Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • as you mention the bpa sounds like its a scummy private car park lot blue badges mean nothing on private land anyway.............. so a failure to display something that is meaningless on private land anyway is a money grabbing scam moved to the private parking forum dx dx
    • who is it from  a council or a private parking company?
    • As per the heading, received a parking charge for failure to display a blue badge in a disabled bay on a retail park.  I am a blue badge holder, disabled/wheelchair user with a Motability vehicle. I received the charge as 'notice to keeper' I was not the driver. I don't have a valid driving license so use a carer. The notice arrived a week after the alleged incident. It states that as the 'driver' failed to pay the charge in full  hence, it is now the keepers responsibility ( the notice was dated 2 days after the alleged infringement and as no notice to driver was on the vehicle, I don't know how they expect the driver to be able to either pay or dispute the charge if they are not aware of it) Anyway, really looking for help how to reply. I cannot remember if the badge was correctly displayed or not. Photos taken of car miss a bit where I store my badge if not displayed so it would be possible to see a badge even if not 'correctly displayed" . It was a bit of a sh**ty day weather wise, gusty and raining  (as seen on the photos which reminded me of the actual day) so it is possible that badge blew to the floor as the driver was helping me out of the car into wheelchair. There is no windscreen photo showing that a PCN to "Driver" was stuck on the window either. The car park is free. There are no Parking Signs at all near the disabled bays that one could read to adhere to any terms and conditions. The whole row of disabled bays - of which are there many only state badge holders ( does not stipulate Blue Badge Holders) The notice states that the parking company is a member of the BPA and Operating in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. The BPA, section 19.1 State that at least one parking sign should be near the disabled bays, in a position that can be easily  read by by a disabled person without leaving their car in order to decide to be bound by such terms. We returned to look for signage on the retail park and could not find one sign that was near the bays. The only sign we could find was high up on a pole but not near the bays. Someone had to get out of the car and stand on tip toes to be able to take a photo of a sign. I would be grateful if someone could help or point me in the right direction. It is now  15 days since the alleged incident and 7 days since I received the notice.
  • 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
      • 162 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

Cabot, they are claiming arrears BUT l have a DN

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5107 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts



I have been reading a lot about Cabot and their tactics, which seems to revolve around the caliming of arrears. I have had this whole issue with them and I am going to court soon.


I have just found a valid DN issued by Goldfish,, which says that I owe no arrears?


It was among some other papers. I have sent it to Cabot,,what can they do now.


It is a an old Morgan Stanley account,,they have nothing and after nearly six months have never produced anything, despite the SAR being sent several times.


The DN also doesn't give a date to issue a remedy by, just says 28 days from the date of this letter?


Also it says about breaching a section B of my agreement,,Cabot have sent me an app form with invalid T and Cs, there is no section B on it at all?


Any ideas?


Thanks :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites



What does anyone think about this,,Cabot only issued me with an unexecuted app form that has some terms attached to the bottom?


The tand cs they have given me are for after the date of my application, back in 2000



Link to post
Share on other sites



I did that, it is going to court soon, just wondered what people think. I have sent htem the DN as l have it.


They have already said that they are claiming arrears,,DN says there are none?



Link to post
Share on other sites



It is going to court on the basis that they have an agreement. What they have is an app form that is illegible and they have added to the bottom of it the PT. The T and Cs are for a date after the agreement.


I have had lots of information from them and they were told that they needed to supply DN, TN and legible copies of docs. they have done none of it.


Got their WS and it says on 1 line near the bottom that they are claiming the arrears? This is their usual tactic it would appear. the arrears are the same as the total amount payable?


I have found a DN from Goldfish, supplied back in Jan 2008, which I replied to once I relaised that it was an MSDW account, cause l didn't know it had changed? I CCA'd Goldfish and then eventually get a 'welcome' pack from Cabot, a couple of months later.


It took them a year to supply the app form, that clearly has app form on it.


The Goldfish DN says that I owe no arrears? Gives no amount owed and gives 28 days to reply, not the standard reply by date, it is totally invlaid.


I found it by sheer chance on Sunday,,at the time that this happened I had lots of family issues to deal with and just put it in a drawer at work.


I have sent it them by Special Delivery as it somewhat shoots their case down as they cannot claim arrears that don't exsist. As usual Cabot have no original docs, but l have all of mine and some of theirs. They have sent me three different types of the same form as well as docs for someone else?


Did l do the right thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in court with them this week for the same thing, I do not want to put details on here incase they see my post. I have done some research into what they have sent me, and come up with some startling discoveries.


Shammy, if you want to PM me your details I will discuss my findings with you.

Vodafone - Default removed (07/01/07).

MBNA - Claim settled with contractual interest and adjusted credit file to show no late payments (12/02/07).

CABOT - Taken to Court by Cabot/Morgan over alleged credit card debt, case dismissed (06/12/10).

Link to post
Share on other sites



What does anyone think about this,,Cabot only issued me with an unexecuted app form that has some terms attached to the bottom?


The tand cs they have given me are for after the date of my application, back in 2000




Quite often, credit card companies in particular do not appear to keep copies of the executed agreements but rely on the 1983 regulations allowing them to 'reconstruct' the agreement. If a case based on such an agreement comes to Court, I, the defence will point out strongly the requirement of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 says

7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:


(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing.


Another Practice Direction says that a copy of the contract document does not need to be attached if the claim is made via MCOL. However, the requirement to produce the original in court is still valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...