Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Draft letter…. Please find attached response from Mercedes Croydon, along with pictures showing the root cause as water ingress over time. These pictures and the report indicate that the problem is pre-existing. Therefore, I expect Doves to take responsibility for the costs incurred, as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015 “should a fault appear outside of 6 months, it's for the consumer to prove the fault was present at time of sale”  I called Doves seeking advice regarding the Mercedes I purchased on the 29th September 2023. On the 12th May 2024, the car lost contact with the keys, so I followed the warranty process and called the AA using my RAMP reference number. The AA attended but couldn't resolve the issue and diagnosed it as an electrical fault. Consequently, the car was recovered to Mercedes on the 16th of May. I chose Mercedes for their expertise and specialized diagnostic software that many garages wouldn’t have, hoping for a swift resolution. After many days at Mercedes in Croydon, the fault was identified as water ingress from the front windscreen, which turns out, is not original. The windscreen has a date stamp of 2019, even though the car was registered in 2018. Therefore this clearly occurred some 3 years before I purchased the car and has been slowly deteriorating since the incorrect workmanship of the windscreen. This will also explain why the front trim around the window showed signs of damage when I purchased the car. I had asked for the trim to be replaced due to its noticeable damage, but Jack informed me that it would be too costly, so we negotiated this into the sale price. It seems this damage was caused by the windscreen being replaced.  The car is now ready to be collected as works are complete and I expect the costs to be covered between yourself and would appreciate a swift response to resolve this.
    • Hello folks  Got a letter from overdales the day after I submitted my defence this contains a copy of credit card agreement and a letter stating the account has been sold to lowell. H
    • Seen a number of videos online of interviews with people in town centres around the UK. Those that say they will vote Reform can accurately be described as 'Gammon Faced'. So frustrated with life in 2024 and yearning to switch the clock back many decades, they don't really care about the policies of Reform. What appears to appeal to them about Reform is an old fashioned nostalgic outlook, of trying to get the country back to how it was a very long time ago. Yes much of this is about immigration, but it is also about many other issues such as Equalities legislation, Human Rights etc, which they believe have gone too far. For the above reasons, I don't think many who are looking to vote Reform, will switch their votes back to other parties they have voted for before. From what I have seen in polling, 70% were previously Tory and about 30% Labour. The Tories under Sunak can no longer appeal to those who now back Reform. For example, I doubt any Tory Government would support leaving ECHR, because that would most likely be opposed by the majority in the UK. And many Tory MP's would not support leaving ECHR and the House of Lords would block anyway ignoring any conventions to give way to The Commons. A combination of Brexit, Reform lead by Farage and the average age of this voter demographic is quite likely to lead to the extinction of The Conservative party. What may happen after this election is that the right of politics splits into new groups. Some Tory MP's are likely to jump ship and join Reform. And others will try to relaunch the Conservative brand as a centre right modern party. This could possibly lead to the Lib Dems becoming main opposition party at some point. The outcome of this election could well significantly change UK politics forever. And it is not just about the future of the Tories, Labour with a huge majority may find it difficult to keep some on the left happy with Government progress on tackling some issues. So we may see a fracture within Labour support and new parties formed.  
    • Desperation. They must think people have forgotten what Johnson was like as PM. Tories turn to Boris to combat Farage threat WWW.TELEGRAPH.CO.UK Former PM signs letters to wavering voters amid warning Labour could be in power for a generation if support goes to Reform  
    • I hope Labour keeps its word about investigating these contracts. Boss of US firm given £4bn in UK Covid contracts accused of squandering millions on jets and properties | Coronavirus | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Exclusive: Rishi Sunak’s team helped fast-track deal with firm founded by Charles Huang, who says contracts generated $2bn profit  
  • 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

Parking Charge Notice (Parking Eye) should I pay?


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

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I am seeing advice on whether to pay a Parking Charge Notice issued to me by Parking Eye given my particular circumstances.

 

I parked in a private car park operated by this company, bought a ticket for 1hr, but have since been provided evidence that I was in the car park for 1hr 31 minutes, and issued notice of a £60 fine.

 

I have viewed other threads on this forum, as well as on google / moneysavingexpert, and it seems the general advice is to not pay, as the 'contract' is between the private landlord and driver, yet the notice is issued to the vehicle's owner who was not necessarily driving the vehicle that day. Unfortunately I did not know this at the time of my initial response where I confirmed I was driving the vehicle at the time.

 

I am wondering if my admission strengthens their case, meaning it is more likely they will pursue if I choose not pay?

 

Any feedback / advice will be very gratefully received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore totally

 

do som reading in

this forum

 

use the search top right for

parking eye

 

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

The case is more to do with the fact that the charge being levied represents an unfair penalty which is unenforceable in law. The charge represents an amount far greater than the loss that the landowner could possibly have suffered as a consequence of your breaching the terms for parking and cannot therefore be justified in court. If parking was free, then the landowner will have suffered no loss by you overstaying - if there is a charge of £1 per hour and you stayed for 1.5 hours having only paid £1 then the maximum loss to the landowner is 50p - £60 therefore represents an amount designed to penalise the driver for the breach and this is not enforceable.

 

Admission of an overstay is an irrelevance!

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...