Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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

Minster Baywatch PCN Claimform Company Car Park - Used GF's car without permit showing


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4905 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

Cheers for that.

 

It's now gone up to £140 becasue the solicitor is claiming additional fees for raising it and following it up on behalf of Minster Baywatch and Roxborough.

 

The price has changed about 5 times!!!

 

The casing point here is that I have a permit for this car park. I just forgot it one day!! How can they claim that I own them £140 considering that I have been parking my vehicle in that car park since March 2008!!??

 

Fools!!!! :-x

www.myspace.com/idlejackandthebigsleep - THIS IS MY BAND! CHECK IT OUT!
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just another scare tactic. Up the price every letter so that people pay up, scared that these costs will increase indefinitely.

 

This is a mail [problem] - there are plenty of devices used to maximise the con.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for that.

 

It's now gone up to £140 becasue the solicitor is claiming additional fees for raising it and following it up on behalf of Minster Baywatch and Roxborough.

 

The price has changed about 5 times!!!

 

The casing point here is that I have a permit for this car park. I just forgot it one day!! How can they claim that I own them £140 considering that I have been parking my vehicle in that car park since March 2008!!??

 

Fools!!!! :-x

 

It's a battle of wills!!

 

They're hoping to grind you down into submission. Some people will inevitably reach the point where they think it is no longer worth the stress and hassle and will cough up.

 

Just think of it as psychological war fare!! :p

If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget one of their best tricks is to increase it from 50, to 100, to 200 to 3 zillion, but on this final demand also say, if you pay immediately we'll let you have it at the 50 quid price again! People who are panicing about these huge numbers sometimes jump at the chance at this late stage to pay the 50 quid unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is your responsability to clearly display your permit and baywatch will have a contract to prove it what you should have done is got in touch with baywatch straight away and explained what had happend now i think you will be liable for the cost of the fine what you could do is ring the collection agency and talk to them again explain what had happend failing that talk to baywatch again but most of all BE CALM

bottom line is because you didnt get in touch with in the 10 days you dont legaly have a leg to stand on dont ignore it because they will take you to court for it eventually and a parking fine is not worth getting blacklisted for but like i said earlier call the agency then baywatch but stay calm ,,,,,,hope this helps a little bit

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a private co. PPC.......ignore them and stay off that phone!!!!

 

don't feed the trolls

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is your responsability to clearly display your permit and baywatch will have a contract to prove it what you should have done is got in touch with baywatch straight away and explained what had happend now i think you will be liable for the cost of the fine what you could do is ring the collection agency and talk to them again explain what had happend failing that talk to baywatch again but most of all BE CALM

bottom line is because you didnt get in touch with in the 10 days you dont legaly have a leg to stand on dont ignore it because they will take you to court for it eventually and a parking fine is not worth getting blacklisted for but like i said earlier call the agency then baywatch but stay calm ,,,,,,hope this helps a little bit

 

Troll alert mods!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hope this helps a little bit
It certainly helps to lend weight to the opinion that you have not one clue as to the legal aspects of carparking and invoices. But thatnks for trying - I like to encourage those with special needs to take a more active interest in using the internet.
Link to post
Share on other sites

it is your responsability to clearly display your permit and baywatch will have a contract to prove it what you should have done is got in touch with baywatch straight away and explained what had happend now i think you will be liable for the cost of the fine what you could do is ring the collection agency and talk to them again explain what had happend failing that talk to baywatch again but most of all BE CALM

bottom line is because you didnt get in touch with in the 10 days you dont legaly have a leg to stand on dont ignore it because they will take you to court for it eventually and a parking fine is not worth getting blacklisted for but like i said earlier call the agency then baywatch but stay calm ,,,,,,hope this helps a little bit

 

Yawn, if you don't have a leg to stand on at least you have a brain to think with which is more than can be said for ruddiger. No where in law does it say that anyone will be blacklisted for going to court and losing. Anyhow, that is on the remote chance you get to court and even more remote chance they win. What's all this be calm business - they only people you should be calm with is people like the Police - you know people that actually have a little legal power.

 

Minster have no power at all - pathetic people who run it obviously disagree and you are certainly under no moral or legal obligation to contact them.

 

All the best,

 

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

  • 7 months later...

Hi there.

 

I posted a thread about this a while ago and haven't posted since as I thought that Minster Baywatch had given up on trying to claim money from me.

 

To cut a long story short, I have a parking permit for the car park where I work.

One day, I used a different car and forgot to put my permit in the window and therefore received a penalty charge.

 

I appealed, saying that I could prove that I had a permit, but they weren't having it.

I referred the debt collection agencies back to MB each time they wrote to me and all went quite for some time.

 

Now, they have lodged a county court claim against me via Money Claim Online and the sum they are asking for has risen to £135 as they reckon I owe them 8% interest.

This is getting ridiculous now....

 

Any ideas on what I should do??

 

Rob

www.myspace.com/idlejackandthebigsleep - THIS IS MY BAND! CHECK IT OUT!
Link to post
Share on other sites

The POC Is as follows:

 

Payment of Parking Charge Notice together with Administrative Costs asscosiated with its recovery. The defendant's vehicle XXXX XXX was parked in Contravention of the rules of the private car parking facility at XXXXXXX, York on 11/06/2008. Parking Charge Notice XXXX was issued to this vehicle on 11/06/2008. We are seeking a payment of money for all the full amount of due fees.

 

The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 11/06/2008 to 15/12/2009 of £10.90 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.02

www.myspace.com/idlejackandthebigsleep - THIS IS MY BAND! CHECK IT OUT!
Link to post
Share on other sites

this will be a first

 

they dont stand a chance

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm pretty sure that you are correct dx.

They don't stand a chance.

 

I park in this car park every day because I have a permit (just didn't display it one day).

If this circumstance was turned down for appeal, I can't imagine a scenario where they would accept an appeal!??

 

I do need some guidance now though folks.

www.myspace.com/idlejackandthebigsleep - THIS IS MY BAND! CHECK IT OUT!
Link to post
Share on other sites

you've got 4 threads detailing the lead in to all this

 

i'll get them merged so people can see the whole story

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
. I appealed, saying that I could prove that I had a permit, but they weren't having it.

One of the downfalls of writing/contacting the ppc clowns is that you remove the first hurdle if they wish to pursue a claim. i.e. who was driving, that is why the advice is to not contact them at all.

Having said that, I still feel they have no chance with their claim and wish you the best of luck, there are better people on this site to advise you than me.

regards

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...