Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
    • The music streaming service reports record profits of over €1bn (£860m) after laying off 1500 staff.View the full article
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
  • 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

Tigerlilly -v- NatWest


tigerlilly24
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6390 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

Ok, I have prepared my LBA (in anticipation of my first 'sod off' letter). I'd like to put the following paragraph at the end of the letter and would just like a second opinion as to whether it would be ok to include it:-

 

Should I not hear from you within the next 14 days, I shall not hesitate to bring to the attention of the Courts, once proceedings commence, that you have failed to enter dialogue and have failed to acknowledge, or respond to, my letters.

J

NatWest

 

Statements sent for - 18/09/06

Statements received (in full!) - 03/10/06

Initial letter of claim sent - 05/10/06

Offer received for £1,400 approx - 21/10/06

LBA sent with acceptance of offer as part, will pursue for the rest - 21/10/06

Reply to LBA received (forwarding to Cust. Rel to deal with) - 25/10/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, first time limit has lapsed ! 14 days has passed since we sent off our initial letter and we've heard nothing ! In some ways I am surprised, but on the other hand I guess they have so many claims to deal with they can't respond on time (which is good for us !). I've been wondering all week (been on holiday) whether Mr Postman has dropped a letter from NW through our letterbox but, alas, nothing ! No bills either which is always a bonus ! hahah

 

So ...

Tomorrow i'll send the LBA. I have half prepared it, just need to make some minor adjustments and off it will go, recorded delivery, first thing tomorrow and the clock starts ticking again ! I'm pretty sure that my schedule is ok but I may pop on later with a couple of questions (if and when I think of any !).

 

Off now to catch up on the last 5 days worth of posts ! Think i'll be here all night .......

 

J

NatWest

 

Statements sent for - 18/09/06

Statements received (in full!) - 03/10/06

Initial letter of claim sent - 05/10/06

Offer received for £1,400 approx - 21/10/06

LBA sent with acceptance of offer as part, will pursue for the rest - 21/10/06

Reply to LBA received (forwarding to Cust. Rel to deal with) - 25/10/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, fraid not dantracey.

NatWest

 

Statements sent for - 18/09/06

Statements received (in full!) - 03/10/06

Initial letter of claim sent - 05/10/06

Offer received for £1,400 approx - 21/10/06

LBA sent with acceptance of offer as part, will pursue for the rest - 21/10/06

Reply to LBA received (forwarding to Cust. Rel to deal with) - 25/10/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well well ! It arrived this morning - the bog standard "we believe our charges are fair, transparent (as a wall !) etc etc but as a gesture of goodwill we will offer you approx 1/3 of what you are claiming ...blah blah blah ".

 

So, quick question ....

 

I now send off the LBA but include a paragraph at the front to the effect of .. "thanks for your offer, I will accept as part-payment and pursue you for the rest"?

 

Just want to get things right this time ! lol

NatWest

 

Statements sent for - 18/09/06

Statements received (in full!) - 03/10/06

Initial letter of claim sent - 05/10/06

Offer received for £1,400 approx - 21/10/06

LBA sent with acceptance of offer as part, will pursue for the rest - 21/10/06

Reply to LBA received (forwarding to Cust. Rel to deal with) - 25/10/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

LBA has gone off via recorded today.

 

I have now prepared (in anticipation of the next stage) my N1 form. Could someone possibly have a look at the following for me and check that it is ok? I'm pretty sure it is, but would still be very nice to have the nod from someone else.

 

  • The Claimant has the following account with the Defendant conducted on the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions:

(a) Account Number

(b) Sort Code

(“The Account”)

2. During the last 6 years the Defendant has debited numerous charges to The Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

3. Full details of each and every charge applied to The Account are already in the possession of the Defendant, from whom the Claimant obtained such information prior to this claim. However, details of all the charges, the amounts, dates debited and a description of each charge is attached to this Particulars of Claim. Also attached to this Particulars of Claim is copy correspondence between the Claimant and the Defendant.

4. The Claimant contends that:

(a) The charges;

(i) are punitive in nature;

(ii) are not a genuine pre-estimate of costs incurred by the Defendant; and

(iii) in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant, exceed alleged actual loss to the Defendant and are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit

(b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of:

(i) The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 particularly, but not limited to Regulations 5, 6 and 8 and Schedule 2, 1(e);

(ii) The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 particularly, but not limited to Sections 3 and 11 and Schedule 2; and

(iii) The Common Law relating to Liquidated Damages and Penalties in Contracts

5. To the extent that it is found that the Defendant’s charges are for the provision of banking services, the Claimant contends that the price thereof is unreasonable pursuant to Section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

6. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

(a) the return of the amounts debited to the Claimant’s Account in the sum of £;

(b) Court costs;

Interest at 8% per annum pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the charges debited to The Account in the sum of £ and continuing at the daily rate of £ pence until judgment or sooner payment

 

Have I missed anything or is there anything that needs taking out? Any views/opinions gratefully received !

 

J

NatWest

 

Statements sent for - 18/09/06

Statements received (in full!) - 03/10/06

Initial letter of claim sent - 05/10/06

Offer received for £1,400 approx - 21/10/06

LBA sent with acceptance of offer as part, will pursue for the rest - 21/10/06

Reply to LBA received (forwarding to Cust. Rel to deal with) - 25/10/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, have received a response to my LBA and i don't think it's a standard response ! Has anyone else had this:-

 

Dear ....

 

Further to my recent letter regarding charges, I am writing to update you as to the status of your concern.

 

Due to the nature of the issue, and to ensure the best possible resolution of this matter, I feel that it will be beneficial for your concern to be taken forward by our Customer Relations Unit - a specialist team dedicated to resolving more complex concerns.

 

Customer Relations Unit will contact you within 10 days, however, if you wish to contact them prior to this you can telephone on ....

 

I regret that I have been unable to resolve this matter for you.

 

Mark Chamberlain

Customer Care Team

 

Anyone else had any letters from Mr Chamberlain?

 

J

NatWest

 

Statements sent for - 18/09/06

Statements received (in full!) - 03/10/06

Initial letter of claim sent - 05/10/06

Offer received for £1,400 approx - 21/10/06

LBA sent with acceptance of offer as part, will pursue for the rest - 21/10/06

Reply to LBA received (forwarding to Cust. Rel to deal with) - 25/10/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like he's passing your issue over to Mr Higley, I'm sure he's part of the Customer Relations Unit.

IF MY COMMENTS HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Don't be like the banks - give a little back

 

 

:D NAT WEST - WON - £4282.36:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Ollie ? I've stuck to the same thread, haven't i ?? A bit confused now lol

NatWest

 

Statements sent for - 18/09/06

Statements received (in full!) - 03/10/06

Initial letter of claim sent - 05/10/06

Offer received for £1,400 approx - 21/10/06

LBA sent with acceptance of offer as part, will pursue for the rest - 21/10/06

Reply to LBA received (forwarding to Cust. Rel to deal with) - 25/10/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...