Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
By lookinforinfo · Posted
If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony. -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
Thank you and well done for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't last long before being thrown out..................................... -
Hi, I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf -
Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
-
Hello, I am wondering if someone can advise. I sold some goods via an online platform who essentially middelmans and authenticates luxury goods. I have sold over 100 times with them in the past without issue but a while ago I had a sale go wrong, whereby they claim they never received the shoes in the parcel and instead received empty boxes. They wont show any photos of what they received. I considered whether to pursue them or the courier, and decided to pursue them because the UPS tracking indicates no issues at all, but also because they are the ones that contracted with UPS. I sent them a PAPLOC which they claim was "lengthy and pre written" which is true because I simply adapted a previous one. They rejected any resolution so I issued a claim using an adapated thread from this forum from before against i believe evri. Anyway they filed a defence which essentially says that they think I shipped empty boxes and never shipped the shoes and am commiting fraud. However, I have weight records of every parcel I ship (and have done since 2019) and they have provided no evidence to support their claims. They also failed to comply with CPR request for inspection of certain documents within their defence, such as a report by their authenticator who they claim emptied the box (Although I know this is false because they have had literal job offers for "Warehouse staff" with the job description of opening and sorting incoming orders (OWTTE) so I also think here that I have a ground that they are trying to mislead the court, which once again is likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings. The amount is just over £1,000 I'm now wondering whether I should apply to strike out their defence / apply for SJ on the grounds that the defence is totally without merit and will obstruct the just disposal of proceedings by making me wait months for a trial that they are bound to lose and upon them having absolutely no proof to support their claims, and me having weight records, as well as the fact they failed to comply. I am aware the fee for this would be £303 but the trial fee would be £123 itself so the difference is £180. Any advice please?
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
Subject Access Request Rec/d, but only contains statements!
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 5245 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts