Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • lookinforinfo
      EPC ANPR PCN - St Nicholas Street, Weymouth DT4 8AD

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      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.
    • dx100uk
      One Parking Solutions Windscreen PCN - private flat bays, share of freehold . - Durrington, West Sussex.

      By dx100uk · Posted

      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.  
    • lookinforinfo
      G24 anpr PCN - Double Dipping - Wigan Robin Retail Park

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • FTMDave
      One Parking Solutions Windscreen PCN - private flat bays, share of freehold . - Durrington, West Sussex.

      By FTMDave · Posted

      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.
    • NewsBot
      How the computer games industry is embracing AI

      By NewsBot · Posted

      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.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

carphone warehouse, quick advice needed...

big blue one
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5478 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

gyzmo

gyzmo

Posted
Posted

You can easily fit the basics into a day. Shop managers and other floor staff etc should not need to know case law as they are unlikely to end up in court arguing a point. All that is needed is a basic outline of the main legislation and an understanding of the principles of fair trade and consumer protection.

 

Alas, the situation does not seem to be improving. The DTI as it was then commissioned an IPSOS survey of business and the public of their understanding of consumer rights. One would expect businesses to be more aware than consumers, and the same of larger businesses compared to smaller ones. But noooo - they were equally as clueless as each other.

 

There is also an excellent paper by Phillip Callum for the National Consumer Council entitled "The Stupid Company: How British Businesses throw away money by alienating customers". It's one I referred to in my dissertation and is well worth a read (the paper that is, not my dissertation!).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kraken1

Kraken1

Posted
Posted

I meant a day is not enough in that you need to use it, or you forget it. It needs to be an ongoing thing. I think case law is useful, not to cite to but to apply to situations you are faced with, for eg when it comes to assessing damages or compensation.

 

The OFt do publish a handy traders' guide to consumer law though. I've actually given traders I've been arguing with a copy... it can help.

 

Businesses and consumers are equally clueless, but the advantage of the consumer is that they generally know and accept they are. Traders don't and won't...

Link to post
Share on other sites
big blue one

big blue one

Posted
  • Author
Posted

right i spoke to cons dir again and they advised me same as you guys on here. was advised to gointo shop and request replacement and if they did not comply to send a letter then if no joy to contact them back...

 

ANY TEMPLATES FOR ME TO SEND?

:D
Link to post
Share on other sites
gyzmo

gyzmo

Posted
Posted

try this (I am, again, somewhat tipsy so may need checking / editing).

 

Sirs,

 

I purchased from yourselves a Tocca mobile phone from yourselves (details attached) which has subsequently developed a fault. It has in fact developed a fault 3 times and had to be replaced with a refurbished Samsung Soul phone. This has also developed a fault.

 

You are reminded of the provisions of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 which requires goods supplied to be of satisfactory quality and durability. It is quite obvious that the phones supplied to me do not conform to the contract of supply.

 

I require that you now provide a phone of suitable quality and durability as the contract originally requires, as I am no longer willing to accept a series of repairs before a replacement phone is given.

 

I believe I have been more than patient in this regard and seek your agreement and action within the next 14 days to prevent legal proceedings.

 

Yours, etc etc.

 

Attach copies of the contract and repair details carried out, as well as a bullet point factual list of faults and action taken until now. And DO report to Consumer Direct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Powlo1

Powlo1

Posted
Posted

Best to make it simple here for you.

 

Warranties state that the Manufacturer has to be allowed to try and repair the handset 3 times. If they cannot then they have to replace with same model or one of a similiar and equal specification. And in this case the Soul (U900) would be classed as the replacement.

 

Now that the Replacement has developed a fault the circle starts again at the beginning, regardless of whether it was a replacement or not.

 

By the way Gizmo, it wouldn't really work bringing the contract into it as if you read through the T&Cs the mention of a phone is very rare and is not covered as the contract relates solely to the SIM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kraken1

Kraken1

Posted
Posted

statements in warranties cannot overrule stat rights or normal contract law.

 

Now that the Replacement has developed a fault the circle starts again at the beginning, regardless of whether it was a replacement or not.

 

This I disagree with - it is not the goods it is the contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Powlo1

Powlo1

Posted
Posted

The Phone is essentially supplied by the Network/dealer as a tool to use the network.

 

If your having problems with the phone or even if the phone for talking sake blew up, it doesn't breach the contract. As the contract is for the SIM not the phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
gyzmo

gyzmo

Posted
Posted

Not really. Firstly, there is supply of goods. Secondly, it depends on how the product was advertised. If the emphasis is on the phone, then courts have ruled that the phone, not the airtime/sim is the main point of the contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...