Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi. I am reading through the full thread and will continue to research. I have come across a reference to a form called N180 DQ in the thread, but I cannot see any reference to this form in my case nor can I see it on the MoneyClaim website. Should I have been sent this form? Thanks 
    • 12mph (beyond any UK limit) will certainly qualify for a Fixed Penalty. So you should received an offer of a FP for each of the remaining two offences. Be sure to submit your licence details as instructed when you accept the offer. If you don't your £100 will be returned to you and the police will prosecute you in court.
    • and it will be also now written off under age related criteria anyway.
    • @dx100ukThanks for this! I'm still not clear if I'm facing more than 6 points on my license though. Can you explain any further please? When I accept the 2nd speeding ticket, will they just charge me £100 and 3 points, or will they be more severe consequences since that offense took place the following day of the 1st offense? Similarly, when I accept the 3rd offense, will they look at my record or just charge me with the £100 fine and 3 points? @Man in the middleI've been searching the forum and you seem very knowledgeable. Would you mind giving a look at my query please? Thanks in advance!!
    • Yes of course. That's why it says cc:: BIg Motoring World at the bottom. Don't imagine that this solves the issue. It doesn't. He not have to force the finance company and big motoring world to accept the rejection to give your money back. I suggest that you get the letter off tomorrow. And let us know what you hear but on Friday you should then send a threat to the finance company.   Have a look what I have said here about your options and read the whole thread as well.  
  • 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

NCP £200 PCCN for Damage to Car Park Equipment


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5588 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

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

We're used to NCP / Roxburge / Graham White, but this 'barrier damage' case takes the biscuit.

 

This chain is fairly safe to have a game with. If I was feeling bolshy and had some spare stamps, I'd be thinking up some way to stick two fingers up at them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ha ha! Just as predicted by crem above.

 

 

Remember, they're alleging damage. They can't arbitrarily add costs and they've not provided evidence. Only the court can decide costs. Basically you're just receiving standard letters in sequence, and sounds like one more will plop through the letter box before silence ensues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

well i received my letter from roxburghe debt collectors informing that they have been informed by ncp to recover the outstanding parking contravention (PCN)...now i was wondering what should i do? i havent sent a response to there last letter informing me that the matter would be passed to debt collectors - what do you advise i do now as i have 7 days to act on this letter...the total amount they are requesting is £240 and if in 7 days i dont make a payment the matter will be passed onto Graham White solicitors...

 

Can anyone help? i know people say dont act but has anyone been through this same problem? it would give me some confidence!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there. Just follow the advice given on this very thread and youl see a pattern emerging! Many people have been in the same situation-thats why they joined the CAG initially and are now giving something back by helping others :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't do anything. One or two letters from Roxburge, two letters from Graham White and then that's the end of the process.

 

They really are stupid. Their demand for remedy for alleged damage (which they failed to back up with proof) has morphed into some sort of parking contravention penalty.

 

Ignore ignore ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone help? i know people say dont act but has anyone been through this same problem? it would give me some confidence!
Search for Roxburghe here.

 

There are a multitude of people that have gone through exactly the same process, which has been clearly spelled out by crem here, in post 23.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further letter received from Graham White / Michael Sobell. "Final Notice". Says they are advising their clients they have two options:

 

- instruct GW/MS to prepare court papers

 

- pass the account to a field investigator with instructions to attend your property.

 

("No field here mate; this is the suburbs.")

 

Hmmm. Just in case, I've briefed my family to say nothing to anyone they don't recognise, and not to give anyone any opportunity to come into the house, and to call the police if they feel threatened in any way. Just in case.

 

Has anyone any experience of a "field investigator" visit?

 

Any difference in law due to my house being in Scotland? In terms of whether I can "throw them off my land" etc etc?

 

Having said all that, I hear what you all say, that this is the last time I'll hear from these people.

 

Fingers crossed (which is difficult while sitting on my hands).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's designed to be worrying.

 

That should be the last letter now. Maybe I'm mistaken and they do 3 letters, not 2. Either way, completely ignore.

 

Think about it - you apparently damaged a piece of equipment. If it was genuine you'd receive proof of how much it cost to fix it. If you didn't pay, they'd take you to court straight off. It would be a simple small claims case and you could have to cough up.

 

Instead they've just tossed your address in the parking ticket pile with hundreds of others and it's morphed into some sort of fixed parking contravention charge.

 

The fact they haven't done it genuinely screams that they are trying it. If it is broken, they'll just get it repaired under insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this correct that no baliffs can be actioned until the case gone to court?

 

the letter is my 2nd letter and you can tell it is a stanard print out but it is very worrying as they have listed all the fees and given me 7 days to take action!...the last thing i was is the case going to court and where costs build up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last thing *they* want is for it to go to court where the costs mount up *for them*.

 

They don't actually mount up *that* much, but if you are running a parking enforcement business it's an impossible hurdle as the costs they can claim do not cover the cost of taking it through court.

 

Also, in your case, you'd win due to lack of evidence.

 

No they can't send bailiffs unless it goes to court, unless you lose and unless you don't then pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this correct that no baliffs can be actioned until the case gone to court?

 

the letter is my 2nd letter and you can tell it is a stanard print out but it is very worrying as they have listed all the fees and given me 7 days to take action!...the last thing i was is the case going to court and where costs build up!

 

All usual scare tactics. They always forget to mention that they won't be going to court and they have no chance of winning. Funny that.

 

You'd have to be taken to court, lose and still refuse to pay before bailiffs get involved. Won't happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would worry little if I was you - I do not see how they can claim £200 from you for equipment that was already damaged. The point is that you took reasonable steps to leave a car park that you no longer wished to use - you did not take a sledge hammer to the barrier did you? I think that in the extremely unlikely event that the matter ended up in court you would be in a very strong position to defend your case. After all, if you did not take such action then you could still be there.

 

I think they are chancing the arm and seeing if they can get you to contribute towards paying for the repair of already broken equipment - lesson for NCP is service your equipment on a more regular basis.

09/07/09 :)Business Studies BA(Hons) 2:1:)

 

eCar Insurance overpayment - £325

Settled in full - 15/09/08

NatWest Student A/C bank charges - £260

Settled under hardship scheme - 08/06/09

Natwest Business A/C bank charges - £60

Settled in full as GOGW - 20/04/09

Santander Consumer Finance late payment fees - £60

Part settled for £48 - 01/03/08

Peugeot Finance late payment fees - £50

Settled in full before county court hearing - 01/09/09

Peugeot Finance overpayment of £247

Settled in full - 01/12/08

Valley Leisure - complaint about collections agent

£160 part refund of gym membership in compensation - 01/02/09

HFC Bank - complaint about payment deducted from my account on wrong date

GOGW £10 - 01/05/09

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying that you shouldn't be worries one bit - forget about NCP - nothing will come of it.

 

TFT

09/07/09 :)Business Studies BA(Hons) 2:1:)

 

eCar Insurance overpayment - £325

Settled in full - 15/09/08

NatWest Student A/C bank charges - £260

Settled under hardship scheme - 08/06/09

Natwest Business A/C bank charges - £60

Settled in full as GOGW - 20/04/09

Santander Consumer Finance late payment fees - £60

Part settled for £48 - 01/03/08

Peugeot Finance late payment fees - £50

Settled in full before county court hearing - 01/09/09

Peugeot Finance overpayment of £247

Settled in full - 01/12/08

Valley Leisure - complaint about collections agent

£160 part refund of gym membership in compensation - 01/02/09

HFC Bank - complaint about payment deducted from my account on wrong date

GOGW £10 - 01/05/09

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey guys i was having another read of the letter and i noticed something at the bottom:

 

'Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority Registered No 272121

Graham White Solicitors is a trading name of Michael Sobell, Solicitor'

 

It looks like this is a sole solicitor who has purchased the company name Graham White and using it as a front!...does anybody know anything about this Michael Sobell? is he registered or he is a fake?...another thing i noticed at the bottom of his letterhead he doesnt mention what qualifications he has!? the letter is signed : Yours Sincerely Michael Sobell, Solicitor[/COLOR]

 

can you guys recommend any things i should do or who i should contact to find out more about this Michael Sobell?

Link to post
Share on other sites

google - last I heard he was contracted to a London Council.. you have it back to front. G.White is a trading name of M Sobell who sold its use. the SRA got involved at one stage - they used to miss off the M Sobell information but can't now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...