Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • But I'm not mixing and matching. Sure, when researching I do check multiple avenues, but when speaking, I will open a single post. The Fb post was made in March, it is now June, time has passed, and when the suggestion was made, no further information was given on how I should progress beyond "send a letter", which has meant that I've needed to start another stream - this one, but only after taking the time to research first.
    • hes not turning you away he is simply saying that you should stick to one channel of advice. he is perfectly happy with that channel being this forum, and he will help you   all he is saying, and I agree, is that you should stick to one help channel, not mix and match 3/4
    • As long as we are clear . Do the reading and post your letter of claim in draft form as requested and we can go from there.    
    • Hold on @BankFodder, that was a bit harsh. I spoke with the EVRi complaints Facebook group to begin with, a user on that group told me to send a letter but didn't give any specifics. Here at CAG, I was looking more for specific help as I've never raised such a claim before, and wanted to be sure that my claim was correct, which is why I've researched information with the other groups too, to be sure; but you seem to have assumed that I've made some form of contact with the other groups, such that I find your comments and tone to be very unfair. And I do know a thing or two about forums, that forum users are unpaid volunteers, I happen to be a Tableau Ambassador, and so perform a very similar role helping others in an unpaid capacity  
  • 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

Parking Charge Notice advice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4255 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

Hi everyone,

 

Apologies if I'm covering old ground here but some advice would be much appreciated.

 

I have received a PCN for exceeding the maximum stay in a small retail park car park.

 

I was not even aware of any time limits, but I have subsequently revisited the location and have identified that there are numerous boards in the car park stating that the maximum stay is 60 mins.

 

The PCN gives exact times for entry and exit and I have noticed what appear to be cctv cameras pointing toward the entry/exit point of the car park. The times indicate that I was parked for approximately 2.5 hours.

 

I feel very angry about the situation. This is not a pay and display car park and as a result, I feel that the £70 charge is countermount to extortion. Even the offer of £45 for early payment is unacceptable.

 

I find it incredible that I have received a PCN from a firm in Hertfordshire for parking in a free car park in Scotland. I have no intention of paying this fee and was hoping for some advice on the the best course of action.

 

I have read a number of posts on this subject and there is differing advice depending on individual circumstances.

 

My gut feeling is to ignore this PCN and if or when I receive further correspondance, request some sort of photographic evidence to determine the identity of the driver.

 

Any thoughts or advice will be much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Mark

I am in a similar situation. I have just received a charge.

This is profiteering at its worst by private companies.

I am going to stick it out.

We can expect letters and threats over the coming months, but it is worth making a stand.

 

Thanks Mark14

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is called entrapment ;)

 

The retail parks almost certainly get a rake off from the PPC's and the whole system is designed to maximise profits as the time allowed is ridiculously short for a retail park - my wife can easily spend a whole morning looking round a couple of clothes shop

 

You are one of the lucky ones in that you have found this site and not been captured by the [problem] :cool:

 

You will receive some very official looking and nasty letters now from the PPC, their debt collectors (tea boy) and solicitor (lady on the street corner) and will take around 3 months

 

All can be ignored as all you have is an unenforceable invoice and all they can offer is empty threats

 

It would not be profitable for them to take this to court and PPC's rarely do this anyway. It would be a long way (Hertfordshide to Scotland) for a wasted journey. Free car park so loss to the owner is £0.00

 

We can expect letters and threats over the coming months, but it is worth making a stand.

 

Definately - there are real charities out there that desperately need money and are a much better cause than these scamsters

 

[problem] mail can all be recycled (the 'Green' approach)

Edited by asmodeus
Edited to include reply to Mark14
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just to update.

 

I received a final reminder this morning. Very official looking and lots of red text threatening legal action.

 

Warning states that failure to pay "could result in the balance outstanding being registered as a debt in the County Court. A warrant may then be issued to bailiffs to recover payment......"

 

At the end of the warning the following is stated "Your ability to obtain credit in the future could be affected"

 

I have no intention of paying, but is the general opinion one of ignore all correspondance from these people, or to contact them and inform them that unable to determine the identity of the driver at the time of incident.

 

Many thanks,

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a final reminder this morning.

 

Good - then they are on the point of giving up.

 

Very official looking and lots of red text threatening legal action.

 

There's no legal significance in the colour of the ink they use. They're just trying to worry you.

 

Warning states that failure to pay "could result in the balance outstanding being registered as a debt in the County Court. A warrant may then be issued to bailiffs to recover payment......"

 

At the end of the warning the following is stated "Your ability to obtain credit in the future could be affected"

 

"Could" is a good word. Anything "could" happen, but nothiing will - unless they decide to sue you. What are they waiting for?

 

I have no intention of paying, but is the general opinion one of ignore all correspondance from these people, or to contact them and inform them that unable to determine the identity of the driver at the time of incident.

 

What would you gain from contacting them? You'd just get more letters hypothesising on things that "could" happen. If they had any intention of suing you, they would have to assess the stregth of their case, and they know whether they can identify the driver or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to update.

 

I received a final reminder this morning. Very official looking and lots of red text threatening legal action.

 

Warning states that failure to pay "could result in the balance outstanding being registered as a debt in the County Court. A warrant may then be issued to bailiffs to recover payment......"

 

At the end of the warning the following is stated "Your ability to obtain credit in the future could be affected"

 

I have no intention of paying, but is the general opinion one of ignore all correspondance from these people, or to contact them and inform them that unable to determine the identity of the driver at the time of incident.

 

Many thanks,

 

Mark

 

It's tempting to write back and fight but, if you do, then you are just taking part in the game. Best ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to update.

 

I received a final reminder this morning. Very official looking and lots of red text threatening legal action.

 

Warning states that failure to pay "could result in the balance outstanding being registered as a debt in the County Court. A warrant may then be issued to bailiffs to recover payment......"

 

At the end of the warning the following is stated "Your ability to obtain credit in the future could be affected"

 

I have no intention of paying, but is the general opinion one of ignore all correspondance from these people, or to contact them and inform them that unable to determine the identity of the driver at the time of incident.

 

Many thanks,

 

Mark

 

As everybody is saying contine to ignore. They will give up after their Final letter (which may follow the previous Final letter).

 

Nothing is going to effect your Credit Rating, Bailifs won't come round and take your childs Pet Rabbitt and so on. Its wording made to make those who would think what they are reading as correct into handing over some dosh.

 

For Bailifs to become involved you must:

 

1. Have been taken to court.

2. Lost the case.

3. Refused to pay after the Court decison.

 

On the basis PPC's don't go near Court as they have less legs to stand on the a table with no legs what they say in their letter is complete doodaa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Warning states that failure to pay "could result in the balance outstanding being registered as a debt in the County Court. A warrant may then be issued to bailiffs to recover payment......"" Rubbish, misleading rubbish that is against Consumer regulations. the usual laugh-o-gram from them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks to everyone who has added to this thread.

 

I await with baited breath the next actions from these [problematic].

 

I find it incredible that there is no legislation in place to prevent these companies from operating.

 

I will update when/if I receive any further threats.

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that legally they are probably correct and within their rights to issue you with this piece of paper, assuming they have addressed it and sent it to the driver of the vehicle at the time.

 

Although they disgracefully make it look like a parking ticket, and issue warnings, etc, its legal standing is that of an INVOICE. By parking in their car park, assuming the signs are visible and clear, you have agreed to their terms and conditions.

 

Because you went over the free time limit, they are entitled to send you an invoice to charge you for the time you have used. They are also entitled to take you to court for non-payment of the invoice.

 

In practice, I agree it is a disgraceful way to run a business by frightening drivers with this kind of paperwork, and I also suggest they will probably not take it as far as court. They will probably take the decision that it's not worth it, and that they make their money out of drivers who pay.

 

But, in all this, please bear in mind they could take you to court and - if you were the driver - they would probably win. The law is likely to be on their side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that legally they are probably correct and within their rights to issue you with this piece of paper, assuming they have addressed it and sent it to the driver of the vehicle at the time.

 

Although they disgracefully make it look like a parking ticket, and issue warnings, etc, its legal standing is that of an INVOICE. By parking in their car park, assuming the signs are visible and clear, you have agreed to their terms and conditions.

 

Because you went over the free time limit, they are entitled to send you an invoice to charge you for the time you have used. They are also entitled to take you to court for non-payment of the invoice.

 

 

Err...on the assumption (can be dangerous) it was a free car park what charge can they make ? They could only claim for their loss which for a free car park is...er...nothing !

 

But, in all this, please bear in mind they could take you to court and - if you were the driver - they would probably win. The law is likely to be on their side.

 

Er..nope. The law isn't on their side which is why they won't go near court but if they did they wouldn't win.

 

Blagton.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car park was free for a set period of time - 60 minutes. Assuming the sign details that £70 is payable after that, then it's entirely enforceable. If the sign didn't state that, then it's not.

 

In law it's not a "free car park". It's a car park where the owner charges nothing for the first hour and, it appears, £70 after that. And that's why the owner can invoice.

 

If the sign did not specify the £70 charge, then it would not be enforceable.

 

However, I do agree that it is unlikely the owner will proceed to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car park was free for a set period of time - 60 minutes. Assuming the sign details that £70 is payable after that, then it's entirely enforceable. If the sign didn't state that, then it's not.

 

In law it's not a "free car park". It's a car park where the owner charges nothing for the first hour and, it appears, £70 after that. And that's why the owner can invoice.

 

 

I'd be interetsed to know where exactly "In Law" a free car park is defined - or when is a free car park not a free car park.

 

A charge of £70 (or any other arbitary figure) for overstaing a stated time is complete doodaa and would be considered as unfair/unreasonable as per the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

 

As I understand things under contract law they could only claim for their loss with regard the overstay. They have no loss as no charge is made for parking - they might be denying somebody else to park there but they would park for free too so they still have no loss.

 

If you pay £1 to park your car at £1 per hour and you overstayed by one hour their potential loss is £1. That is what they can claim. Claiming £70 would be unreasionale as per the above Act.

 

Blagton.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a car park charges £2 for an hour and you overstay, you have deprived the car park owners of £2 for each hour you overstay, so they can claim £2 per hour or even part of. They will try and charge you £120 sometimes, but they can only claim for their loss.

 

If in this case the car park is free, irrespective of the time it is free for, it is still free. If you stay for a month you have deprived someone else of free use thus there loss is zero.

 

There is no case to answer.

 

Threat-o-grams will start, and continue. IGNORE everything they send. Do not write. Do not phone. Don not think anymore about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the benefit of Mark, who posted the request in the first place, please don't rely on the information in this forum. I have a different opinion from some of the other people posting - and I am sure everyone is putting their honestly held opinions. My concern is that you have entered into an implied contract by parking on this site. Others clearly disagree with me. Do take further advice if you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a legal expert but my understanding is that if someone breaches contract then they can be sued for damages.

 

So, if you believe a contract was entered into, one party breaches it and the other sues for losses - but they can't sue for the "charge" they invented when they put the signs up - in other words they can't force you to honour the contract. That part, the charge, is therefore unenforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...