Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
  • 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

Philips demanding payment


Abed
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5442 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

Received today a complaint form from Philips any tips or suggestions on filling the form are welcome.

 

There are three facts to this case:

 

1- Car was part exchanged at a Ford dealer

2- Tax disc returned with a cover letter telling DVLA that I no longer the keeper of the car and received a £90.50 tax refund

3- Acknowledgement letter from DVLA that records were updated

 

 

Thanks in advance for all you contributions guys.

 

Sorry for the delay in replying - in your complaint form to Philips basically inform them what happened, be specific and described how they have harrased you etc, address it the Cheif Executive, by recorded delivery.

 

I would continue communicating with the DVLA, but im not upto speed on the procedures etc sorry, as im a lease car driver.

 

Also continue to exaust all other complaint avenues, including your MP, ive noticed lots of horror stories with the DVLA like yours, highlighting your concerns will help others also

 

Keep us inform.

The retailers worst nightmare !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today received a reply from Philips after filled a Complaint Form. Their reply:

 

Thank you fro the completed complaint from. I am sorry you have felt it necessary to complain about the way your case has been handled.

 

I confirm receipt of the acknowledgement letter issued by the DVLA to confirm that you are no longer the owner/registered keeper of vehicle registration number xxxx. However, this letter is dated after the late licensing penalty was issued and we are therefore not able to accept this letter. Although you received a rebate for the tax on this vehicle from the DVLA in October 2009, they did not receive the v5 form from you until a later date. The acknowledgement letter to confirm that you no longer owned this vehicle was issued to you on the 30 January 2009.

 

I have been in contact with our client, the DVLA, who have confirmed that the amount of £80.00 is due from you. In the circumstances, I look forward to receiving the payment from you in order to bring this matter to a close. I trust this clarifies the situation, however if I can be of any further help, please do not hesitate to contact me

 

Kind regards

Philips

 

 

Consturctive comments are welcomed.

 

Important key points in my complaint that were not addressed in the letter are:

 

1- Date of offence that appears on every letter I received from Philips: Date of Offence 10 October 2008. However, I part exchange the car on 9 October 2008, which sound strange to initiate an offence when I still had the tax disc which I sent to DVLA with a cover letter stating that I am no longer the keeper of the car.

 

2: What is the value of Acknowledgement Form that DVLA sent me stating that they updated their records.

3: How could I fill the LLP form when I am the owner of the car

4: What does the Acknowledgement mean when they ask to discard any further forms from DVLA.

5: Does anyone disagree that the acknowledgement from is confusing and does not mean what is written on it.

6: Had I not filled an acknowledgement form and paid the LLP would still receive an acknowledgement form.

 

Philips has be bombarding me with letters demanding payment and threats to tranish credit, court, et. I wished the DVLA or Philips has sent a reminder before they were keen on sending a LLP. (Strange and Bizzare and does not make sense)

 

What Philips going to do next?

What am I going to do next?

Edited by Abed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Today received a reply from Philips after filled a Complaint Form. Their reply:

 

Thank you fro the completed complaint from. I am sorry you have felt it necessary to complain about the way your case has been handled.

 

I confirm receipt of the acknowledgement letter issued by the DVLA to confirm that you are no longer the owner/registered keeper of vehicle registration number xxxx. However, this letter is dated after the late licensing penalty was issued and we are therefore not able to accept this letter. Although you received a rebate for the tax on this vehicle from the DVLA in October 2009, they did not receive the v5 form from you until a later date. The acknowledgement letter to confirm that you no longer owned this vehicle was issued to you on the 30 January 2009.

 

I have been in contact with our client, the DVLA, who have confirmed that the amount of £80.00 is due from you. In the circumstances, I look forward to receiving the payment from you in order to bring this matter to a close. I trust this clarifies the situation, however if I can be of any further help, please do not hesitate to contact me

 

Kind regards

Philips

 

 

Consturctive comments are welcomed.

 

Important key points in my complaint that were not addressed in the letter are:

 

1- Date of offence that appears on every letter I received from Philips: Date of Offence 10 October 2008. However, I part exchange the car on 9 October 2008, which sound strange to initiate an offence when I still had the tax disc which I sent to DVLA with a cover letter stating that I am no longer the keeper of the car.

 

2: What is the value of Acknowledgement Form that DVLA sent me stating that they updated their records.

3: How could I fill the LLP form when I am the owner of the car

4: What does the Acknowledgement mean when they ask to discard any further forms from DVLA.

5: Does anyone disagree that the acknowledgement from is confusing and does not mean what is written on it.

6: Had I not filled an acknowledgement form and paid the LLP would still receive an acknowledgement form.

 

Philips has be bombarding me with letters demanding payment and threats to tranish credit, court, et. I wished the DVLA or Philips has sent a reminder before they were keen on sending a LLP. (Strange and Bizzare and does not make sense)

 

What Philips going to do next?

What am I going to do next?

 

Sorry to hear of the ongoing problems, unfortunatley i am not upto speed on the DVLA bits and bobs, im sure some one else will come on board with commens.

 

With regard to Philips, i would make a further complaint, this DCA will continue to hound you untill you pay up or so they think.

 

Also make contact with the DVLA again, continue to make your voice heard !

The retailers worst nightmare !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Philips are a debt collection agency. As such, once you send them a letter clearly stating you dispute the debt, they are legally obliged to return the file to their principle (the DVLA) Only the DVLA can then pursue it through court action (if they are brave enough to).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I wrote in the complaint form

 

I part exchanged my car (Land Rover R454HGD) on 9 October 2008 for new Ford Fiesta from Evans Halshaw East Kilbride Ford dealer (1 Millibrook Drive, East Kilbride, Glasgow, G74 5 NL). The Land Rover was taxed until May 2009. I sent the tax disc with a cover letter stating that “I am no longer the keeper of the Land Rover R454HGD” and claimed for a refund for the unexpired portion of the tax disc and received a cheque for £92.50 on 29th of October 2009.

 

I received a Late Licencing Penalty form requesting a payment of £80 (issued by automated process) for failing to relicense the (Land Rover R454HGD). I thought I carried out the procedure of informing the DVLA “that I no longer the keeper of the Land Rover car” and that the automated process fell short of updating the record. However, I sent the V5 yellow slip to DVLA and received and acknowledgement letter saying:

 

Vehicle Registration Mark: R454 HGD

Make/ Model: Land Rover Freelander XE1 S-Wagon

Thank you for telling us that us that you are no longer the keeper of or have scrapped the vehicle with the above mentioned registration mark. I can confirm that we have updated our records.

If you received an application form for renewing your vehicle licence for this vehicle, please ignore it. You do not need contact us as we print these forms (V11 or V85/1) up to 6 weeks before the licence come to an end”

 

On 23 March 2009 I received from DVLA a final Notification letter requesting a payment for failing to relicense the Land Rover. As this letter was computer generated and that I had already received an acknowledgement letter that “I am no longer the keeper of the car” I ignored it as per instruction in the acknowledgement letter “You do not need to contact us …”

 

On the 9th May 2009, 20 May 2009, 27 May 2009, 3 June 2009, 8 June 2009, I received a Notice of Instruction letters from Philips Collection Services Ltd telling me that they were instructed to commence a recovery procedure against me for failing to make payment of £80 for LLP.

 

I need to point out to you these key important issues:

 

 

  • Land Rover car was physically part exchanged and lodged Evans Halshaw East Kilbride Ford dealer (1 Millibrook Drive, East Kilbride, Glasgow, G74 5 NL premises and ownership was transferred to the dealer as per invoice no 2074
  • Tax disc was retuned with a cover letter noting the “I am no longer the keeper of this car” and a refund of the unexpired portion of the tax was refunded by a cheque from the DVLA.
  • I received an acknowledgement from the DVLA stating that “I confirm that our records been updated” which begs the questions: What does it mean? Why was it issued 30 January 2009 if the offence was committed on 10 October 2009? And what is its value? Had I paid the fine, would I have had received an acknowledgement without sending V5 slip?
  • The LLP form was obsolete and irrelevant as according to the DVLA acknowledgement letter “…no longer the keeper of or have scrapped the vehicle”
  • Notice of Instruction letter states the Date of Offence: Oct 10, 2008 untrue as I was still in ownership of the tax disc which was sent about one week after the part exchange.

 

Therefore, I believe I have notified the DVLA under s.24 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 and under that Act that is where my responsibility ends. There is nothing in statute which obliges me to do anything else. Therefore the responsibility of disposal rests upon the DVLA to manage their records and databases properly.

I am troubled to understand why DVLA would mishandle my case. The evidence suggests there is a problem with the automated system operated by DVLA and this is clearly demonstrated by the number of cases for failure:

“During the calendar year September 2007 to August 2008 the agency created 45,339 cases for failure to notify a change of ownership of a vehicle. During the same period a total of 26,927 cases were closed due to mitigating circumstances. “

(Jim Fitzpatrick, 2008)

The DVLA agency recognises that it “does not intend to persecute honest motorists, but to crack down on offenders who repeatedly abuse the system.”

I conclude this section with words from Lord Davies of Oldham

"the aim was not to impinge on the law-abiding citizen. There are law-abiding citizens who inadvertently forget that they should have licensed their vehicle. People may be away on holiday for a long time—over a month, perhaps—and there is always the possibility that people will become ill and will not be able to do the right thing."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think I should respond to their letter which states that the fine still stands or the complaint form that was sent to Philips would suffice as a dispute?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi All

 

A great thank you for all those were invloved in this matter with the DVLA. I also thank DailyMail for their intervention and the work they carried out behind the scenes.

 

Today I received this letter from the DVLA

 

Thank you for your recent correspondece concerning a late penalty imposed upon you.

 

Under these circumstances, I can confirm that no further action will be taken on this case and Philips Collection Services have been informed of our decision.

 

I also apologize for any inconvenience that we may have caused you.

 

 

A special thanks for the consumer action group as without this forum I would have little hope of putting the case properly.

 

Although time, work, and personal frustation have cost me much more that what the penalty price was, I am happy that DVLA and Philips were able to examine the facts and act in good practice.

 

I wonder if I can reclaim the expense I incurred in resloving this matter?

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

A great thank you for all those were invloved in this matter with the DVLA. I also thank DailyMail for their intervention and the work they carried out behind the scenes.

 

Today I received this letter from the DVLA

 

Thank you for your recent correspondece concerning a late penalty imposed upon you.

 

Under these circumstances, I can confirm that no further action will be taken on this case and Philips Collection Services have been informed of our decision.

 

I also apologize for any inconvenience that we may have caused you.

 

 

A special thanks for the consumer action group as without this forum I would have little hope of putting the case properly.

 

Although time, work, and personal frustation have cost me much more that what the penalty price was, I am happy that DVLA and Philips were able to examine the facts and act in good practice.

 

I wonder if I can reclaim the expense I incurred in resloving this matter?

 

Thanks again

 

Pleased to hear your news, well done.

 

If you have a few minutes here and there i would certainley make the relevent organisations aware of the problems you have experienced.

The retailers worst nightmare !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...