Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks.  I'll have a good look through in a moment. Meanwhile - what was the response from the pub?
    • I believe it's a new one Honeybee. I can't see if I previously posted it.
    • Hi. Is this a new parking event or have you posted about it before please? HB
    • Hi folks, The keeper received correspondence today from DCBL.  The keeper has received previous correspondence from (Possibly) Parking Eye and Debt Recovery Plus, all of which has been ignored with zero contact with either company. The keeper has moved house twice since the original PCN but has kept DVLA informed of every move and V5 updated accordingly. The driver recalls entering the car park but didn't see any signs indicating payment required. The drivers friend happened to be in the same car park a few days after original PCN was received. Friend is a truck driver and said there is a sign but at truck windscreen height. Driver was in a small vehicle and, due to being careful as to where they were driving, did not see the sign. Original paperwork has been lost while moving but keeper still has scans of paperwork from Debt Recovery Plus. Driver was on site for approximately one hour after a long drive and was resting. After having read previous cases on here, is it still safe to ignore? 1 Date of the infringement 15th September 2020   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] Unsure    3 Date received A/A 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] A/A 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Driver recalls there was a screenshot of the reg plate, but it wasn’t a very good one.  6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No.   Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up A/A  7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye?   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] MFG ESSO Cobham Gravesend  DCBL 30:04:24 Redacted.pdf
  • 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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...