Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other!
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
  • 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

Fraudulent Card Payments Laws **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4871 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

Does anyone know the specific law/s that relate to an organisation taking payments from your card without your approval ? I know they exist but I don't the specifics of the law and I need to write a letter to Natwest about Quick Quid having done exactly that to me.

__________________

Capital One - Took them to court and they settled for the full £998

Aqua - Threatened legal action, they refunded the whole £424

Barclaycard - Threatened legal action, they refunded the whole £636

RBS/Universa - 1st letter sent, settled for £132

Virgin Media - 1st Judge great....second Judge couldn't even be bothered to read the case details

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I made a payment to them over the phone with my debit card. The next month they took the entire outstanding amount and a £12 penalty late fee without my approval, and against my direct instructions NOT to take any payments without me being on the other end of the phone approving it. I agreed a payment plan with them and they just ignored it.

 

I claimed the money back entirely from Visa/Natwest but Natwest didn't receive my later fax (although the fax machine I used confirmed their receipt grr) explaining the situation when QQ protested at the refund, so Natwest gave the money back to QQ. I now have to write a later to Natwests Fraud Department to claim the money back again. So I need as much accurate info as possible to make it as hard hitting as possible !!!

__________________

Capital One - Took them to court and they settled for the full £998

Aqua - Threatened legal action, they refunded the whole £424

Barclaycard - Threatened legal action, they refunded the whole £636

RBS/Universa - 1st letter sent, settled for £132

Virgin Media - 1st Judge great....second Judge couldn't even be bothered to read the case details

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers I'll move it to the Legal Issues forum :)

__________________

Capital One - Took them to court and they settled for the full £998

Aqua - Threatened legal action, they refunded the whole £424

Barclaycard - Threatened legal action, they refunded the whole £636

RBS/Universa - 1st letter sent, settled for £132

Virgin Media - 1st Judge great....second Judge couldn't even be bothered to read the case details

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I was advised to post here to get some advise.

 

I (stupidly I know) had an account with Quick Quid. I found I couldn't make the payment plan so I restructured the payment plan. I made a payment to them over the phone with my debit card. The next month they took the entire outstanding amount and a £12 penalty late fee without my approval, and against my direct instructions NOT to take any payments without me being on the other end of the phone approving it. I agreed a payment plan with them and they just ignored it.

 

I claimed the money back entirely from Visa/Natwestlink3.gif but Natwest didn't receive my later fax (although the fax machine I used confirmed their receipt grr) explaining the situation when QQ protested at the refund, so Natwest gave the money back to QQ. I now have to write a later to Natwests Fraud Department to claim the money back again.

 

So I need as much accurate info as possible regarding the laws about payments and use of card details to make it as hard hitting as possible to ensure that Natwest will give me back my money !!!

 

Anyone able to help ?

__________________

Capital One - Took them to court and they settled for the full £998

Aqua - Threatened legal action, they refunded the whole £424

Barclaycard - Threatened legal action, they refunded the whole £636

RBS/Universa - 1st letter sent, settled for £132

Virgin Media - 1st Judge great....second Judge couldn't even be bothered to read the case details

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have grounds for a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman here, Natwest have failed to have in place proper refund procedure, and have flouted a direct request for a refund when monies were taken in error.

 

Quick Quid will take the money - in this case you now need to make sure they do not have access to any further funds of yours.

 

Get a new bank account and do not fall for the 'we need your bank details' trick, if anyone phones up. They tried it with me and I said I would go to a branch to confirm my identity and bank details.....

 

You can also involve your local MP, they might be interested in the way NatWest encourage these companies to misuse the banking codes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the loan company processed a payment on your card without your signature they would need to process it as a telephone payment and this would mean that they would need the 3 digits on the back of your card. If you originally gave them the 3 digits for the first transaction that is fine, however there are new standards being introduced called PCIDSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards) which means that they if they retain your 3 digit code (CVC) they are in breach of these regulations. No-one including banks are allowed to store this number and if used it must be destroyed. It might be that they were able to process the payment without this number but normally if the cardholder isn't present they would be asked for it.

 

https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...