Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

Help with default removal - van finance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3819 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

got the message to drop by

 

need some questions answered first

 

who is the finance co

who was the baliff co

very much doubt was a baliff, prob a repo outfit called country wide

when the suspended repo was granted, did you bring the account up to date

 

thy are in big trouble from what you have stated but need you to confirm my questions

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

well if the account was brought up to date then the suspended repo order is history

 

give me an hour while i check this lot out

 

if the car is repo, you will get back every penny plus a new car for free

 

its called recession of contract

 

done it three times so far

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I did but cancelled it after the court case on the recomendation of the judge, I also claimed back the premiums that I had paid, perhaps thats why they are being awkward with me,

There is one other thing, the details on the agreement do not agreee with the details on the sales invoice, there is £1000 less on the invoice

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Will Be Commission THE THOUSEND POUNDS

 

So You Claimed Back The Premiums

 

Was That With Interest At There High Apr

 

Was The Rebate Credited Back Into Your Account/ Do Statements Prove This/ Or Cash Rebate

 

Did You Then Sign An Agreement To Modify The First Or Any Other Agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the court order, I had to maintain payments of the monthly premium, which i did.

When I claimed the PPI, They credited my account with 1149.40( The arrears prior to Court) and paid the rest to me by cheque, inc interest.

No I didnt sign anything to modify the agreement as far as I can remember, although the payments since have reduced by the ppi amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the letter in front of me from when they made the refund ,

 

the final paragraphs of it read

"Therefore without acepting any lability whatsoever,

we wil refund vthe premiums you have paid including interest,

the figure 0f £3346.94 is not correct as tis is the full mount of the premium

and interestshould the agreement have gone its ful term.

 

You have in fact made 32 payments of £69.73, which amounts to £2231.36.

To this we will add simple interest at 8% pa making a total refund of £2714.97.

 

We have cancelled the policy forthwith and your monthly payments are reduced to 308.34.

 

As yyour account is presently 2 payments in arrears we suggest that these are deducted

from the above figure before we send you our cheque "

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thousand pounds was the garage making out I paid a bigger deposit I think

 

DONT YOU BELIEVE IT

 

WITH INSURANCE PPI ETC, THE FINANCE CO WILL SEND THE GARAGE A NICE FAT COMMISSION CHEQUE FOR THE CAR AND INSURANCE SALE

 

YOU THEN END UP PAYING FOR THAT COMMISSION

 

ITS ILLEGAL

 

WILSON V HURSTANGER AND INVALIDATES THE AGREEMENT ALSO

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...