Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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

Vulnerable 86 year old v Swinton - advise please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4654 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

I'm looking for advise for my 86 yr old Mum, (this posting is slightly relating to a previous one today regarding Swinton). Mum and my late Dad had their house and contents insured through Swinton for many years without changing to anywhere else. This year Mum was told when renewal time came that another company had taken over insuring the property and her Direct Debit was changed to pay the new insurance company.

However in the last few weeks she hasn't been too well and I have had to take over various aspects of her financial circumstances, one of which was getting her Gas / Elect. account D.Debit brought up to date with EOn. Whilst talking to them we realised she did not have any Gas Service Cover so I organised that and someone came out the next day to check her boiler and do some adjustments to it. They also sent out someone the same day to read her meters.

Today Mum has phoned me in a flap stating that she has looked at her Bank Statement received today and found a little Direct Debit payment of £6.50 to Swinton Insurance. As she could not understand why she was paying Swinton this amount when, to all intense purposes her house and contents insurance had been transferred by them to a different company, she telephoned Swinton who told her it was an ONGOING Gas/Electricity Breakdown Cover Insurance for the property.

She explained, or tried to, that she didn't know she had this and that she had just taken out a new Service Policy with her supplier and as she didn't want Swinton's which she had not received any renewal letters or anything to do with it, she wanted to cancel it immediately.

The person on the other end of the phone told her it would be £54 cancellation fee.

If my Mum did not have any renewal letter about this policy or has no knowledge of any paperwork about it other than when it was included within the house and contents policy which my late Father took out - can Swinton charge her to cancel this supposed Policy?

Sorry if I've gone on a bit but it's a bit of an issue and I'm trying to sort out Mum's financial affairs which in recent weeks have got, shall we say, a bit confusing and this latest sudden Swinton problem is totally unexpected. Thank you for your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

firstly, your 86-year-old mum must be pretty on the ball to have noticed this kind of thing – so well done, her.

 

The £54 cancellation fee is a complete rip-off and I'm sure it is not enforceable.

Begin by writing to them, formerly bring the contract to an end and asked them on what basis they are seeking to charge £54 cancellation fee. Tell them that your letter is a formal complaint and that you wanted sent to the insurance ombudsman.

This sounds like an unacceptable piece of conduct by Swinton Insurance.

Normally I would simply advise you to cancel the direct debit and to claiming a previous payments on the direct debit guarantee. However because your parents are old, it is probably better to sorted out more carefully – in case Swinton start leaping into debt collection mode and start giving your elderly parents a hard time.

Lots of these companies seem very nice and approachable when you're trying to buy something from them. As soon as you try to cancel the agreement, they can get very unpleasant indeed.

Also, you should complain to Trading Standards anyway. Do this now at the same time that you are beginning your complaint to Swinton. The more people who know about this kind of thing, the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh thank you very much for your quick reply - I'm new on here and didn't expect such a quick response. Yes Mum is on the ball to a point, but then if things get difficult which they seem to be doing with this Swinton thing she just pays out her money because she thinks she has too.

I've just got her back £300 + from her bank which was a total of £25 each month for an current account she'd agreed to have because the Manager told her it was better for her. This account paid for Worldwide Travel and "Special Winter Sports Insurance" amongst a lot of other things - given Mum's age and fragile health I doubted if that particular part would be of use so I wrote to the banks HQ and low and behold they reimbursed her everything she had paid, her account was cchanged too!! My problem is that Mum is determined not to cause any problems, agrees to anything she is told and just wants to pay up and get the Policy stopped and out of the way. I told her to wait whilst I had chance to look around and see if there was any way she could not have to pay because I thought firstly the amount was a bit steep and secondly she didn't even know about this "seperate Policy" for gas/elect breakdown which was "included" within the old house and contents insurance.

I'll have to ring her and let her know what your advise is - given her financial situation I don't want her to have to pay if legally she doesn't have to.

thanks again for your response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...