Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
By lookinforinfo · Posted
My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second PCN was then sent by post on 13/3/24 [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge. This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPCM to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and it is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your response which I understand will usually be within a week. -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
It probably deletes after a certain time. What a shame you did not check at the time. However I have no doubt that there was a PCN envelope under your windscreen wiper as shown quite clearly on one of the photographs. . It would seem strange that it was placed there empty hence the reason I stated a second Notice was issued [though not necessarily sent. As I said in that letter to IPC that was not what the complaint was about and probably IPC will ask about that at the same time if they accept you going direct to IPC for the other matter. It is immaterial how many original PCNs were issued or not issued. You are able to show the two that you have from their sar one of which coincides with the one you received in the post and that is the one that does not agree with the date times of PoFA. Thus breaching not only the Act, but also the IPC Code of Conduct and the ability of UKPCM to obtain data from the DVLA. So leave that part of the letter as good to go. However as it is as Dave [Thank you Dave!} pointed out that it is UKPCM and not UKPCI have amended the letter and posted it below. -
By miley_b ob · Posted
Its based on 10% annual depreciation, divided by 52 weeks and then x the excess number of weeks that they have had the vehicle for, after the agreed initial 3 week repair. -
LOL LOL LOL Don't need that many to deport a handful of volunteers - at best Home Office department processing Rwanda deportations told to cut jobs Exclusive: Illegal Migration Operations Command freezes recruitment and draws up redundancy plans, leaked documents show Cant have hundreds of well paid people in a department deporting a single volunteer when we have an upcoming election to lose now can we - VIPal drenched in riches and departments full of pals well paid for doing nowt will 'sadly soon be history - was rumored to in a text from a soon to be ex-minister texting in from one of his main jobs in a number of industries he will soon be unable to help. Home Office department processing Rwanda deportations told to cut jobs | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Exclusive: Illegal Migration Operations Command freezes recruitment and draws up redundancy plans, leaked documents show -
try it.... use recuva or file scavenger or glary utils
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 4697 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts