Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • As per the heading, received a parking charge for failure to display a blue badge in a disabled bay on a retail park.  I am a blue badge holder, disabled/wheelchair user with a Motability vehicle. I received the charge as 'notice to keeper' I was not the driver. I don't have a valid driving license so use a carer. The notice arrived a week after the alleged incident. It states that as the 'driver' failed to pay the charge in full  hence, it is now the keepers responsibility ( the notice was dated 2 days after the alleged infringement and as no notice to driver was on the vehicle, I don't know how they expect the driver to be able to either pay or dispute the charge if they are not aware of it) Anyway, really looking for help how to reply. I cannot remember if the badge was correctly displayed or not. Photos taken of car miss a bit where I store my badge if not displayed so it would be possible to see a badge even if not 'correctly displayed" . It was a bit of a sh**ty day weather wise, gusty and raining  (as seen on the photos which reminded me of the actual day) so it is possible that badge blew to the floor as the driver was helping me out of the car into wheelchair. There is no windscreen photo showing that a PCN to "Driver" was stuck on the window either. The car park is free. There are no Parking Signs at all near the disabled bays that one could read to adhere to any terms and conditions. The whole row of disabled bays - of which are there many only state badge holders ( does not stipulate Blue Badge Holders) The notice states that the parking company is a member of the BPA and Operating in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. The BPA, section 19.1 State that at least one parking sign should be near the disabled bays, in a position that can be easily  read by by a disabled person without leaving their car in order to decide to be bound by such terms. We returned to look for signage on the retail park and could not find one sign that was near the bays. The only sign we could find was high up on a pole but not near the bays. Someone had to get out of the car and stand on tip toes to be able to take a photo of a sign. I would be grateful if someone could help or point me in the right direction. It is now  15 days since the alleged incident and 7 days since I received the notice.
    • also just to clarify is it required that I physically post to both the county court and Evri? I read in another thread you can just email Evri a copy since they will just rescan whatever you post anyway (if they even read it)
    • I'm going to add some context here, it may or may not be different to mine, but it provides a hint around what you can expect from Overdales. My thread to read  TLDR  Lowell / Overdales lied about sending letters (I keep all mine), Admitted the default notice was faulty and made up their own, saying that's all fine, (Fake letters sent to 'prove ' it), Sent documentation that is illegible, not on letterheaded paper.  They will lie, try and make things up, try and send you offers to settle, play good cop, bad cop, all in the name of intimidating you into paying up, don't fall for it!  
    • Hi Dx,   I really have tried to fill the this in and paste the answers as I appreciate the advice    but it’s confusing as asks for e1 box and e2 box to answer I don’t have that    what I received from the court is    Form 02 Form 03 Form 05 Form 07 for if I wish to defend  also initial writ  Thanks 
    • The Tories seem to be confused at the moment, UB. Leaving aside the point about their record for now, Atkins completely ignored protocol by interrupting the Labour minister while he was speaking. I'm sure if a Labour MP had done that to a Tory minister there would have been uproar. I hadn't realised that Christopher Chope is a deputy Speaker now - I had go and and look that up.
  • 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
      • 162 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

Do banks ever seek correction of press articles?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6701 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

There has been no shortage of articles in the press recently regarding charges - and virtually every one of them refer to the charges as "penalties".

 

If the banks are so sure of their positions, wouldn't they write to the publication concerned and insist on a correction?

 

Image the exchange in court.

 

"Mr Banker, read this article. Do you think it's an accurate piece. Is there anything you want to challenge?"

 

"No."

 

"What about the description of charges as penalites. Do you think that's accurate too?"

 

"Um, well....."

 

"Was your bank aware of this article when it was published?"

 

"yes"

 

"Why didn't you write to the editor and insist on a correction?"

 

"Um, well....." [much squirming in seat ensues]

Link to post
Share on other sites

They might have a few problems. On plenty of occasions various banks representatives' have mentioned penalties and they used to refer to them as such on their websites. One bank currently makes reference to early redemption charges "(formerly known as penalties)"!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice line of questioning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,,1333400,00.html

 

Richard Colbey says

Recently I wrote in Jobs & Money about the late payment charges made by most credit card companies. Typically, these involve the levying of around £25 on the account of someone who pays a day late, even if this is caused by the company's tardy dispatch of the bill.

Such charges are unlikely to be enforced by the courts: penalty clauses are legally void unless they reflect the loss the party enforcing them has suffered.

This is hardly cutting edge law. None of the dozens of banks who issue UK cards, and who will lose out if people follow my advice not to pay them, has contacted Jobs & Money or me to take issue with what I wrote. Over the years I have had a few of these penalties levied on me, and invariably when I have refused to pay them, I have been told that the charge would be "refunded", usually as "a goodwill gesture".

If banks thought this argument wrong, they could have taken a test case through the courts to establish their entitlement from someone who refused to pay.

Note: emphasis added

 

There you go. As far back as October 23rd 2004, no banks have sought to take issue with this point

Link to post
Share on other sites

They might have a few problems. On plenty of occasions various banks representatives' have mentioned penalties and they used to refer to them as such on their websites. One bank currently makes reference to early redemption charges "(formerly known as penalties)"!

 

Which bank and why haven't I got a copy of this in my folder? :shock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Lloyds TSB spokesman said: "Some of the charges can be seen as punitive, but what is the other side of that? I don't think it would be responsible to let anyone have any overdraft they wanted."

 

Where was this? Can you provide a link.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In philosophy, there is a study of fallacious argument. There are a number of stock tactics/mistakes that people make in debate when trying to destroy the other side's argument.

 

This Lloyds example is called "the straw man" fallacy. This is where you argue against something that the other side never actually said; you destroy an exaggerated version of the argument.

 

No one here has EVER said that the banks should let anyone have any level of overdraft they wanted. Our proposal is simple, if there isn't sufficient funds, don't pay out. Just don't charge like a wounded bull for the privilege.

 

(For a description of other fallacies, see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/. If anyone is interested, I will apply these fallacies to the stories put out by the banks, there are several regulars from this list!!!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This Lloyds example is called "the straw man" fallacy. This is where you argue against something that the other side never actually said; you destroy an exaggerated version of the argument.

 

My daughter is the expert at that: Q:"Tidy your room!" A:"You don't love me, you make out I'm the Antechrist! (tears hair, sobs, throws herself to the floor)" :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think this one is called "Appeal to spite".......

:lol:

A straw man would be

 

we claim that charges are too high

Banks say that we are in favour of giving free overdrafts to everyone and thus bankcharges must stay as they are.

 

Exactly what they are saying, actually :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6701 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...