Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1st letter image.pdf1st letter 2nd page.pdf
    • Many thanks for the replies and advice!   I what to send this email to the Starbucks CEO and the area manager. Your thoughts would be appreciated.   [email protected] [email protected]   Re: MET Parking PNC at your Starbucks Southgate site   Dear Ms Rayner, / Dear Heather Christie,   I have received a Notice to Keeper regarding a Parking Charge Notice of £100 for the driver parking in the Southgate Park Car Park, otherwise infamously known as the Stanstead Starbucks/McDonalds car park(s).   Issued by: MET Parking Services Ltd Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXX Vehicle Registration Number: XXXX XXX Date of Contravention: XX.XX.XXXX Time: XX:XX - XX:XX   After a little research it apears that the driver is not alone in being caught in what is commonly described as a scam, and has featured in the national press and on the mainstream television.   It is a shame that the reputation of Starbucks is being tarnished by this, with your customers leaving the lowest possible reviews on Trustpilot and Trip Advisor at this location, and to be associated with what on the face of it appears to be a doubious and predatory car park management company.   In this instance, during the early hours of the morning the driver required a coffee and parked up outside Starbucks with the intention of purchasing one from yourselves. Unfortunately, you were closed so the driver walked to McDonalds next door and ordered a coffee, and for this I have received the Notice to Keeper.   It is claimed that the car park is two separate car parks (Starbucks/McDonalds). However, there is no barrier or road markings to identity a boundary, and the signage in the car park(s) and outside your property is ambiguous, as such the terms would most likely be deemed unfair and unenforcable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   I understand that Starbucks-Euro Garages neither operate or benefit from the charges imposed by MET Parking. However, MET Parking is your client.   Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.   However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   As the driver’s intention of the visit was genuine, I would be grateful if you could please instruct your client to cancel this Notice to Keeper/Parking Charge Notice.   Kind regards
    • I received the promised call back from the Saga man today who informed me that the undertakers have decreed it IS a modification and they will need to recalculate a quote individually for me. However it all sounds very arbitrary. The more I think about it, and with help from forum replies, the more I am sure that it is not a modification. If for example the original seatback had become damaged by a spillage or a tear, I would be entitled to replace it with the nearest available part. The problem is when it comes to a payout after an accident, there is no telling what an individual insurer will decide when he notices the change. I am still undecided which of the two best routes to go with, either don't mention the replacement at all, or fill in the quote form without mentioning, and when it comes to buying the insurance over the phone, mention it at the time.
    • Please post up their letter so we understand what they've asked. You need to cover up your name and address and their reference number. HB
    • Hello,  I received the standard letter.  I don't understand No. 3: If this is in relation to a ticket irregularity, then if you were unable to produce a pass because you did not have it with you or if your pass was withdrawn because you were unable to produce a valid photocard to accompany it, please enclose a photocopy of the pass/photocard with your reply. Question: do i enclose my photocard? my partner's freedom pass was confiscated.
  • 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

Loan arrears - secured


ChrisD36
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5214 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 all

 

Im going to baffle a few of you now with the following issue I currently have.

 

Basically, me and my wife got into arrears with a secured loan back in July 2008.

 

Total amount was just over £1,000

 

We where contacted by Wragg and Co saying that Citi Financial wanted to put a suspended possession order on our house even though Wragg had agreed with us to pay an extra £50 a month off to clear the arrears.

 

This was in October last year!

 

So, we have been paying back our regular loan amount as well as £50 a month as agreed.

 

TODAY we received the letters from court stating the date and time of the hearing (in Feb).

 

As it stands, Im now able to pay off the full amount of the arrears so when I phone Wragg to ask for a final figure, they informed me it was just over £1,200!!

 

The court papers and MY records show we only owe £889.

 

So my wife phoned CITI and this is where the fun begins.

 

They told her that we HAD NO ARREARS on our account?

 

After being on hold for 10 minutes until they got to the bottom of the issue, they came back and said they can find no arrears but can they phone us back later. My wife told them in no uncertain words they are running a micky mouse operation and that the information we require should be easily accessable! After all, it only took us both 5 minutes to work out what we think we should now be owing by looking online at our bank account!!

 

So, we then phoned Wragg to tell them what CITI had said and they left us on hold until they themselves phoned CITI.

 

Wragg came back another 10 mins or so saying we no longer had any arrears!

 

My wife said put that in writing and I hope this is the end of the threatened court case - in which Wragg agreed to do.

 

Wragg then went on to inform us that CITI have put an EXTENSION on? My wife asked what did that mean and the lady said they had added the arrears onto the final loan figure?

 

Now, surely both me and my wife should have been informed of this `agreement` because this is news to us! And CITI apparently did this in November of last year - so basically we where £100 out of pocket by paying two installments of £50 a month!

 

Im sure CITI havent followed some sort of procedure? One minute they want a possession order, then they add the arrears to the final amount outstanding, they never informed Wragg of their intentions and thats why Wragg had just followed protocal etc etc etc!

 

Any help people on this?

 

As it stands, we are now back to paying our regular monthly payments and no court case to look forwards too but Im damn sure CITI have acted illegally somewhere!

 

Oh forgot to add, we didnt go down the SAR and all of the other `prove it` routes etc as we just thought it quicker to offer a repayment plan etc. yeh, stupid we know! lol

Edited by ChrisD36
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, sorry I can't help, but have you checked with the court that the case is no going ahead? Just in case ..........

 

 

Hiya,

 

As this has all just `kicked off` this morning (so to speak), I spoke with the courts AFTER we had spoken to both CITI and Wragg.

 

The lady at the court said until WE had it in writing from Wragg that the case is to be dropped we should attend as normal in February.

 

Wragg have said they will close the case and put it in writing so its a waiting game now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing; as CITI have effectively changed the original loan agreement (by adding our arrears to the outstanding figure) should we have signed a NEW agreement or at least signed SOMETHING!

 

It just all seems so back handed!

 

Can loan companies ADD arrears onto your outstanding amount without your say so?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but have you checked your CF just in case one of them has placed a default on your file.

 

 

Not as yet but something we are now going to do! Thanks for the advice.. It all helps!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...