Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • EU deal replicated 'as far as possible' ... aka less than   "The British Government is continuing to work intensively on securing continuity with other countries. We have secured agreements – either signed or agreed in principle - that account for 64% of the UK’s trade with all the countries with which the UK is seeking continuity, should we leave the EU without a deal."   With what I've seen on that page I linked earlier, that would seem to be decidedly unambitious 'trade deals across the world larger than the EU
    • dx100uk - thank you for your advice.  I will send a SAR to Vanquis and really appreciate all the help on here.   I may have read your last sentence in the way that it was not intended but it has came across very judgmental and not helpful.  I have came on this site for some help, not to be judged.  If that was not your intention then I apologise as I realise text can be read in the way it was not intended.  
    • . I'm sorry but this is not correct. There is a very long established rule that you are required to exercise utmost good faith (uberrima fides) when becoming a party to any kind of insurance contract. This means that you have quite a strict duty to accept responsibility for disclosing any information which a reasonable person in your position might understand could materially affect the risk. I can imagine that the interpretation of this rule would not be applied quite so strictly to a very new and young driver – but the more that one has been driving and the more insurance policies one has held, then I think that the stricter  this rule becomes. It is also well established that one can misrepresent something simply by withholding information – by silence. I'm sorry to say that I think that this rule and the value of it is so self-evident that it is scarcely worth discussing. I wouldn't start raising this issue if I were you with insurers or the courts because you will come away with a bloody nose and loss of credibility
    • @unclebulgaria67 your point is particularly valid especially in regards to loss in the event of a claim. Irrespective of 2x SP30’s or not the vehicle is insured for its full market value. The insurers rating changes based on risk against those endorsements, where said risk calculation isn’t made available.    Also I question the validation of 22% in premium. Is that based on today’s risk profiling, or is that applied retrospectively to day 1 and can that be evidenced.    One thing that is very clear, is that to bring about any degree of misrepresentation the insurer has to have evidence that questions were asked in regards to the endorsements.   This was an auto renewal and when I’ve checked the Brokers electronic Copy on “My Policy’ at renewal, there is no section included relative to accidents in the last 5 yrs or Motoring convictions. Everything else relative to me and the named driver is listed. 
    • Here is what exposes Johnson & Co Commission document, makes for sober reading   Wonder if Snake Oil Singham has read and digested it?   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/brexit_files/info_site/com_2020_324_2_communication_from_commission_to_inst_en_0.pdf
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 7 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies
GamekeeperToPoacher

CC surcharges on parking fines are unlawful

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3984 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Here on BBC a parking adjudicator has decided that surcharges on parking fines paid by credit card are unlawful

 

GK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here on BBC a parking adjudicator has decided that surcharges on parking fines paid by credit card are unlawful

 

GK

 

I think he decided that months ago! The article is a bit misleading since Gloucester is not in London and has a different adjudication service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BFS GROUP LTD V LONDON BOROUGH OF KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES Case No. : 2090271442 and DASKALOVA V LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN Case No. : 2090272445 and London General Transport Services Ltd v London Borough of Camden Case No. : 2090198127 all three are PATAS key cases. All find against the CC surcharge. G&M didn't you know about these cases already ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFS GROUP LTD V LONDON BOROUGH OF KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES Case No. : 2090271442 and DASKALOVA V LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN Case No. : 2090272445 and London General Transport Services Ltd v London Borough of Camden Case No. : 2090198127 all three are PATAS key cases. All find against the CC surcharge. G&M didn't you know about these cases already ?

 

Has Camden and PATAS moved out of London now, you really are a font of knowledge there was me thinking PATAS cases did not apply to Gloucester!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ? you are the one who claimed that the linked article was a bit misleading as it didn't cover PATAS "The article is a bit misleading since Gloucester is not in London and has a different adjudication service." I showed that PATAS has made the same finding in multiple cases and so there is nothing misleading in the linked article at all. Once anyone reviews the mentioned PATAS cases they will see that the LLA 2003 aspects are dealt with - and the councils' claims around the LLA 2003 dispensed with summarily. CC surcharges have been nailed inside London and outside. You have lost me with the comments re Glos, they just don't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What ? you are the one who claimed that the linked article was a bit misleading as it didn't cover PATAS "The article is a bit misleading since Gloucester is not in London and has a different adjudication service." I showed that PATAS has made the same finding in multiple cases and so there is nothing misleading in the linked article at all. Once anyone reviews the mentioned PATAS cases they will see that the LLA 2003 aspects are dealt with - and the councils' claims around the LLA 2003 dispensed with summarily. CC surcharges have been nailed inside London and outside. You have lost me with the comments re Glos, they just don't make sense.

 

Did you actually read the link?? Neil Herron was claiming Gloucester tickets are invalid due to the PATAS ruling, which was why I said the story was misleading since PATAS has nothing to do with with Gloucester PCNs. TPT has not made a ruling on CC charges as far as I'm aware if it had I'm sure Mr Herron would have mentioned it rather than go on about the PATAS cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I read the link, It is about a Camden case !! "In January, London General Transport Services Limited was given a £120 penalty charge notice by Camden Council." the article then goes on "Mr Heron from Parking Appeals said some councils - including Gloucester City Council - were trying to get "a little bit extra blood out of the stone". Glos not alone many councils are trying to squeeze more out by a multitude of means. And PATAS cases can have implications beyond PATAS e.g. Jane Packer Flowers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes I read the link, It is about a Camden case !!

 

Errr I don't think it is, its about Gloucester Council charging a surcharge which is why its on the BBC Gloucester local news page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EEErrrrrr,

 

Sorry folks I just thought that the general principle of the charge being illegal as it makes the penalty greater than legislation permits.

 

I will return to hiding in Notts

 

 

GK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EEErrrrrr,

 

Sorry folks I just thought that the general principle of the charge being illegal as it makes the penalty greater than legislation permits.

 

I will return to hiding in Notts

 

 

GK

 

It was the descision of the London adjudicators that it did make it illegal although personally I don't see how since no one forces you to pay by credit card and debit card is free and there is nothing in law apart from a section in the guidance to Councils that says there is no justification for it. However PATAS rulings can be considered by TPT they are not always accepted and visa versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the decisions I named will show you how and why it it is unenforceable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TPT key cases also hold a credit card surcharge case relating to Bristol from 2005...the other grounds are also interesting & have wider relevance to appelants

Example Cases - Traffic Penalty Tribunal

BS881

A Council is required to inform the motorist how payment of a penalty charge may be made. Various methods may be used including, for example, payment by cash, cheque or card. What the Council may not do, however, is add a surcharge on payments made by credit card. That would amount to an unlawful increase of the amount that may be charged by way of penalty. The Council has no power to demand the payment of any extra charges of this nature.

The appeal was allowed (also on other grounds)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...