Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Again, don't worry, the defence is really only intended to stop the other side winning by default.  The "meat" of your case is the Witness Statement. We'll have a good read through what you have prepared today and suggest some tweaks. We need to see what UKPC have put in their WS.
    • Anyone had a bad experience of Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL), Greenwich?  I'm considering taking a complaint to our Greenwich MP, to dig into CEL's unlawful and unethical practices.  CEL is making an incredible amount of money scamming motorists with huge, dis-proportionate fines in many cases - looking for any discrepancy and then attempting to bamboozle motorists with legal fear-mongering. I've just won a POPLA appeal after a few months contesting a private land penalty charge notice (PCN) from Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL).  I used the private car park at 237-259 Greenwich High Road, SE10 8NB several months ago - correctly paying for my full stay.  To my annoyance I received a £100 fine a month later from CEL - and only after my querying and sharing my receipts, CEL stated that the fine was because it had taken me slightly longer than 10 mins to acquire a ticket (their small-print terms on the car park sign states the cut off is 10 mins of entry).  CEL immediately rejected my appeal (that the busy/crowded car park caused delays in securing a parking spot, making it impossible to meet the allotted 10 min cut off).  However, I escalated to a POPLA (the independent appeals service for PCNs issued on private land) - who were incredible.  POPLA truly listened to the facts unbiased and collected fair and appropriate evidence, before throwing out the PCN.  It's been a mild annoyance over the past months - but at least I'm vindicated. With the number of terrible reviews of CEL online (*link below), I'm surprised they've been allowed to continue operating at that location (I'm not sure of their practices elsewhere, so cannot comment there).  If anything comes out of this, I urge anyone receiving private land PCNs from CEL, to closely look at the contravention.  If you've genuinely paid and it's not your fault, I'd urge you to appeal to POPLA.  FIVE TIPS IF MAKING A POPLA APPEAL: 1.  Read the instructions and paperwork carefully, and follow POPLA's guidance - 2.  Be clear, concise, but brief in your responses - 3.  Make sure to address every itemised argument that CEL makes (failure to address specific points may work against you) - 4.  Don't be put off by the number of case laws, rules and codes that CEL will cite and throw at you (these are designed to overwhelm and distract - remember that motorists have protections too) - 5.  Familiarise yourself with the relevant section/s of the 'British Parking Association (BPA) Guidelines' if you can. *https://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/carpark/greenwich_high_road/se10/london/?arriving=202405221830&leaving=202405222030
    • own thread created for this debt. is the address for the date of takeout correct on the paploc reply return agreement copy the rest is std rubble all dca's return with no DN i see. dx
    • Here's the defence - this was submitted before finding this site.  Worried that it is too different from the witness statement in terms of grounds.  will it be OK? Parking appeal UK CAR PARKS defense redacted.pdf
    • Normally Preliminary Hearings or as they were called Case Management Hearings are usually to set directions after allocation if from the particulars of claim or defence are unclear that it requires a hearing for the judge to determine and set directions for the claim to proceed.(N157) So he may direct what is to be disclosed for trial or whether the claimant must further validate their claim....it wont be a he said she said hearing of who did what.   Andy  
  • 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

Carcraft criticised by OFT


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4635 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

Used car seller Carcraft, which has 11 car supermarkets in England and Wales, has been criticised by a regulator for its pre- and post-sales service.

 

Some customers complained that their vehicles suffered significant problems shortly after they bought them from Carcraft.

 

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) found that the advertised 120-point pre-sale inspection was not always completed.

 

The company has promised to change its business practices.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15655665

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read - two things spring to mind

 

1. Despite their "concerns" it appears that no financial penalty has been put in place

 

2. No dealer is under any obligation to ensure that a car is taxed before it leaves a forecourt - that is a civil taxation matter between the state and the owner, naff all to do with the dealer - christ, what use are these goverment bodies if they can't get the basics right!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...