Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Today , after a lotof years i recieved a letter from this lot. Very friendly, "Were writing to remind you that we havent had any contact from you in a while".  The velvet fist, followed by  a veiled threat to get their preferred debt collectors involved. Yep dead right. In 1992/3 I took out a Student load under duress from DHSS. uP TO 2000 I hadsucessfully gotten deferment on low income. But rarther thansign on as unemployed,I decided to be self employed. I applied and they asked for all sorts of documents. I obliged and then correspondance ceased from them, circa 2001. To date  I have had no correspondance from Student Loans. I was made  redundant in 2009 and  reached 65 in 2012 , at which age the loan should have been cancelled. Now ,today, 12 years on retirement and 11 ( at least years after last contact) I get a letter with veiled threats. Do I , as I smell a scam a) ignore it and hope that Erudio will think that this phishing attempt has failed or b) respond with a statute barred letter or c) remind them of legal terms that loan should be cancelled 12 years ago or d) combination of b) +c)      
    • 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

Cockfosters tube - NCP car park


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5238 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

To all victims of NCP at this car park - this may be of interest even if you have already paid the fine.

 

I received a standard template letter through the post from NCP saying I hadn't paid a £50 parking ticket for allegedly parking in a disabled spot.

 

I replied in the only way I could - using their internet pay mechanism to make what they called an "appeal" - as follows.

 

Quote

I do not recognise this as an appeal formal or otherwise but for your convenience I will follow your terminology. This then is the beginning of the appeal process and for reasons which will become obvious this document cannot contain the full grounds of any appeal.

When I travel to London I usually park in the Cockfosters car park. I have checked my diary and it does not mention anything indicative of a visit to London as the day’s entry mentions only a visit to a school in Cheshunt.

That said, it is possible I was in London that day (and thus the car in the material car park) though I do not recall it and did not notarise it. Please supply any evidence you may have of this.

I am not aware of any parking ticket being issued though obviously I cannot say for certain that it was not. If it was issued then it could not have been affixed to the outside of the car because if it had been then I would have seen it and removed it. Alternatively it was affixed to a place in the car where I could not or did not see it and so it simply may have blown away once driving.

Regardless of how this matter came about, in any case I do not have the minimum information I need to contest this matter. Therefore I require you to post to me a copy of the original document that you say was issued including anything that may have been written or printed on it and anything that may have been written or printed on the back of it and if it was affixed to the car details as to where it WAS affixed to the car and how it was affixed. Alternatively, and for your convenience, initially I will be happy if you simply scan and email pictures of both sides of it and of whatever tape or item you use to attach these things.

If the ticket contains any reference to terms or conditions or anything else outside of itself, please also forward a full copy of those terms or conditions or anything else.

I am not entirely happy about having to enter these details twice because of the failures in your system to process this message.

 

I get an apparently conciliatory eight-page reply which I append to this message as individual files. More soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are serious technical defects in the supposed ticket, but in the end I chose not to point them out.

 

Much worse, they quoted statute that could not possibly apply to Cockfosters.

 

Again I chose not to point this out as I assumed they had simply referred to the wrong legislation.

 

In the event I replied again electronically as follows:

 

Quote

FAO [redacted]

Customer Operations Manager

ncp.co.uk/pcn

[date]

Dear [redacted]

Thank you for your letter of [date]. Unfortunately it confuses rather than elucidates your position.

I asked for a copy of the parking ticket. What you have supplied, assuming it is a true copy, would be legally defective anyway but at this stage that is not my point. I requested not a true copy but a copy. As I also said a scanned copy would be sufficient, I thought it was clear I meant a photographic copy, one suitable for submission to a Court as evidence. I apologise if this was unclear to you and I repeat my request. Please send me a photocopy or a photograph or a scanned copy of the ticket.

Secondly, you have not complied with my requests that you supply me with other specified evidence, or any other evidence, that I was in contravention of anything at all that day.

Most significantly, you quote railway byelaws. At the same time you continue to talk of “appeals”, just as you did in your initial letter. As you are aware I declined to accept that terminology, assuming it was not meant literally. Now you are mentioning appeals again but in a totally different context, I infer you are serious. Let me explain the issue so you will understand I think you are wrong to use this terminology. It has always been my understanding that any matter involving bye-laws are decided by a Magistrates Court, and therefore any appeal must be from a decision made by a magistrate. Alternatively, this is a simple contract matter for the County Court. If so, appeals in such a simple small claim would be from the DJ to a nearby Circuit Judge.

In neither case can NCP decide, or even be involved in except as litigant, any appeal process (because that would breach legal procedure, natural justice, and my Article 6 Convention rights). It follows either that you are confused or that NCP is being disingenuous.

I assume you are confused, and so I ask you please to clarify your position. Will this matter be, or has it been, referred to the County Court or to the Magistrates Court?

If the former, please commence action by sending me a PD Protocols-compliant Letter of Claim, as you ought to have done already, and I will deal with it accordingly.

If the latter, please provide specific evidence that the operation, specifically NCP’s operation, of the material car park is governed by railway bye-laws, and identify the case and which Magistrates Court is (currently) handling the matter so I can progress the matter with Applications, including one for Special Disclosure, against you.

 

 

 

To which, with a stupidity matched only by arrogance, they were stupid enough to reply with a two-page letter as appended:

 

I'm now going to write back to them claiming some money.

 

However the reason I'm posting here is I'm interested in finding out if there is anyone on this forum who has actually paid a "penalty notice" at this (Cockfosters) NCP car park but would like to get their money back.

 

docs1.pdf

Please don't try to contact me, I won't be around often and probably won't reply unless I have solicited input.

(signed) Ol' Grumpy

Link to post
Share on other sites

NCP are digging a big hole for themselves here sp keep on helping them. You clearly know what your doing. NCP won't risk court but they are doing a good job of building the case that you can bring against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, but it's now too late for them to avoid Court unless they pay me out.

 

I'm not posting here to help my own case, that'll only be worth injunctive relief (my main purpose) plus maybe a few hundred quid.

 

I'm looking for someone who's actually paid them prior to today for a ticket at that station, someone who still has the ticket and proof of payment.

 

Together with the evidence they were dumb enough to put in my hands, I can use that to make NCP pay back all the fines successfully levied at that station over the last six years.

Please don't try to contact me, I won't be around often and probably won't reply unless I have solicited input.

(signed) Ol' Grumpy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, who has the guts to pay NCP and then take them to court and get it back? :-)

No. The Court, probably and quite rightly, would take a dim view of such cynical behaviour. That's why I said "prior to today".

Please don't try to contact me, I won't be around often and probably won't reply unless I have solicited input.

(signed) Ol' Grumpy

Link to post
Share on other sites

In mentioning the byelaws they are, IMV, in breach of CPUT by claiming authority where they have none. They're even stupid enough to admit it's a private and that they don't have the authority. You might want to put that before a court as evidence of their wrong doing as well.

 

Why don't you make a formal complaint to Trading Standards as well, it won't do your case any harm.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you make a formal complaint to Trading Standards as well, it won't do your case any harm.

Because I'd never ever go to TS where private remedy is so easily available. And because - on the assumptions NCP gets money from Cockfosters for about 10 tickets per day and I can find a volunteer - I'd much rather make them pay back a million quid (the money paid, 10 x 50 x 2000 days).

Please don't try to contact me, I won't be around often and probably won't reply unless I have solicited input.

(signed) Ol' Grumpy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...