Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • 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
  • 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

Excel parking services


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5047 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

The problem is they rely on us acting as individuals and the majority of us are ignorant of the law and pay up. If we acted together and opened other people's eyes then it would become a problem for the PPc's. We should channel our 'Invoices' through one source acting on our behalf. imagine the frustration they would suffer

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

And why would I????:confused:

 

Because of this :D

 

 

You get lost, and stop misinforming the OP. Why are you trying to get them send to court and get bailiffs coming round taking property and causing distress to their family?

 

I have lodged a strongly worded complaint to the mods, not just about your personal attack and false labelling of myself as a 'troll', but more importantly you are deliberately and cold-heartedly putting the OP in jeopardy by telling them completely the opposite of the right thing to do.

 

I hope this is my last post to you as you deserve to be banned.

 

Good riddance. You are a stain on the CAG community.

 

As for kiptower, what are you on about. Just google excel parking court success and you will find 152,000 hits. You should be careful what you're saying, just cos you're online it doesn't stop you from being prosecuted for slander and making false statements with the intention of damaging a business.

 

 

 

Jogs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice message - same kind of attitude he uses in his worthless profession I'd hazard a guess.

 

Stain of the community

 

The old adage about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

 

cold-heartedly putting the OP in jeopardy

 

Even in the make-believe world of PPC this is completely risible.

 

Excel Parking are a perfectly legitimate PPC, unlike other ones.
Interesting interview on Radio 4 which would seem to contradict that idea too:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/facethefacts/transcript_20070810.shtml

 

Let's hope this buffoon will favour CAG with more than just his four wise posts to date .... its better than anything on TV at the moment

Edited by spitfire650
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by freakyleaky viewpost.gif

And why would I????:confused:

 

 

[quote=havinastella;

Because of this :grin:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legal Warden viewpost.gif

You get lost, and stop misinforming the OP. Why are you trying to get them send to court and get bailiffs coming round taking property and causing distress to their family?

 

I have lodged a strongly worded complaint to the mods, not just about your personal attack and false labelling of myself as a 'troll', but more importantly you are deliberately and cold-heartedly putting the OP in jeopardy by telling them completely the opposite of the right thing to do.

 

I hope this is my last post to you as you deserve to be banned.

 

Good riddance. You are a stain on the CAG community.

 

As for kiptower, what are you on about. Just google excel parking court success and you will find 152,000 hits. You should be careful what you're saying, just cos you're online it doesn't stop you from being prosecuted for slander and making false statements with the intention of damaging a business.

 

 

Oh right. Yes sorry I am witcha now!!!:)

 

Having taken the above statement from LW into account I have decided to ban you for life.:rolleyes::D

Edited by freakyleaky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Legal Warden

Having taken the above statement from LW into account I have decided to ban you for life.:rolleyes::D

 

Why? I have done nothing but rebuf the unprovoked attacks and slander from other users, and try to help the OP to realise their best option is to pay the fine, which is not only lenient but perfectly legitimate.

 

If you ban me, you will be personally responsible for the suffering of the OP when they get a criminal record and have the bailiffs there harrassing their family. How will you and the other brainwashed "experts" feel when you cause something like that to happen?

 

OP, please, I am on your side. Pay the fine and everything will be OK. Don't pay, and you will be unable to sleep at night for several months, possibly years, with the threat of court action and a criminal record. This could ruin you mentally and put great strains on your life. So just pay the fine, please, for your own good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't believe you are still spouting this same rubbish. Say it often enough and you will start to believe it. (Oh you already do don't you!!!)

 

Aside from the fact your advice is total claptrap we have been informed that you are using another users account/pc and that user has asked for your account to be removed.

I am now happy to oblige.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? I have done nothing but rebuf the unprovoked attacks and slander from other users, and try to help the OP to realise their best option is to pay the fine, which is not only lenient but perfectly legitimate.

 

If you ban me, you will be personally responsible for the suffering of the OP when they get a criminal record and have the bailiffs there harrassing their family. How will you and the other brainwashed "experts" feel when you cause something like that to happen?

 

OP, please, I am on your side. Pay the fine and everything will be OK. Don't pay, and you will be unable to sleep at night for several months, possibly years, with the threat of court action and a criminal record. This could ruin you mentally and put great strains on your life. So just pay the fine, please, for your own good.

 

Actually apart from being a dam good laugh your advice is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

 

Anyone with an IQ higher than this morning's temperature knows full well that parking is not a criminal matter, and to suggest not succumbing to this [problem] could lead to a "criminal record" is disingenuous and makes you look stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said spitfire but I am afraid you would have more success banging your head on the nearest brick wall than getting through to LW.:)

 

You're right, but this guy has to be a sad sack of crap if he thinks anyone in their right mind would listen to him.

 

I guess that's why he chose to be "a hardworking parking executive" rather pursue a legitimate profession and make a useful contribution to society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A man dies and goes to heaven. He arrives at the Pearly Gates and Saint Peter invites him into his office.

 

There are thousands and thousands of clocks on the wall, and occasionally one jumps back an hour.

 

“What’s with all the clocks Peter” the man enquires.

 

Saint Peter explains “these are life clocks, every living person has one, and each time they interfere with themselves it jumps back and an hour comes off their life”.

 

Still fascinated, the man says “I can’t see Legal Warden, the hardworking parking executive’s clock anywhere”.

 

Saint Peter replies “No we keep his on the ceiling and use it as a fan to cool the office”.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

absolutely awesome

we havent heard from the original poster

hope you are ok, just know you are in the same boat as me and many others, I refuse to be scammed :)

 

Shame LW had to be banned but we must keep this site clear of garbage for us users looking for the great advice offered.

 

Oh and Spitfire that joke made my day :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for all the advice on this, we have (as you have all said) recieved the first letter from excel, again witht he same content as was told in theis thread we would receive. We simply filed it as per your advice and will continue to file anything that comes off these ?people? andhope it will eventually go away, as it seems from reading the replies to our original thread, it will.

Thanks again and will keep you posted as to what happens next

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

the latest letter we have off them states 'failure to pay this WILL result in court action'

Is this just huff and bluster from them or can they take us to court over this?

i know the comments on here say its all just rubbish bits of paper they send, but wanted to be sure as i dont want any bailiffs etc.. knocking on the door, with my wife and 2 very young kids at home.

Cheers again

Link to post
Share on other sites

i know the comments on here say its all just rubbish bits of paper they send, but wanted to be sure as i dont want any bailiffs etc.. knocking on the door, with my wife and 2 very young kids at home

 

Bailiffs can only act on a court warrant. For you to have a court warrant against you it would mean that Excel would have to take you to court and then win, you refuse to pay, then go back and get a warrant of execution. The chances of this happening are 0.1%. Relax, the threats are part of the [problem] - they cannot do anything to you or your family - trust us we are long established PPC busters.

 

Best Regards,

 

TFT

09/07/09 :)Business Studies BA(Hons) 2:1:)

 

eCar Insurance overpayment - £325

Settled in full - 15/09/08

NatWest Student A/C bank charges - £260

Settled under hardship scheme - 08/06/09

Natwest Business A/C bank charges - £60

Settled in full as GOGW - 20/04/09

Santander Consumer Finance late payment fees - £60

Part settled for £48 - 01/03/08

Peugeot Finance late payment fees - £50

Settled in full before county court hearing - 01/09/09

Peugeot Finance overpayment of £247

Settled in full - 01/12/08

Valley Leisure - complaint about collections agent

£160 part refund of gym membership in compensation - 01/02/09

HFC Bank - complaint about payment deducted from my account on wrong date

GOGW £10 - 01/05/09

Link to post
Share on other sites

The chances of this happening are 0.1%. Relax, the threats are part of the [problem] - they cannot do anything to you or your family - trust us we are long established PPC busters.

TFT

 

I respectfully disagree TFT - they take less than 1 in 1000 people to court, they're prospects of winning are not evening 1 in 10 provided the victim turns up and stays awake for the hearing and who would then ignore the judgement knowing that a bailing would call? Lets say 1 in 2 to get a number.

 

That gives you 1/1000 * 1/10 * 1/2 which is only 1 in 20,000 or 0.005% and that's being generous!

 

I'd roll the dice every time on ignoring a £70 bogus invoice or paying £25 in court fees if I am that 1 in 20,000.

 

I need another one of these tickets myself for entertainment. I'll be in SW3 near the Embankment this evening for a few hours, if anyone can suggest a good spot ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

further info: after months of nothing, a new letter from a debt collection agency has arrived stating we must pay them the money owed within 7 days or it will be passed to their solicitors - Graham White, for potential legal action. Is this the way these guys operate normally then? is it best for us to carry on ignoring them? Cheers for your help guys

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...