket.

 

The sign said that, on match days, extra restrictions applied (1330-1630). There was, however, no indication that it was a match day (no signs on the street or attached to the usual lamppost notices).

 

I cannot seem to find much information about similar cases and was wondering if anyone had any thoughts/experience around this matter - your help would be greatly appreciated!

 

So far I haven't responded to the ticket and I'm considering my options. I would definitely like to fight it as I don't think it's unreasonable to ask how I was supposed to know the extra hours were in force (no quips about my lack of football knowledge please!).

:-x DB :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites
Al27

Al27

Posted
Posted

Was this near the Emirates Stadium? I know someone recently didn't have much luck there after getting a ticket on matchday.

 

What does the signage look like exactly? And can we see the PCN? (minus personal details)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disgruntled Brit

Disgruntled Brit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It was on Halton Road (just past Highbury Corner), quite far from the stadium but I guess still within the catchment area for supporters.

 

The sign was just a standard parking sign with another one bolted on underneath with the generic match day information. It was definitely a permanent sign though and therefore nothing to distinguish this particular day.

 

With regards to the PCN, the "Contravention Code" was stated to be "05P - Parked after the expiry of paid for time" and allegedly occurred at 1530. I guess this was given as I still had the old ticket in the window (expired 1131), although I obviously wasn't parked there in between the two events.

 

I can try and scan it in tonight if I get a chance.

:-x DB :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites
Al27

Al27

Posted
Posted

I can't think off the top of my head how to work images without webspace. Someone should know.

 

Your ticket has been issued for the expiration of your pay and display. It has nothing to do with the match day times - that would be '01 Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disgruntled Brit

Disgruntled Brit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah that's what I thought and I was going to protest that the ticket was an old one etc. but I didn't think that was a valid argument as they would then ask me to show proof I had a ticket for the period in question (at which point I would have to argue the match day thing anyway). Is any of this making sense/do I have any hope in fighting it?

:-x DB :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ting

Guest Ting

Posted
Posted

need to see all of the PCN. It's a legal document. That said, I think current Islington ones are probably compliant.

-

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disgruntled Brit

Disgruntled Brit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Islington info is as follows. They claim that signs were viewable on entrance to the controlled parking zone.

 

Match Day Parking

 

Yeah I noticed that too on the website. Went to have a look at the area again yesterday and found the signs as you turn into the street. Not very obvious but they are there I guess.

 

What are your thoughts about arguing about the error with the contravention?

:-x DB :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites
green_and_mean

green_and_mean

Posted
Posted
Yeah I noticed that too on the website. Went to have a look at the area again yesterday and found the signs as you turn into the street. Not very obvious but they are there I guess.

 

What are your thoughts about arguing about the error with the contravention?

 

It is the correct contravention as you were parked with an expired ticket I cannot see how you can argue you were not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ting

Guest Ting

Posted
Posted
It is the correct contravention as you were parked with an expired ticket I cannot see how you can argue you were not?

 

Agree. Very difficult to argue since it is favourable to you: The alternative would have been £120-

-

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disgruntled Brit

Disgruntled Brit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah I'm not sure where I'm going with this one. I just thought there might be a chance I could argue that the expired ticket hadn't "expired" per se, but rather was an old one that was just left there and therefore the actual contravention was not having a ticket. Nice idea perhaps but probably not on to a winner there.

:-x DB :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ting

Guest Ting

Posted
Posted (edited)
Both contraventions are the same level of penalty.

 

Nope.

 

If 'time expired' equates to £80- - lower level penalty

 

then they are using a scale where higher level penalties i.e. 01 as you say - are £120-

 

You are welcome to check. try dfT operational guidance 'annexe' or London Councils who actually define the contraventions. the latter is a pig to find though.

Many Council sites also describe them. *

 

The choice of penalty scales is also defined but in each case the lower and higher amounts are specified.

-

Edited by Ting
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ting

Guest Ting

Posted
Posted
Yeah I'm not sure where I'm going with this one. I just thought there might be a chance I could argue that the expired ticket hadn't "expired" per se, but rather was an old one that was just left there and therefore the actual contravention was not having a ticket. Nice idea perhaps but probably not on to a winner there.

 

To be honest, I can't see you have any case whatsoever from what you say so far.

Not something I like to say - or do lightly - but at least you know where you stand.

-

Link to post
Share on other sites
green_and_mean

green_and_mean

Posted
Posted
Nope.

 

If 'time expired' equates to £80- - lower level penalty

 

then they are using a scale where higher level penalties i.e. 01 as you say - are £120-

 

You are welcome to check. try dfT operational guidance 'annexe' or London Councils who actually define the contraventions. the latter is a pig to find though.

Many Council sites also describe them.

 

The choice of penalty scales is also defined but in each case the lower and higher amounts are specified

 

Expired tickets and 'no p&d' are always on the same scale regardless of which scale is used, unless in a permit bay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ting

Guest Ting

Posted
Posted
Expired tickets and 'no p&d' are always on the same scale regardless of which scale is used, unless in a permit bay.

 

Ah yes. i agree. It wasn't you who mentioned '01' but someone else.

There again, we don't know where he parked do we - or did I miss that too?

-

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
Disgruntled Brit

Disgruntled Brit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Just a quick update on my case. I made formal representations against the PCN on receiving the Notice to Owner, those were rejected, so I appealed to PATAS. Islington didn't bother to produce a copy of the PCN apparently so the adjudicator threw it out. Shame, would have liked to know whether they would have held up my argument or not!

Never mind, good result. Thanks for all your help!

:-x DB :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...