Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, hope that you can help with the PCN detailed below, unfortunately I have entered into correspondence (appeal) and identified the driver, hope that this doesn't have too much of an impact! On 26/05/2024 the driver entered the ANPR controlled car park to park but was unable to find suitable parking due to the car park being very busy. This took 11 minutes according to Wise ANPR details, this was due to other vehicles looking for parking and impeding the driver's progress. This has been appealed to both Wise Parking and IAS and the appeal has been rejected by both; unfortunately, the driver has been identified on the appeal. Note: the appeal response from Wise was not received until 04/07/2024, wise state (after me chasing) that it was sent by email on 17/05/2024 but this was not received and not in junk mail. I have completed the form below and attached correspondence (post and email) as a single pdf Please let me know if you need anything else.   1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 29/05/2024   3 Date received Around 04/06/2024   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  Y   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Y   6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Y Unable to find /access details of my appeal to Wise, however I will have revealed the identity of the driver My appeal to IAS: You completed the appeal on 06/07/2024 23:38:42. The car was not parked on this land. The reason for this was that there were no available parking spaces. I drove the car around the car park a few times searching for a space but was unable to obtain a space due to it being busy. I then left the car park without parking, I therefor did not make use of their facility or have the opportunity to check their terms and conditions as I did not leave the car. The appellant made their response on 08/07/2024 09:52:52. As I did not park due to lack of opportunity a "parking" charge is not appropriate. As can be seen from the ticket, I was only onsite for a few minutes which backs up my assertion that I did not park. No evidence has been provided that I did park, only that I entered and left 11 minutes later.   Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Y   7 Who is the parking company? Wise Parking   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Chapel Point, Chapel St Leonards   For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IAS   If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here I have received a response from both Wise and IAS rejecting my appeal     Wise Parking PCN - 26-05-2024.pdf
    • You mean the mediation Service. It's not from the court  Offering a date and time?  Dx   
    • Equivo are applying for an interim charging order although I know why they want to do this, I find it to be very unjust and needless in my point of view! and don't know why there is a continuing need to harrass me with a Charging Order. No payments have been missed since the order was made and a total of £360 paid to date The debt amount has not been reduced as they keep adding interest, the original debt was £1500 it now stands at £1700 The judgement didn't order a payment plan but we have agreed to one and for three years they have accepted my payment...not sure if that relevant? Also I live with my partner and they have sent her the same as she has a 50% claim to the property how can I stop this? many thanks Webbs   Interim Charging Order Creation Finance Old Flybe Card.pdf
    • Good. Hopefully you've done the reading and you know how it all works from now.  However, please will you not leave things to the last moment in future.  We have our work cut out as it is and to try and help you catch up with deadlines put extra strain on us which as an unpaid volunteer group, I don't think we should need to do
  • 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
      • 162 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

A PPI query with a difference!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4643 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

Hi All

I know that there are lots of posts and threads about mis-sold PPI's but my query is slightly different. I had a joint mortgage with my husband from 1989 until 2006 when we divorced. It had PPI protection on it that was paid by DD from my account (not a joint acc with my husband) and was only a small amount (£8 per month). It was not necessarily mis-sold and did suit our circumstances at the time. When we divorced, I took on the house and remortgaged on a new application in my sole name with the same lender (Britannia B/Soc).

 

A couple of years after, I noticed that they were still taking the PPI out of my account and I had not asked for PPI as my income is protected elsewhere so I didn't bother with my new mortgage. I called them at the time to query and cancel and the gent I spoke to actually thought the PPI was for the old joint mortgage that no longer existed. He was going to clarify this and come back to me but he never did and I let the matter lapse as I didn't chase it up.

 

When reviewing my finances again this year, I noticed that they were still taking it and rang them again. My query was that if they were insuring a mortgage account that no longer existed, there was no insurance 'risk' to underwrite and I should get my money back. Even if not to 2006, at least from the point that I wanted to cancel it two years ago when it was first queried?

 

I have now had a letter in reply to this and it is a standard letter saying that I was not mis-sold the policy (I never claimed that I was!) and that no refund is due. I rang them as a result of the letter and whilst they accepted that they had misundertood my query, they state that as I didn't cancel the policy myself and also, let it be taken for 5 years from my account, I was also responsible and no refund was due.

 

My question on here is, if there was no risk to them, i.e. the protected mortgage account was closed 5 years ago and I could never have claimed on the PPI, do they have the right to keep my money? £8 a month over 5 years adds up to a lot!

 

Would appreciate some advice on whether it's worth pursuing this or not.

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

load of cobbrers

 

get reclaiming

 

do an soc and the fos customer questionaire

and fire it off at them

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi.html

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...