Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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

THE Election - Made your mind up yet ??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5072 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

I am not against the queen purely because of the effect she has on the country's balance of payments or trade account, and I would argue that if she was booted out or anything that feeling of 'catching a glimpse' would be gone if it were just a tourist attraction rather than a residence. It just adds to the intrigue? Guessing.

 

However, she definately costs more than that per capita (taxpayer) as evidenced here.

 

BBC News - Who should pay for the Pope's visit?

 

I'm not getting into this waste of money on the religious front because I can't be ar5ed. But, the queen is basically spending this money by inviting him, isn't she? So there is 8M plus many more millions in security costs. The stinkly wealthy church is chipping in 7 million - how kind, and I'll wager all of it was taken by those that dug deep in their poor pockets.

 

So, in a time of cutbacks, is this really necessary? Here was me thinking he was going to get locked up when the crim landed on our shores? (ahem).

 

Not blaming the coalition or labour (who will have authorised this I assume) but I'd like to see the coalition bloody stop this madness!!

 

(There, I managed to keep my Catholic hatred to myself) :p

 

*goes and spits expletives in the corner*

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

There are approx. 5 Million Roman Catholics in the UK, who wish to see 'The Pope'. There have been collections in ALL Roman Catholic churches last Sunday; the money will go towards the shortfall Re: The Pope's visit.

The Pope is also a Head of State; Vatican.

 

Not Politically correct to discrimate against Roman Catholics!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No its not 'politically Correct' to start 'damming' members of a forum either AC who are just expressing their opinion but you are obviously doing so. If RC's want to see the pope then perhaps with low airfares they should consider going to Rome with their donations and save us the expense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, but where is the discrimination? I am saying all such expenditure is bonkers, innit? I don't see a 15 million arabic visit or athiest party? If they want to come then fine - just, err, pay for it.

 

The pope is head of state, but isn't recognised as one, he has no immunity (real immunity) that's why people are trying to have him arrested. Also, head of state my arris, as the article explains, it is of no economic benefit to the country unlike real heads of states popping along.

 

Nah, I agree things get spent that doesn't benefit all - but this one is a pure waste of money that the queen, seemingly, has had the taxpayer shoulder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No its not 'politically Correct' to start 'damming' members of a forum either AC who are just expressing their opinion but you are obviously doing so. If RC's want to see the pope then perhaps with low airfares they should consider going to Rome with their donations and save us the expense.

 

I wasn't, as you say, damning members.

Just stating a fact; there are approximately 5 Million Roman Catholics in the UK!

One is Tony Blair, who converted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If she bloody invited him, let her bloody well pay :p And all those rich catholics!

 

Why, would you think that ALL Roman Catholics are rich?

 

So, your view is that; all Tories are rich and Roman Catholics the same???

 

Good God, this thread get's worse by the minute...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, would you think that ALL Roman Catholics are rich?

 

So, your view is that; all Tories are rich and Roman Catholics the same???

 

Good God, this thread get's worse by the minute...

 

I dont believe that BB said that all catholics are rich she said all those rich catholics. Nor do i beleive that all tory's are rich there, are a fair few working class tory's out there, or as I prefer to call them masochists

Link to post
Share on other sites

How very sad, that some people appear to have such a bigoted view about the Pope's visit:(

 

Personally speaking and as a Roman Catholic myself, I am delighted about the Papal Visit!

 

BBC NEWS | UK | Pope to visit Britain in 2010

 

:

The news of Pope Benedict's visit comes after Gordon Brown extended a formal invitation to the Pope during a private audience in February.

 

A spokesman for the prime minister said he was "delighted" and "it would be a moving and momentous occasion for the whole country".

Edited by angry cat
Quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, would love to know how 5 Million Roman Catholics are going to be able to fly to Rome; some being on benefits or, DLA!

 

I guess though, Michael O'Leary, (Ryan Air) a staunch Roman Catholic, would love to see all that extra moula;

Terry Leahy, (Tesco) another staunch Roman Catholic, could provide the in-flight meals at an additonal cost!

 

In short, regular Roman Catholic would NOT be able to afford to go and pay for the additional flights for their children, as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness, I have missed three pages since I went off this thread last night.

 

Have to go out now too.

 

I'm Catholic too, as Thailand knows, and millions of people will welcome the Pope's visit. As all sorts of dodgy despots have been invited to this country before - and I am talking about real murderers, practising genocide - I find it astonishing that people should be objecting to the Pope.

 

The Pope has apologized for the failings/criminal activity of a MINORITY of priests. What more would anyone expect him to do? Maybe he should step down and the Catholic Church should be run by a Coalition of Cardinals - with a few from other parties (oops, I meant religions) being given places too? :rolleyes:

 

Catholicism was seen as a 'poor' religion for many years too. There must be far more rich members of the Church of England than Catholics!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try again. Why should the taxpayer pay for the pope to come? Should the tax payer then pay for every single religious leader in the world to come at the same expense (or respective cost) Or is the pope special because he precides over approx 1000 people?

 

Why the celebs? Who cares? All religions have them? Surely that didn't make even one point.

 

Do I have to name athiest celebs, no, I thought not. Should I mention people who are against this who are celebs, nope? Let's leave that one!

 

Sorry Daniella, 'real murderers' doesn't compute. I'm not going there, though.

 

Also, who cares who has money or not! Now't to do with it, except to say they should fund their beliefs by themselves. I mean this type of event.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DD, I respect your right to be religious. I am too. I'm not catholic, but that's my business. The difference is though, I wouldn't expect the state (British taxpayers) to accomadate a 'state visit' by a high ranking religious figure. I would expect to pay for the privalige if I wished to see them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DD, I respect your right to be religious. I am too. I'm not catholic, but that's my business. The difference is though, I wouldn't expect the state (British taxpayers) to accomadate a 'state visit' by a high ranking religious figure. I would expect to pay for the privalige if I wished to see them.

 

Innit, sister.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't dare to make that comment about a Muslim!
whether she would or not is irrelevant... Islam doesn't forbid contraception and even accepts abortion if continuing the pregnancy would put the mother's life in real danger. Since the comment was made in relation to the Catholics' stance on birth control, trying to turn this onto a Catholics versus Muslims situation is a new low. :roll:
Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of you have obviously been left to clean up BB after others have been talking through their bum again to try and justify their invalid points and obvious discrimination! Sorry if any offence caused by this remark Thia :rolleyes:

 

You have been, as stated earlier 'damming members' throughout this thread if they dare to disagree with your opinion.

 

What has Tony Blair got to do with this.....I did not mention him :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

whether she would or not is irrelevant... Islam doesn't forbid contraception and even accepts abortion if continuing the pregnancy would put the mother's life in real danger. Since the comment was made in relation to the Catholics' stance on birth control, trying to turn this onto a Catholics versus Muslims situation is a new low. :roll:

 

Factually, I did not bring up the topic about the Papal Visit!

 

My response, was that there are approximately 5 Million Roman Catholics in the UK.

 

by Bookworm:

"...trying to turn this onto a Catholics versus Muslims situation is a new low."

 

Absolutely and totally incorrect; you are twisting things again?

 

It is not PC to make derogatory comments about Muslims; the same applies to Roman Catholics.

 

And when did I mention, the RC stance on birth control?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you was to make a derogatory comment about someone, and then find out later that they were of a certain religious persuasion?

 

Would that be PC?;)

 

 

If all else fails, kick them where it hurts and SOD'EM;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have been, as stated earlier 'damming members' throughout this thread if they dare to disagree with your opinion.

 

What has Tony Blair got to do with this.....I did not mention him :confused:

 

One presumes that the above comment is directed at me?

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the following (humorous) post was made in response to your ludicrous suggestion about RC's, flying out to Rome in order to see the 'Pope', instead of His Holiness coming here to the UK:

 

by AC:

"Incidentally, would love to know how 5 Million Roman Catholics are going to be able to fly to Rome; some being on benefits or, DLA!

 

I guess though, Michael O'Leary, (Ryan Air) a staunch Roman Catholic, would love to see all that extra moula;

Terry Leahy, (Tesco) another staunch Roman Catholic, could provide the in-flight meals at an additonal cost!

 

In short, regular Roman Catholic would NOT be able to afford to go and pay for the additional flights for their children, as well."

Edited by angry cat
addition
Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you was to make a derogatory comment about someone, and then find out later that they were of a certain religious persuasion?

 

Would that be PC?;)

 

Clearly, it is best to steer away from discussing Religion, as is clearly shown on the last few posts.

 

However, I reiterate that it was not I, who brought up the topic of the Pope's Visit to the UK!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...