Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Locked in car park


Patma
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4652 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

Nobody here gives a flying fig about access it's EGRESS we are bothered with. How hard is that for them to understand?????? It's all across the POC that you need a card to access, pin to access, permission to access, Fred had no problem getting in but he's had a heck of a job getting out!!

 

It was a free exit car park as illustrated by the loop in the road. Fred could not exit not because he din't have a swipe card, permission or a pin but because the barrier was broken.

Smoke and mirrors spring to mind........

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It comes under the Information Commissioner's remit to ensure that authorities comply etc. with the ultimate sanction that they can face a 'contempt of court' charge.

 

See this report dated March 2009:http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/monitoring_strategy.pdf

 

In particular note this para:

It should also be noted that a breach of section 77 FOIA, may lead to a criminal sanction. For example, where the investigation of concerns in relation to records management relates to the inappropriate or deliberate destruction or concealment of information with the intention of preventing disclosure to which an applicant would have been entitled.

 

Hope LD know a good solicitor ;)

Oh dear oh dear, this gets worse. At least LD can represent Miss Hughes in court, she'll be safe with them:rolleyes::eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you foolishgirl, very helpful.

 

So it's a contempt of court offence eh? Well put that in the pile with the CPR 32.14 and CPR 31.23 offences I have a feeling Fred is on the verge of putting before the Court.:cool:

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news interlude.

 

After three days and nights of non stop torrential rain it has stopped raining in Birmingham, the sun came out for 5 minutes right at dusk, it's drying quickly and it looks to me like we'll be seeing Ashes cricket from Edgbaston in the morning.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you foolishgirl, very helpful.

 

So it's a contempt of court offence eh? Well put that in the pile with the CPR 32.14 and CPR 31.23 offences I have a feeling Fred is on the verge of putting before the Court.:cool:

You're quite right, he is 8-) with more than a little help from your good self:-D

What a tangled web they're weaving for themselves. Where will it end?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you foolishgirl, very helpful.

 

So it's a contempt of court offence eh? Well put that in the pile with the CPR 32.14 and CPR 31.23 offences I have a feeling Fred is on the verge of putting before the Court.:cool:

 

 

Sorry TLD - didn't mean to mislead. Not to supply information repeatedly comes under contempt, it is a criminal offence to deceive etc:

 

Freedom of Information Act 2000

77 Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure

 

(1) Where—

(a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, and

(b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the [1988 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordance with that section,

any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted—

(a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems pretty clear, thankyou Foolishgirl.

I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of the sender of this email.

What sort of a boss would get their admin assistant into that sort of predicament rather than answer their own emails?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again FG. So if Mrs miss Ms Hughes insists on maintaining the FAAC was a RIB etc. then it would be for Fred to complain through the ICO presumably highlighting the fact that the mistake was replicated to their solicitors and ul;timately to Court?

 

But why wont they just admit that the barrier in question was a hydraulic FAAC barrier?

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news interlude.

 

After three days and nights of non stop torrential rain it has stopped raining in Birmingham, the sun came out for 5 minutes right at dusk, it's drying quickly and it looks to me like we'll be seeing Ashes cricket from Edgbaston in the morning.

30183-Clipart-Illustration-Of-Colorful-Helium-Filled-Balloons-With-Confetti-And-Streamers-At-A-Party.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

This one puzzles me.

9) How many court claims have been initiated by PCAD over the last 6 years in respect of alleged damage to property?

Answer: UnknownNo claims for damage to barriers.

 

What's all this then that Fred faces. Are we all dreaming?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This one puzzles me.

9) How many court claims have been initiated by PCAD over the last 6 years in respect of alleged damage to property?

Answer: UnknownNo claims for damage to barriers.

 

What's all this then that Fred faces. Are we all dreaming?

 

Probably just another genuine mistake.

 

What sort of a boss would get their admin assistant into that sort of predicament rather than answer their own emails?

 

Maybe they've installed a swear filter on the college computers and Bryan wasn't able to break through himself?

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

This one puzzles me.

9) How many court claims have been initiated by PCAD over the last 6 years in respect of alleged damage to property?

Answer: UnknownNo claims for damage to barriers.

 

What's all this then that Fred faces. Are we all dreaming?

 

I think i can see where Patma is going with this one. Fred asked for details of claims for damage to property, didnt even mention the barrier. The reply has specificly mentioned that no claims have been submitted regarding barriers. Maybe no claim has been submitted and they are trying to hoodwink their way into getting a full payment for something they couldnt claim on because of their own procedures re access on a saturday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a very quick one to observe that if it were not for CAG, just imagine how hard it would've been for Fred to battle such a cunning and determined foe.

 

Have they done this before I wonder?

 

If so, how many times?

 

The way they are conducting themselves suggests this is all too familiar territory for them. Once this hits the Press, it will be interesting to see if anyone else comes forwards to say a similar thing happened to them.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a very quick one to observe that if it were not for CAG, just imagine how hard it would've been for Fred to battle such a cunning and determined foe.

That's very true. I've thought of that a lot too. Fred has said many times how he would have been up the creek without a paddle without all the help and support coming from cag and with especially outstanding help from TLD.:-D

The way they are conducting themselves suggests this is all too familiar territory for them. Once this hits the Press, it will be interesting to see if anyone else comes forwards to say a similar thing happened to them.

 

You may have something there. Who knows the more we dig into this mess, the more keeps coming to the surface and one day it will make a good story.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i can see where Patma is going with this one. Fred asked for details of claims for damage to property, didnt even mention the barrier. The reply has specificly mentioned that no claims have been submitted regarding barriers. Maybe no claim has been submitted and they are trying to hoodwink their way into getting a full payment for something they couldnt claim on because of their own procedures re access on a saturday.

 

We've had some insurance company computer printouts disclosed today, so it appears there was a claim,but how deep the rabbit hole goes I've no idea

Link to post
Share on other sites

Helford. Is it normal practice in your experience for an insurer to scribble out the initial claim value of say £1000 and amend it to say £3000 (on the initial claim form filled in by the person who received the claim initially) when it appears that the payout may become recoverable from a third party please?

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patma you have a pm. Forgot to suggest that Fred goes out and buys ink cartridges and a ream of paper tomorrow before the cricket starts.

 

Also forgot to say one further copy of the second part for presentation to the SRA who might be particularly interested.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patma you have a pm. Forgot to suggest that Fred goes out and buys ink cartridges and a ream of paper tomorrow before the cricket starts.

 

Also forgot to say one further copy of the second part for presentation to the SRA who might be particularly interested.

 

Got it thanks and I've replied.

Fred's a cricket philistine, it's wasted on him,give him a nice car park barrier though and he's happy.

 

Yes a copy of for the SRA, good thinking, I'll remember.

You'd better get some sleep. All that brain work ahead tomorrow, not to mention the tension oh and a dance to keep the rain away.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The college are claiming that the (old) barrier involved in the incident and subsequently replaced was a RIB and the 'new' barrier is a BFT.:-?

They're claiming the opposite aren't they, that a BFT was replaced with an RIB? At least that's how Claire Hughes has answered the FOI request. If you have other evidence to suggest that the college is claiming that the new barrier is manufactured by BFT, then it could be that they are trying to get Fred to pay for the replacement of the other barrier.

 

Haven't had a lot of success trying to track down the make and model of the original barrier. All I can say for sure about it is that it matched the one in the second pic in post 90. We've been back today to see if we could identify the make and model, but that barrier is no longer there now. It's been replaced with a new one. which has no identifying details other than the letters BFT running along the arm (We're wondering if Fred is being billed for both of them being replaced lol)
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

at first the only info they gave was that there was damage to the motor gear and linkage at a cost of £1274 plus VAT.

 

The next thing was that they wrote again about a week later informing him the whole thing had to be replaced.

Was the second barrier replaced a week after the first? If so, maybe Patma's joke in post 102 about them trying to get Fred to pay for both barriers is true!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bedlington, you're right, well spotted.

In answer to my first question in the FOI request for the make, model of the current barrier she answers RIB, and for the make of the previous one she answers BFT (which we of course have proof is false).

In contrast in the disclosure info we have, which is copied from hers, we are told the old barrier is an RIB. Basically they can't get their stories straight, even though my email was cc'd to LD, and others ;)

Was the second barrier replaced a week after the first? If so, maybe Patma's joke in post 102 about them trying to get Fred to pay for both barriers is true!

Who knows LOL. All we can say for sure is that something extremely fishy has gone on:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bedlington, you're right, well spotted.

In answer to my first question in the FOI request for the make, model of the current barrier she answers RIB, and for the make of the previous one she answers BFT (which we of course have proof is false).

In contrast in the disclosure info we have, which is copied from hers, we are told the old barrier is an RIB. Basically they can't get their stories straight, even though my email was cc'd to LD, and others ;)

 

Who knows LOL. All we can say for sure is that something extremely fishy has gone on:D

 

It is on a day like this that I miss the now defunct 'Pray for Rain' forum. Our old compadre Alec Cox would be beside himself at the way this is panning out. You may remember a few pages back I mentioned Massimo Dallamano,cowboys, and fistfuls of dollars, well that film was based on a Japanese film (Yojimbo) in which the 'goody' played the two factions of 'baddies' against each other.

 

How right Oscar Wilde was in his essay coincidentally entitled "The Decay of Lying: An Observation" when he wrote: "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life"

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

How right Oscar Wilde was in his essay coincidentally entitled "The Decay of Lying: An Observation" when he wrote: "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life"

Very true and I would like to add.....

 

Magna est veritas et praevalet

Great is truth and it prevails

:D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4652 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...