Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
By lookinforinfo · Posted
Thank you for posting the full sar. So they definitely did place the PCN on your vehicle only to remove it 10 minutes later apparently because of a possible problem with the driver which seems highly unlikely [the reason for the PCN removal ]. Did the driver even see the warden at all while they were photographing the car . They did take several pictures spread over 6 minutes or so using a flash so the driver would have seen the car being photographed had they been there. Very strange. You said that you had an onboard camera -are you able to go back and see what happened? Was the warden wearing UKPC clothing? In any event that PCN has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. That should be a Notice to Driver and the follow up PCN should not be sent until 28 days AFTER the day the first PCN was given were it a postal PCN. Instead the knuckleheads have issued the follow up PCN on the 28th day of their dodgy first PCN and so totally blowing all their machinations to get over the fact that the windscreen ticket wasn't a windscreen ticket. In neither case, even if they had been sent properly, they were non compliant. neither of them showed the period of parking which is specified in the Act. Both just show a time of issue at 20.02 but no end period. Their "mistake" in not giving 29 days before issuing their keeper Liability notice, makes the PCN more than just non compliant. It means that the PCN was unlawful and probably deliberate as had UKPC waited until the correct time to send that Notice, it would have delayed it until the Monday. And as they probably knew that had not received the original windscreen PCN perhaps they thought it better to rewrite the Law. Part of that is conjecture but the basic fact is correct-the Notice was unlawful. And for that there should be repercussions. My first thought was the ICO but as it isn't really a breach of data protection it goes higher than that. Perhaps the Site Team would know. I did look at the Legal Ombudsman but they are for complaints against lawyers. I cannot imagine a decent lawyer even countenancing such a thing though were are dealing with third rate ones when involved with some parking companies. For reference PoFA Schedule 4 S8 and S9 [2][f] f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— Their PCN dated 12/04/24 states "as 28 days have now elapsed since the Notice to Keeper was given, Parking Control management [UK] Ltd. [the creditor] are now able ...........to recover the unpaid parking charge from......... the registered keeper. The original PCN was marked by them as being deemed delivered 15/03/2024 so 28 days +1 =13/04/24. Their letter was sent one day early which means they altered or ignored the law . I have never seen that "error" on any other Notice from any of the parking companies. As the Member did not receive the original PCN which was originally a Windscreen ticket but they then changed it to a postal one for some fanciful reason the whole scenario reeks of skullduggery. I am going to ask again from Hamz why their warden might have felt scared about a confrontation with the driver but even if there was a chance the PCN was placed on the windscreen and not removed for two minutes but pictures had already been taken so why remove it? And then why produce a brand new keeper Liability Notice the like of which I have not seen before. -
By Sarahswoes · Posted
OMG, you are so fast Andy! Thank you! -
You have not been allowed the statuary 7 days to prepare or submit your statement as you only only received the notice of hearing on Saturday Example Erudio Student Loans Limited V XXXX Claim No: XXXXX Witness Statement in response to the claimants application It is respectfully requested that the court allow this statement as evidence in response as I was only informed of the hearing date on Saturday 11th May 2024 and therefore denied 7 days to respond. I, xxxxxxx being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant application dated 25/04/23 to lift the stay and Strike Out Defence/Summary Judgment pursuant to CPR 24.5 (1) a & b in view of my defence submitted to the claim dated 06/07/22. The Claimant confirms that this claim issued through Northampton County Court Business Centre on 15/03/22 and remained stayed since. I will respond to the same numbered paragraphs as the claimant’s statement as follows: 1. The claimants witness statement opening paragraph confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the draft’s person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding that they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act and also be in attendance at hearing to give evidence in support of the claimant’s witness statement. 2. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. Background Insert your pars here Defendants Response to claimants claim/ Application Insert your points here Conclusion Insert your points here but finish with the following. 16. In view of the information set out above I respectfully submit to the court that the claimant’s application be denied. The claim remains stayed until such time the claimant can comply with section 77 of the CCA1974 or in the absence of that compliance strike out the claimant claim and dismiss the claim in its entirety. The claimant has failed to evidence and justify its application to dispose of this claim without a trial where a claim or issue or a defence to a claim or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for a trial. (CPR 24.2) Statement of truth I, XXXXXXX defendant, believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed: Print Name: Dated: -
Thank you @BankFodder. Apologies for not being clear. Here are some further details that might help clarify: The item in question is a replica of a movie prop. I build highly accurate movie props as a hobby and these items are machined by enthusiasts in very small runs (50-100) and once they're gone, they're gone. I missed out on one of these runs but a friend from the community had purchased two and decided he only needed one so offered to sell me his other one. I bought the replica prop from him and asked him to send it to my Stackry address in USA. He is based in USA and I am based in the UK. Had he shipped it directly to me in the UK, due to the size and weight, the shipping would have been expensive. Stackry is a service in the USA that has access to cheaper couriers. I have used it many times before without any issues. I simply sign in to my account when they notify me the package is received, fill out the customs form, and select my home address in the UK, select one of the couriers after receiveing a quote based on size and weight and pay the shipping fee. On this occasion I chose GlobalDirect. I had no idea the item would be handed over to Evri on arrival to the UK. The initial tracking was with DHL e-commerce. The second tracking number on arrival to the UK was with Evri. It was Evri who lost the parcel through negligence. Below is a complete timeline of events. The item made its journey from my friend in the USA to Stackry, USA without any problems. I was notified when the package was received. The item also made its journey via DHL/Global Mail Direct from the USA to the UK without any issues. The problem happened in the UK, with Evri. I did not take out insurance. The price of the item was £185.01 Shipping from Stackry, USA to my home address in the UK with Global Mail Direct was £17.87. Total £202.88. The letter of claim is below. The 14 days is not up yet but I have every intention on following through. I have no priror experience with this which is why I came here for advice, but I have found the online claim form on Gov.UK and intend to start there. TIMELINE: Item purchased from individual in USA on 26/3/24. Payment made by PayPal. Item shipped to Stackry, USA on the same day. Item advised received by Stackry on 29/3/24. Redirected by myself to my UK home address on the same day. Payment made and selected Global Mail Direct as the courier of choice. Tracking number generated for DHL e-commerce 02/04/24: arrived to the UK and cleared customs 03/04/24: processed at local distribution centre, forwarded to delivery agent (Evri) - new tracking number generated 06/04/24: marked”out for delivery” at 08:52. No delivery attempt made all day. At 21:21 marked “on its way back to sender”. 09/04/24: no further updates since “there’s an issue with your parcel. Contact the sender”. Customer support contact via email almost on a daily basis from 08/04/24 to 23/04/24 to no avail. Letter before claim sent on 03/05/24. 03/05/2024 Letter before small claims court claim EVRi Parcelnet Limited Capitol House 1 Capitol Close Morley Leeds LS27 0WH Dear Sirs Reference: Parcel with the tracking number H01PQD0027409372 / H01PQA0027204793 lost by EVRi As it has not been possible to resolve this matter amicably, and it is apparent that court action may be necessary, I write in compliance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. I have been in contact with customer support numerous times since 08/04/2024. Your driver marked the item “Returning to sender” without a valid attempt at delivery. The package is since then stuck in limbo with no further tracking updates, and as of today 03/05/2024 still says “on its way back to sender”. I have spoken to your representatives many times and they did not offer any help trying to track down the missing parcel or offer me any option for compensation. I have explained that I am both the sender and the recipient, and I am therefore within my rights to claim compensation for this missing item. I have full records of the item from the point of purchase, to its journey with DHL in the USA, and with EVRi in the UK, until it was lost in the system. The value of the item including shipping is £202.88. From you I am claiming £202.88 paid in full to compensate the price of the item (£185.01) plus international shipping (£17.87). Listed below are the documents on which I intend to rely in my claim against you: Screenshots of transaction made with the original seller of the item, including photographs of the item and Paypal transaction. Screenshots of the item received by Stackry in the USA and shipping cost via Global Mail Direct to my address in the UK. Screenshots of tracking with DHL Screenshots of tracking with EVRi Email correspondence with various customer support members at EVRi I can confirm that I would be agreeable to mediation and would consider any other system of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in order to avoid the need for this matter to be resolved by the courts. I would invite you to put forward any proposals in this regard. In closing, I would draw your attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Practice Direction which gives the courts the power to impose sanctions on the parties if they fail to comply with the direction including failing to respond to this letter before claim. I look forward to hearing from you within the next 14 days. Should I not receive a response to my letter within this time frame then I anticipate that court action will be commenced with no further reference to you. -
Hi All, Just a quick update...........nothing to report - no contact from ParkingEye or BPA as yet. I am sending a complaint to the ICO today as suggested as the others have had more than enough time to at least acknowledge receipt of my requests / complaints. Thanks to all. T.
-
-
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 4503 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