Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.  
    • Hi DX, Sorry, fell asleep as I was up all night last night writing that statement. Yes, I attached the rest of the witness statement on post 50, bottom of webpage 2. That's the important part.  It looks like the lawyer who wrote Erudio's Witness statement does not work for them any more. So, I'll have another lawyer representing instead. Not sure if I can use Andy's hearsay argument verbally if that happens.... I did not put it in writing. Apart from not sending deferral forms, my main argument is that in 2014 Erudio fixed some arrears mistake that SLC made and then in 2018 they did the same mistake, sent me confusing letters. What is the legal defence when they send you confusing material?
    • Chinese firm MineOne Partners has been ordered to sell land it owns near a US nuclear missile site.View the full article
    • That isn’t actually what the Theft Act 1968 S1 actually says, BTW. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;   The difference between what you’ve said and the Act? a) intent to permanently deprive rather than  just depriving (which is why the offence of “taking without consent” was brought in for motor vehicles, as otherwise "joyriders" could say "but I intended to give it back at the end") b) dishonesty : If I honestly believed A's pen belonged to B, and took it and gave it to B - B might be found guilty of theft but I shouldn't be. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4505 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

my son who is 17 in march has received a letter from rlp demanding £179.00 for costs for staff ect ect, for a incident that happen in a tk max store he tried to pay for a t-shirt at a lower price. He is in full time education and has no income apart from the £10.00 per week pocket money i give him. When the incident took place i punished him by not allowing him pocket money for 4 weeks. when he received the letter he panicked and phone the number on the letter and explained to the person he has no income apart from what i give him. They have said he can pay £10.00 per month. He has never been in trouble before and understands what he did was wrong, but i just need some advice as to what i should do now.

many thanks

Edited by felix244
Link to post
Share on other sites

my son who is 17 in march has received a letter from rlp demanding £179.00 for costs for staff ect ect, for a incident that happen in a tk max store he tried to pay for a t-shirt at a lower price. He is in full time education and has no income apart from the £10.00 per week pocket money i give him. When the incident took place i punished him by not allowing him pocket money for 4 weeks. when he received the letter he panicked and phone the number on the letter and explained to the person he has no income apart from what i give him. They have said he can pay £10.00 per month. He has never been in trouble before and understands what he did was wrong, but i just need some advice as to what i should do now.

many thanks

 

 

he received Letter in march ?? how many of them so far? and did he started paying them? the general advice on here is not to pay, i m in similar situation but am an adult (feels shameful) but i m trying to convince myself that we do silly mistakes at times and i did one of them. why did he contacted the company and is he paying them? ur reply wud be helpful to all those in the similar siatuation. thnx in anticipation

Link to post
Share on other sites

what i meant was My son who will be 17 years old in march, we have only received one letter so far, he contacted them in a state of panic, because he was scarred and concerned about the amount they are asking for, i am sorry for any confusion caused

Edited by felix244
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't phone them

 

Don't panick

 

They have no authority & won't take any action

 

Their letter is a speculative invoice & does not require payment, although they would like you to & will encourage you to pay ...

 

Wait for their next letter then send the single line letter "I deny any liability to you or your client" without any further explanation so that they can't say that you haven't replied. Send 2nd class with a certificate of posting - that is sufficient - and hopefully shows what you think of them & their tactics.

 

Any action would have to be taken by the shop, not RLP. The shop won't take any action because they didn't suffer any actual loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just send a single denial and state no further correspondence will e entered into. A quick search on here will show umpteen people in same position, its well known RLP havnt successfully pursued anyone through the courts.

 

Google for the CAB RLP report..very interesting reading.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add the to the advice from 2Grumpy, well worth reading the CAB report on RLP, you will probably notice the lack of breakdown on the invoice.

 

Here's a link to the forum 'sticky'.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?237416-Civil-Recovery-the-CAB-report

 

Hello there. The guys know what they're doing, have a read of the CAB report and steel yourself for letters and posturing from the RLP people, but no action. They don't 'do' court despite what they might tell you later on in their scary letters.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My son is 17 and we received a similar letter, he stole and sandwich from Asda....My initial reaction was to panic and actually feel grateful that the police were not going to be involved and he wouldn't have a criminal record. Then I thought, hold on, thats a bit much, demanding all that money for a sandwich and decided to do some investigating. I came across this site and realised that these threatening letters were just a quick way of them making money from people who find themselves in a vulnerable position.

We ignored the first letter for a while and responded to the second one by denying the charges and asking them to produced their evidence for our solicitor to examine....we never heard from them again. Just keep your nerve and don't be bullied by these people

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically we just kept it short and to the point. We wrote that we had received letter etc and we deny the event took place, we would not be engaging in any more correspondence with them, but if they would like to produce their evidence to support the allegation we would pass it to our solicitor to examine.

 

I suppose by answering them and putting the ball back in their court, stopped the letters coming quicker than just ignoring them, but either way, they are not going to do anything, it's just one big bluff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...