Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

tresspass notices being issued


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5699 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

Long story cut short ....

 

New ppc round our area (portsmouth) seems to be taking over the world in last few months.

 

Parked in a retail park in pompy, got anearly christmas present inviting me to pay 75 quid to them. As per usual, ignored the notice etc (I'm not that stupid to pay it !)

 

They have got dvla details, and have written asking me to identify the driver (nice of them to try !)

 

Ignored, and one I haven't seen before came through this morning : trespass notice. ' Further to our letter of blah blah, you, as the registed keeper of blah blah vehicle, are being notified that the land managed by parktech, including parking areas, car parks, service roads is private land, and thus we may restrict entry to that land, on behalf and as agents of the landowners.

 

You are notified that as from the receipt of this letter, your invitation to enter land managed by us is withdrawn. As the owner of the vehicle specified above, it is your responsibility to inform all of the vehicles users that they are no longer permitted to enter parktech managed land.

 

We will keep on file the outstanding parking charge, and will take action against the vehicle, and its occupants if the vehicle is seen on parktech managed land. This may include an injunction, or removal of the vehicle and its occupants from the private land, using as much force as is necessary to effect the removal.

 

Do not ignore this notice.

 

 

 

Well - I know you can be banned from stores etc, or ant private land, but didn't realise that this tactic was in use !!!!. Think its just a scarry letter to try to say ' we know we can't make you pay, so we are trying to inconvienience you as much as possible, in a hope you decide to pay up '. Unless they get every parking space, road, in the area (never will happen!), then its an empty threat.

 

Anyone seen any of the other ppc's come up with this ?

 

Don't even think cps has stooped this low !!!!

All opinions & information are the personal view of the poster, and are not that of any organisation, company or employer. Any information disclosed by the poster is for personal use only. Permission to process this data under the Data Protection act is NOT GIVEN to any company, only personal readers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow twice in one day Dorst comes up as applicable. this is fun ! use land registry to find the actual owner. write to them ! ask if the PPC is an agent of theirs. and write to the head office of ALL the retailers there telling them that this PPC is attempting to prevent multiple customers from using their outlets. Include a copy of the PPC letter and CC; the letters to the retailers to the Head of Customer Services and the Head of Legal Services. also as a separate thing find out the rates being paid for the car park :) looks like it should be a business rate, if its not then someone needs to pay up. try here Rating Lists on the Internet - Homepage and their letter is rubbish. hey are trying to deny entry to a specific vehicle not a person. complete crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are notified that as from the receipt of this letter, your invitation to enter land managed by us is withdrawn. As the owner of the vehicle specified above, it is your responsibility to inform all of the vehicles users that they are no longer permitted to enter parktech managed land.

 

We will keep on file the outstanding parking charge, and will take action against the vehicle, and its occupants if the vehicle is seen on parktech managed land. This may include an injunction, or removal of the vehicle and its occupants from the private land, using as much force as is necessary to effect the removal.

 

How can they ban you from ALL Parktech managed land as presumably they were acting for the landowner on the first carpark?

 

Therefore if you were in Mr Smith's car park to get the first ticket, how can they clamp you in the 2nd car park where they are acting for Mr Jones when it is nothing to do with him and he may well object strongly to them harassing one of his customers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It did make me chuckle all morning after reading it.

 

Its almost like a child - you won't give me any money, so I won't let you park in any of my car parks.

 

Funny thing is, one of my friends is the store manager of one of the shops in the retail park - I was visiting him !. He's got about 40 tickets so far, ignored every one, and nothings happened yet. He's waiting for them to clamp...

 

Its one of those sneaky operations - write the ticket in the car, slap in on the screen, take photo, and then run back to car, and hide until next sucker comes along.

 

Writing letters now, will let everyone know how many replies I get, and how long this 'banning' lasts for....

All opinions & information are the personal view of the poster, and are not that of any organisation, company or employer. Any information disclosed by the poster is for personal use only. Permission to process this data under the Data Protection act is NOT GIVEN to any company, only personal readers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of an interesting situation that could arise if a company were to take my vehicle.

 

It is a van, and occasionally, there are shotguns, and ammunition, in the back.

 

All quite legal, a locked vehicle is deemed to provide the required security - and I have the necessary permit to allow me to be in possession of the guns..

 

However, if someone were to remove the van and the contents, they would then, [presumably], be in possession, without the necessary.....

 

An arrestable offence, I guess....

 

Sameagle.

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, if someone were to remove the van and the contents, they would then, [presumably], be in possession, without the necessary.....

 

I think you should keep the shotguns in the van at all times,, just in case. :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...