Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
Aesmith - Thank you for your recent interest in my issues. Input on people's topics can be most useful from specialised experts or those that have similar experiences. Some people really struggle with knowing what to do (I certainly do) - so it is most useful and helpful and reassuring when solid sensible advice is offered. I have found there to be some very kind, helpful, supportive and legally knowledgeable people here on cag over the years - who give sound legal advice for people to roll up their sleeves and follow up on. Of course, sometimes it can be quite challenging sifting the wheat from the chaff. I don't have lawyer or barrister. I sometimes attend pro-bono legal clinics for help. And sometimes have access to barristers via a pro-bono service called Advocate. Both ad-hoc. Pro-bono means 'free' -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
The Judge was wrong. The keeper is only INVITED to say who was driving, there is no obligation for them to say. -
By honeybee13 · Posted
Member of the Question Time audience asks Richard Tice about Donald Trump. -
By honeybee13 · Posted
I hope Lord Frost is OK. Islamists and the woke Left are uniting to topple the West ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 19:12:37 UTC -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e] says the PCN must "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc. All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could still have been within the time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing you .
-
-
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 4400 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