Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, Hotpoint UK has been a subsidiary of Whirlpool for over 20 years. And unlike some domestic goods manufacturers you can buy from them direct and I believe they employ their own service engineers, Is that your situation? You bought direct from Hotpoint and Hotpoint sent out their own engineer?
    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
  • 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
      • 160 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

PCN Croydon - mistaken identity?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4631 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

Hello there, I'm new to the forum here, but it seems like the place to possibly get some advice on a rather strange matter. I cam home yesterday from work to find a PCN on my door-step claiming my vehicle was illegally parked on a red route in Croydon (Semley Road) in May.

 

What's bizarre is that my wife and I were in New York City on the date in question, in possession of the only keys for the vehicle which was parked in the secure car park at Glasgow Airport.

 

Now, I'm sure there are horror stories of cars being stolen or used by valet car park attendants illegally, but this seems wildly far-fetched to me since there were no keys left with anyone for the vehicle.

 

We've NEVER even been to Croydon in our lives, being from Glasgow so I am 100% certain this is a misidentification of my vehicle. They've not provided any images or details of the vehicle beyond the registration number. My question is, how likely is it for these organisations to make glaringly obvious mistakes in identifying cars in these cases?

 

I've immediately sent them an email challenging the PCN as they suggest on the letter and explained where we were, however, the best 'evidence' I could provide to back it up were my flight confirmations for NYC and the car park booking confirmation from NCP. I'm a little bemused as to why the onus is on myself to prove my innocence in this case as I would have thought it was first up to them to provide proof of my guilt.

 

Any thoughts or suggestions about this scenario? A little concerned, despite being sure the car wasn't there for some reason.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect that the flight details and copy of the parking confirmation would be sufficient grounds to appeal. I would put the appeal in writing though, emails have a tendency to go ignored. If necessary, I'm sure you could get the airport parking company to write a statement on their company letterheaded paper to confirm that the car was in their posession in a secure car park for the duration of your trip.

 

It's probable that they have simply mixed up the registration number somehow, or it may be the case that your plates have been cloned at some stage.

 

You will need to wait and see what they come back with. Keep us posted.

 

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible that they have made an error and is certainly not unknown, particularly Croydon. But as you can show that your car was in Glasgow airport at the time, you will win the appeal. I would want to estblish if they did indeed have the correct registration number, in which case there is a cloned car out there and I would be checking in case mine was the clone!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick replies guys. In my email I did make it clear that I was keen to see physical/photographic evidence of my car being where they believe it to have been and outlined my concerns that some illegal activity would have to be taking place for it to be possible.

 

As per CD's advice, I think I'll write to them in addition to the email just to reinforce my concerns.

 

Once again, thanks for your help and I'll update as soon as I hear anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi guys

 

Thought I'd provide an update on this situation (sorry if it's a bit of a long ramble).

 

After following up my initial email with a written representation, in which I reiterated my suggestion that Transport for London had made an error in misidentifying my vehicle, requested physical evidence of my car being in the area of Croydon and that in order for their allegation to be accurate, my vehicle would have to have been stolen and returned, refuelled and undamaged to exactly where we left it in the secure car park, I received a rather irritating and ignorant reply letter.

 

They said in a very brief note that I had 'stated that I believe my vehicle may have been taken without my consent' and requested documentary evidence of this, including front, side and rear photos of the vehicle and a crime reference number, while suggesting I report the matter to the police immediately. They also stated that without that documentation, the PCN would stand and failed to either acknowledge or fulfil my request for evidence of the contravention.

 

Absolutely furious with this and feeling that they were effectively asking me to waste police time by reporting a crime there was absolutely no evidence had ever taken place, I approached my local constabulary for advice. The helpful female officer reviewed the correspondence and agreed with me that there were no grounds to suggest the car ever moved from the car park and that a crime reference number couldn't be issued. She said the likelihood was that my plates had been cloned and suggested phoning TfL rather than pursue their required route of writing.

 

I did so and the operator on the phone, who was initially quite adamant that my car must've been stolen as they had evidence of it being in Croydon, reiterated that I needed to report it to the police or there was nothing they could do. I re-stated that there was no evidence as far as I was concerned because they hadn't provided me with it. She then informed me that the photos can be viewed online. Note this is not mentioned anywhere on any of the documentation received from Transport for London, not the PCN and not in the reply to my representation. Unable to access a computer at that time, I asked her to view the pictures and describe the vehicle in them.

 

To my 'surprise' she described a vehicle that was not the same make, model or colour as mine. When I pointed this out, she stated that my plates must've been cloned and I would need to go to the police anyway. She then read the number plate in the photos - it did not match my number plate or the one on the PCN. That's right - the number plate they put on the PCN was mine, but the one they photographed in Croydon was not.

 

The PCN has obviously now been cancelled, but I think it's worth highlighting publicly the staggering level of incompetance required for this error to occur. They managed to get my personal details (presumably from the DVLA) by using the number plate they mistyped, but never thought to cross reference the vehicle's make, model or colour. They also never provided any images or even a basic description of the vehicle they photographed at any stage, despite an explicit request from me for this evidence. Not only that, but they have not even managed to spot this glaring error upon receipt of my representation suggesting they had made a mistake, or through their subsequent 'investigation' into it.

 

I am preparing a thorough (and long) complaint letter to send to them pointing out my concerns over the failings of their basic systems, procedures, public relations and communications strategies. I am also highlighting their apparent 'guilty until proven innocent' system and refusal to provide evidence upon request, while demanding that I spend my time and resources gathering evidence to prove my innocence. I have in addition raised the issue of them suggesting that police forces waste their time investigating frivolous and unsubstantiated car thefts based on their say-so along with an extensive list of basic and common sense procedures they should have implemented which would avoid this kind of mistake happening. It is breath-taking that an organisation like this can send out demands for money (accompanied with threats of county court orders and bailiffs for failure to pay) on a fraudulent basis due to sheer incompetence on their part.

 

I will be writing to my local MP and am considering approaching the media to make public the way in which they operate. I hope anyone who reads this is aware that if you are in any doubt as to the legitimacy of a PCN against your vehicle that you MUST challenge it and demand photographic evidence. Do not submit to their scaremongering.

 

I am hugely concerned that there simply must be many, many instances of this kind of thing and that they will be receiving money from innocent people who are either frightened to challenge them or unable to prove their innocence (something that you shouldn't have to do in this day and age).

 

Once again, I hope my plight raises awareness amongst people and helps reduce the chances of others suffering the sleepless nights that I have over their handling of this matter.

Edited by dspstv1979
formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want my advice, don't waste your time kicking up against the council. It's like swimming through custard and you won't achieve anything in the end - you'll get a polite letter acknowledging your grievance and apologising for the inconvenience.

 

Here's what to do: Try and get a photo of the dodgy vehicle from the council, but even if you can't, report the cloned plates to the police.

 

Send the council a crime ref number (if they give you one) and a scan or photocopy of the registration document showing the correct make and model.

 

That should be the last of this one, but the dodgy vehicle may well do other things which come to you. You'll have to just keep doing the same until it's either apprehended or disappears again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want my advice, don't waste your time kicking up against the council. It's like swimming through custard and you won't achieve anything in the end - you'll get a polite letter acknowledging your grievance and apologising for the inconvenience.

 

Here's what to do: Try and get a photo of the dodgy vehicle from the council, but even if you can't, report the cloned plates to the police.

 

Send the council a crime ref number (if they give you one) and a scan or photocopy of the registration document showing the correct make and model.

 

That should be the last of this one, but the dodgy vehicle may well do other things which come to you. You'll have to just keep doing the same until it's either apprehended or disappears again.

 

Jamber, the plates were not cloned.

 

It was a completely different car and Reg :lol:

 

Jogs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deja Vu ..... By about 20 years.

 

My mother received a PCN from Croydon, based on tracing her car through DVLA, some 20+ years ago. Since my Mum lent her car to both my sister and I ; Mum asked us who had got a ticket in Croydon, and who had neither paid it nor told her about it.

We both denied it, and on checking with the council : they quoted her car's Reg. Mark, but a different make and model. When she pointed out the make and model were wrong, she was told "well, the details on the ticket aren't very clear, maybe its a different Reg."!

 

Nice to know that some things haven't changed, even with all the new technology.

 

BazzaS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dspstv1979

we have received a press contact about your story. The media would be very interested if you contacted them with a view running the story immediately.

You are being sent a private message about this.

 

Can I say that it would be very useful for others but also for your own story if you contacted the reporter immediately so that the story was aired while it is still a hot story

The media tends to lose interest with old stories.

I'm sure that there will be benefit to you if this story is published.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...