Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • LFI is spot on. In fact you could sue UKPC for breach of GDPR, as UKPC knew full well right from the start that their case was hopeless.  They should never have asked for your details from the DVLA. Take some time to think if that is a road you want to go down.  
  • 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

Suspended on Full pay Pending Investigation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4885 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,

 

Just a quick update - I had posted last week requesting advice regarding being suspended from work for apparently accessing and discussing confidential information. The information related to management salaries, pay rises and bonuses.

 

I had discussed details, rather foolishly, with other members of management but disputed being responsible for sourcing the information in the first place. I had received great support and advice from a number of forum members and was very pleased that people had taken an interest in my situation (nearly 1000 views, although most of them were probably me!).

 

I felt earlier in the week that my position through the post may have been compromised when it had been suggested a party at work was aware and therefore requested for it to be removed, graciously undertaken by the site team.

 

I can now confirm that the investigatory meeting took place yesterday, and I have received an email from work today as follows;

 

"....

Hi Steve,

We have concluded our investigations now and can confirm that there is no longer any need for you to remain on suspension and you can return to work with immediate effect and resume your normal role and responsibilities.

However, we will be taking disciplinary action but your continued employment is not as risk, and in all probability a “verbal warning” will be issued.

Please ring me on my mobile if you wish to discuss this further and let me know when you will be returning to work......"

Naturally, I'm overjoyed to be returning to work and will be back in the office tomorrow. Massive thanks to all of those who provided input, especially SarEl....... I will keep my gob shut from now on.......

A friend had suggested that it is incorrect for work to assume the outcome of a disciplinary before it has taken place as per the email above, and also that I should, after being disciplined, request a meeting with the Managing Director through a grievance procedure to ask why the company felt it necessary to lie/mislead me over payrises within the company in April.

But probably best to leave it!

Thanks Again to everyone - I hope some of you struggling in your own situations have a successful outcome.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - I'm going with the "keep your gob shut" option still! But you are welcome for the advice and I am gald that, as I pointed out, being suspended and under investigation is not the same thing as being dimissed! But you were lucky - I do know a lot of cases were doing exactly the same thing as you (and having obtained the information the same way) did not end quite so happily.

 

But they haven't made a decision - they are suggesting a possible outcome to give you an idea of how seriously it may end - just the same as "you may be dismissed" doesn't mean you will be but that it is possible. So nothing wrong there - although that said, even if there was, yes, still going with the gob advice! Stick head down, be appropriately apologetic at the "misunderstanding" and just be very grateful you didn't annoy anyone too much! And let others do the agitating from now on - sticck to intetrest in your own pay and no-one elses!

 

But very pleased to know that it worked out and good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi HB,

 

As suggested above, it had been possible that another "person" at work was aware of the thread and I felt it may just have compromised my defence. Luckily, things didn't really get far enough for it to be of concern as the investigatory meeting went well and I thought I conveyed myself in a confident and honest manner. Although I had no proof as to how the information came to my attention I was able to provide other facts(given to me during my personal discussions) which should not have been discussed in my defence to suggest that my record of events and conversations were true.

 

It transpires that the individual whom I believe logged the complaint may have aware of a similar situation that took place a few years ago. The accounts manager had given their key to the personnel file cupboard to another manager who was not allowed access and watched as they checked a file for such information concerning wages. Unsure as what to do, the accounts manager confided in a manager who suggest they report the incident to a higher level. The account manager in turn, went to another manager (who is my line manager) and the suggestion was to raise the issue with the Managing Director. My Line Manager was responsible for holding the meeting yesterday! As far as I am aware, nothing came from this previous incident. I believe that was key in my defence.

 

Now, upon my return, I believe several individuals may be disciplined, possibly to include the one who raised the complaint.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...