Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

OPC - Ingress Park


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3394 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 my new and improved "threat" letters from the "OPC Legal Department" for tickets given over 7 months ago. Well new at any rate - seeing as they are about as convincing as a 10 year old using Microsoft Word for the first time.

And I received 4 at the same time...is the issuing of these letters automated? Because they should know we are awaiting the County Court process, so is there any need to keep sending these letters?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 380
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

News re hearing today - adjourned until end January 2011. Any of the 27 other "stayed" cases reading this, PM me for further info. You should all receive notification from the Court in the next seven to ten days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carlex UK. Your position is understood and it is appreciated that you have only just arrived on the scene, so to speak, but it might be as well for you to read through the entire thread. Much of your advice has already been overtaken by events and those involved are already organised. However, for obvious reasons, this is now being conducted away from this forum.

 

The issue at the heart of this thread does not arise from a straightforward dispute with the landlord but with the application and interpretation of law by one of their contractors. From that perspective the situation has far wider implications than a landlord and tenant dispute and consequently is unlikely to be resolved by mediation. As things stand whilst it is known that OM/Peverell are taking an interest they are not a party to any of the proceedings.

 

Insofar as your dealings with OPC are concerned has your organisation been involved in taking any action against them or is it limited to dealing with complaints?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Very quiet here. There is plenty going on our end re our case v OPC (am sorry I can't relate any of it here until it is all over), but very quiet their end - have received no correspondence from them or their solicitor who is acting for them since mid November, when we were in court last, which is unusual - (we usually receive a steady stream of threatening correspondence, despite being halfway through legal proceedings with them).

 

Am interested to know if others are still receiving stuff from them? Particularly interested to hear if anyone has had any fake court papers in the last few weeks (I'm sure there is not a peep out of "Windsor Smythe" any more), as this should no longer be happening.

 

There doesn't seem to be much about OPC in other threads and forums on other consumer websites either of late, hmmm.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Zeb I am still receiving letters from OPC Legal Department now regarding other tickets that I allegedly received, even though I have a court case with them in a week from now (13th). But no, I also have not seen any new fake court papers, just the usual threat of court action. Look forward to hearing your side when al is done. Will let you all know how it goes next week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice! That's not all either. Our Judge has reported OPC to HMCS and recommended that they prosecute for the fake court papers they send out too (he mentioned this would be under section 136 - I'm not sure which legislation he was referring to - anyone know?). He was adamant that he disagreed with "these are copies of papers to be filed" gambit. I don't know if this is under way yet.

 

OPC has been ticketing the heck out of IP in the last couple of days - probably trying to raise some money from the unwary to pay for all these legal costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

135. Penalty for falsely pretending to act under authority of court. Any person who—

(a)

delivers or causes to be delivered to any other person any paper falsely purporting to be a copy of any summons or other process of a county court, knowing it to be false; or

(b)

acts or professes to act under any false colour or pretence of the process or authority of a county court;

shall be guilty of an offence and shall for each offence be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

 

136. Penalty for falsely representing document to have been issued from county court. — (1) It shall not be lawful to deliver or cause to be delivered to any person any document which was not issued under the authority of a county court but which, by reason of its form or contents or both, has the appearance of having been issued under such authority.

(2) If any person contravenes this section, he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prejudice section 135.

 

These are the two bits that I believe are what they are talking about. I used this in my defence today, and even though it wasn't the winning factor, OPC still lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Apparently someone was putting up flyers around IP yesterday about a case against OPC they have just won, where they were awarded substantial damages. Unfortunately, they were taken down sharpish (can guess who by) before I got the chance to see one. Anyone know anything about this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Dear All,

 

One night whilst trawling the web, I came across this thread and since then I have dipped in and out, whilst I live just outside Edinburgh in the United Peoples Democratic Republic of Eastlovia, it pricked my interest, people fighting back against etc etc, rant rant, although it doesn't affect me personnally, the struggle for justice effects us all !

 

Firstly to say thank you to all who have fought this hydra, it really has been an interesting read. I see that opc have lost in court recently and was wondering if there has been any light at the end of the tunnel.

 

I can understand if things are still ongoing and the wish not to predjudice any court action. It would be really good to know that you have won.

 

I'm just one of those people who wants to know what happens after the film ends !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid no news (that I can publicly reveal here anyway - as we all know, our pals at OPC read all this) to report here. I am the test case representing the 26 other residents of IP. My "trial" will be over two days in July, if all goes ahead.

Think I'm safe in saying that OPC are attempting to string out proceedings as long as possible, so they can continue to ticket IP and their other sites while my case is ongoing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anybody missed these:

 

The OPC parking charge is a penalty and unenforceable.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59380&view=findpost&p=563689

 

Director of OPC guilty in respect of criminal charges.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=37542&view=findpost&p=567369

Edited by GuidoT

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...