Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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
        • I agree
      • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5060 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

In Jun 2008, a Sky TV engineer's van collided with my parked car. Because the driver's door would only open a few inches, I considered it unsafe to drive. The van driver admitted liablity and so the process began.

I reported it to my insurers and they offered me a courtesy car to tide me by. My insurers contacted the Sky TV company several times and it seems they ignored it and thus didn't disclose their insurer's details for a long time.

 

Eventually, after three months, they finally gave the details, and within a week at the most, I had my car back with a nice shiny new paintjob. Because of this, the hire car charges were huge. Over £5k huge.

 

Now, they've admitted liability for the damage but are questioning the hire car charges. They made an offer of £2000 but it's not been accepted.

 

I'm in court on Thursday over this. Their defence is that I should've gone with a cheaper car hire and have failed to mitigate the charges. Frankly this is bollocks because I paid the insurers for the courtesy car cover (an extra few quid a month or something) and the onus is clearly on them to find the best deal.

 

Incidentally, the defence does quote some cases that may be of use to people here wanting a cite to back up their claims. I'll look them up and see if they're pertinent

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Jun 2008, a Sky TV engineer's van collided with my parked car. Because the driver's door would only open a few inches, I considered it unsafe to drive. The van driver admitted liablity and so the process began.

I reported it to my insurers and they offered me a courtesy car to tide me by. My insurers contacted the Sky TV company several times and it seems they ignored it and thus didn't disclose their insurer's details for a long time.

 

Eventually, after three months, they finally gave the details, and within a week at the most, I had my car back with a nice shiny new paintjob. Because of this, the hire car charges were huge. Over £5k huge.

 

Now, they've admitted liability for the damage but are questioning the hire car charges. They made an offer of £2000 but it's not been accepted.

 

I'm in court on Thursday over this. Their defence is that I should've gone with a cheaper car hire and have failed to mitigate the charges. Frankly this is bollocks because I paid the insurers for the courtesy car cover (an extra few quid a month or something) and the onus is clearly on them to find the best deal.

 

Incidentally, the defence does quote some cases that may be of use to people here wanting a cite to back up their claims. I'll look them up and see if they're pertinent

 

So their point is? Who caused the delay in effecting the repairs to your car?

 

Why are you going to court? this is between the insurance co's, not you. As you say; its your insurer's who arranged the car hire, so where do you fit in?

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a bloody clue. However, they're saying that I should've mitigated the costs by:

 

contacting the hire car company about the terms of the agreement

asked them to find a cheaper hire car

looked for a cheaper car myself,

didn't use a courtesy car as provided by the garage (which they didn't offer anyway, besides, what would I have done between the accident and when they collected the car which was best part of 3 months)

 

I don't have much faith in the solicitors either for that matter, they sent me a statement to sign and it was so full of errors, both grammatical and factual I asked them to email the original .doc file and I rewrote it myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The credit hire company who organised your hire car are taking Sky's insurers to court, as they have not offered enough money.

 

There are loads of cases similar to this going through / recently gone through court. A lot of things will be covered, including were you able to "spot hire" a vehicle - (means testing), and did you need the size of the vehicle you were driving.

 

Dont worry if the credit hire company lose - they will not chase you for the money - they cannot. Turn up at court and answer honestly.

 

More likely then not there will be a flurry of telephone calls and taking instructions the morning of court and they will settle out of court...

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a bloody clue. However, they're saying that I should've mitigated the costs by:

 

contacting the hire car company about the terms of the agreement

asked them to find a cheaper hire car

looked for a cheaper car myself,

didn't use a courtesy car as provided by the garage (which they didn't offer anyway, besides, what would I have done between the accident and when they collected the car which was best part of 3 months)

 

I don't have much faith in the solicitors either for that matter, they sent me a statement to sign and it was so full of errors, both grammatical and factual I asked them to email the original .doc file and I rewrote it myself.

 

Can you clarify who arranged the car hire? You mention 'courtesy car' in your original post so i'm assuming it was your insurers. In which case this leads me to say; It is the insurers who's responsibility to mitigate their losses, not you. By representing you, they are taking any legal responsibility away from you so they should be going to court, not you. What are your insurers saying about this?

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a bit, not for the reasons you think. It happened to coincide with my wife's day off and we fancied going out for the day. Looks like that's still on now. Yay!

Link to post
Share on other sites

the insurers haven't said anything, I've only spoken to the solicitors. However, I've just been looking through the court bundle I've been sent and they've put my name as the claimant, which is worrying me somewhat.

 

Good news indeed mate. I must admit to being baffled how they can put you down as the claimant without your knowledge but its academic now.

 

Enjoy your day out!

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would be checking as to how they have settled the claim being as you are named as the Claimant. They may have settled the claim with you being lumbered for the Defendant's costs for all you know....

 

Plus I fail to see how your solicitors could possible accept any offer of settlement without your permission to do so. I also cannot seer how they signed the claim form and particulars of claim without your consent either. Very disturbing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just sent him a terse email:

 

I have yet to receive the details regarding the settlement. Could you please send the paperwork regarding this please?

 

Edit: I then got the reply "there is no paperwork to sign"

 

So I've replied with:

The settlement would not have simply been constituted of a hand shake and the handing over a cheque, hence there must be a formal written offer plus a formal written acceptance. Could you please send them to me?"

I thought it was all cut and dried, but it seems I'm being kept in the dark for some reason.

Edited by bigyeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

But the point being is, how could they have settled it without your consent. You are the Claimant, your solicitors cannot accept anything without your say so.

 

Ask them who they took instructions off to settle, who they took instructions off to sign the Particulars of Claim and the Claim Form.

 

I wonder what response you get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I've had to sign is the Statement of the Claimant, which was so full of errors I ended up getting them to send me the file so I could rewrite it and correct all the spelling, grammar and factual errors.

 

Their actual reply was:

"Settlement was agreed over the phone, there is not always a written offer.

 

I will send you a copy of the final court order outlining the terms of settlement when I receive it back from the court"

 

I've been reading the "Civil Procedure Rules 1999", particularly Part 36.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...