Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You typed it in? actually typed it all out? if so, maybe you took too long or something, like session timed out. Does the status show defence filed or no change?
    • Hi just typed all defence clicked next and it's deleted all. Any help
    • I forgot to say, there is one last possibility and that is that they will receive your letter of rejection and simply fold, accept the rejection and refund you. Don't wait too long for this. Seven days maximum – but in that seven days you could send your letter of claim anyway and when that you don't hear from them or when they start mucking around at least you are seven days closer to beginning the legal action – and they will know it (which is the important thing).
    • Okay that is excellent that you have an email between the garage and the warranty company confirming that there is a serious problem with the gearbox. That is very powerful evidence. I think the situation is this: you have sent them a letter of rejection but the reputation of big motoring world is that they won't take a lot of notice and they will try to prevaricate and maybe even blame you. Clearly you don't want the car any more and anyway it sounds as if the cost of repairs is going to be enormous. You don't know if the warranty company is going to step up to the mark but the whole thing is going to take a long time and I understand that you have lost confidence in big motoring world because of this event and also their reputation which you are now discovering on Facebook and on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. On the basis that you don't want the car any more and you want your money back, you need to hurry things along. I think the first thing is that you need to decide if you are prepared to bring a claim in the County Court. Even without the warranty money, the claim is worth more than £10,000. For actions less than £10,000, you bring a "small claim" and this means that even if you lose the case you won't be liable for the other side's costs. If you win the case then not only will you get your money plus interest but also you will recover all of the costs of the action. For actions more than £10,000, you go to something called the "fast track" and in the event that you lose the case, then you could be liable to reimburse the winner some of the costs. This means that in addition to not recovering your own money, you would lose your own court fees and also you would have to to bear the costs of the other side probably something less than £5000 – but as a rough guess. If you bring your court claim then your chances of success are almost 100%. Frankly if you brought a court claim then I can imagine that big motoring world will put their hands up and pay you out rather than face go to court and losing and getting a judgement against them. However, it you need to consider that this is a risk factor – although my view it is a negligible risk factor. If you did bring a court case, it wouldn't be instant. If they put their hands up then it would probably happen very quickly. If they didn't put their hands up then you could take anything up to a year for the matter to be resolved and during that time you would be without your car and without your money and in the middle of litigation. I'm explaining this to you say that you understand how it works. Bring a court case would be really the last resort when everything else has failed. However, I'm quite certain that you would win and it would be stupid of big motoring world to try to resist. In order to bring a court case you would have to send a letter of claim giving them 14 days to accept rejection and organise the refund otherwise you would begin the claim. Don't imagine that you could bluff this. If you did send a letter of claim then you would have to go through with it otherwise you lose all credibility and you might as well pack up and go home. So with this in mind, here are possible courses of action you could take. You can simply wait and see what their reaction to your letter of rejection will be. However they may not reply or else they may find some other reason to delay and of course during that time you will be without your car and without your money blah blah blah, not knowing if big motoring world were going eventually to start acting sensibly and respectfully towards you. The second thing you can do – and I think this has been suggested on Facebook – is that you can go along there and simply make yourself present and talk to other customers and generally speaking make a nuisance of yourself and embarrass them to the point where you would be explaining to other potential customers to be careful, to look on Facebook, and to do some careful research before they put their business to big motoring world. This has a reasonable chance of success although you would have to be careful. You should go accompanied by a friend and there should be no anger, no arguments, nothing that could be considered as being overly aggressive so that big motoring world would have no justification in kicking you out or even worse, calling the police. If you did this, then I would suggest that you record everything on the telephone carried in a pocket. A fully charged battery will probably keep a voice recorder and a telephone going for more than 20 hours or 30 hours. The other person can video any incidents so that everything is clear and you can inform big motoring world then it will be going up on the Internet. If you did this, my favourite option would be to issue the letter of claim giving them 14 days, and then going along to big motoring world with a copy of your letter of rejection and a copy of the exchange between the mechanic and the warranty company and a copy of your letter of claim – all settled together – and probably about 20 or 30 copies in all and I would start handing them out to any customers who came in. Big motoring world will soon get the picture and they will either move your the premises in which case you stand outside and carry on doing it or they will finally give in. Of course there is a chance that they won't give in and they will simply call your bluff – but in that case I think you have no choice other than to follow through with your 14 day threat in the letter of claim and to begin the legal action. At the same time you should be putting up reviews on Google and also trust pilot explaining exactly what has happened and also explaining that the mechanic has confirmed to the warranty company that there is the serious problem, that you have asserted the right to reject and that this is been ignored by big motoring world and that you have now sent a letter of claim and that you will be starting a legal action in 14 days. Once again, don't bluff about the legal action. If you threaten it – then you must mean it – and on day 15 you click of the claim. You don't need a solicitor for any of this. It's all fairly straightforward and of course we will help you all the way that it the decision is yours to make and I think you need to make it fairly quickly. I think the cost of starting an action for about £13,000 is 5% and then also if it goes to trial which I would say is almost impossible – there would be an additional fee. You would claim interest at 8%. A judge might award a lower figure but frankly if you can show that big motoring world is attempting to ride roughshod over your very clear statutory consumer rights, I can imagine that the judge will want to show displeasure by awarding the full 8% which is a pretty good rate – even though it's not compensation for the hassle and the distress you are going through. If you decide to get solicitor, then if you win the case, because it is over £10,000 you will recover some of your costs but you won't recover all of them. If the solicitor begins by having exchanges of letters then I doubt whether you will be up to recover the cost of those and you could easily find that you're chalking up 500 quid or even a thousand simply on initial exchanges of correspondence. Also you need to bear in mind that if after having exchanges with a solicitor, big motoring world cave in – then you definitely won't get those costs back because you won't have gone to court and therefore a judge will not have made the order for payment of those costs. I suggest very strongly that you avoid paying any money for a solicitor and that you do it yourself. It's not a big deal – although you will have to you react quickly to the help we offer on this forum. Also, an additional benefit is that you will learn a lot and you will gain confidence and eventually you will feel good about suing anybody else who gets in your way. Nothing not to like! If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must take control of the solicitor. Most of them prefer to sit in an office writing letters on the clock. If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must instruct the solicitor very firmly that they should send one letter of complaint giving seven days. A second letter – a letter of claim giving 14 days and that they must then begin the action. If you don't do this. If you don't take control then it will simply cost you money, you will be without your car even longer and of course without your money. The whole thing is a nightmare. I think I've laid out the options but please do ask questions. I hope you can see that this is the kind of advice that you won't be getting on Facebook. Nothing against Facebook. It's good as a meeting place and to make people realise that they aren't on their own – but after that the advice given is weak and confusing.  
    • What makes you say that?  I have no idea how I would go about that or why they would even entertain discussions now that they've won the Court case
  • 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

Does Blue Badge Scheme Apply on Private Land?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4168 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

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38349[/ATTACH]I am currently on crutches following a broken leg. My wife took me out to the cinema, & parked in a disabled bay, which is on private land. We checked the parking sign, & there was no stipulaton that a blue badge must be displayed. The only stipulation was that vehicles could be immobilised if "improperly parked in a designated disabled parking bay". See attached photo we took of the parking sign.

 

We asked members of staff at the cinema complex if it was ok to park there, & no one seemed to know. When we returned to the vehicle, it had been clamped. We called the clampers & were told that we should have displayed a blue badge, & that it is why we were clamped. They were very rude to my wife, & demanded the £125 (in cash - the debit card machine was allegedly out of action), or the vehicle would remain clamped.

 

We ended up paying the fine, if only to get home that night. We appealed, but received a standard letter from the clampers, saying that a blue badge must be displayed.

 

I called CAB, & they admitted that it was a grey area, & it was up to me whether I pursue it.

 

Any thoughts? If the painting of a yellow disabled sign on the ground automatically means that a blue badge must be displayed to park there, then fair enough. We were in the wrong. However, I cannot find anything to suggest that this is the case. I hope someone can help, & tell me if I am wasting time & money challenging this. Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't anything to do with the Blue Badge scheme. As you say, the Blue Badge scheme covers on-street parking spaces.

 

This is a private parking scheme, which happens to insist on displaying a Blue Badge in order to use their disabled spaces. Not as part of the Blue Badge scheme, just as part of their own rules.

 

I think you are morally right to expect a refund. Whether you can get one is another matter. Someone might know how you can go about it.

 

Incidentally, you would not be issued a Blue Badge for a broken leg - you would have to have a permanent condition, so I don't think you would meet the criteria anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@snowy. I didn't reduce the clamping receipt. This seems to happen upon uploading, & I cannot increase the size; sorry.

 

The receipt basically gives the reason for immobilisation of our vehicle as "No blue badge display" ( I think they meant to write "displayed"). The image at the start of my post is the photograph of the parking restrictions - no mention of a blue badge!

 

Any thoughts..?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dx100 – Instructions on uploading pdfs

 

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets

as a picture file

remove all pers info inc barcodes etc using paint

but leave all figures and dates.

go to one of the many free online pdf converter websites

convert the image to pdf format.

or ir you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

NB:you can set where it goes in the post by hitting insert inline.

the hit reply button

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi folks. By way of an update, I issued a claim in the Small Claims Court, & a defence has been filed by the clamping company.

 

They state the following in their defence: "The claimant was parked in a designated disabled parking bay at the entertainment complex without displaying a blue badge. Upon entering the complex the claimant was abiding by our terms & conditions of parking. There are over 50 signs situated throughout the complex stating our terms & conditions of parking.

 

Whilst we appreciate the claimant was experiencing temporary mobility issues, the disabled bays are to be used strictly for blue badge holders only...the claimaint had parked in a disabled bay without a Blue Badge therefore resulting in his vehicle being immobilized as stated on our signs situated throughout the complex".

 

My point is that the signs do not stipulate that a blue badge must be displayed. It states that vehicles will be immobilised "if improperly parked in a designated disabled parking bay." There is no mention of a blue badge, & I thought that the blue badge scheme did not apply on private land anyway. Also, when my wife called to to discuss this with the clamping company, they stated over the telephone that the signs clearly state that a blue badge must be displayed. This is incorrect, as can be seen from the image earlier in this thread. When my wife challenged this, they hung up on her.

 

I have to respond by 16th November, but would appreciate any thoughts or comments before I do.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks. By way of an update, I issued a claim in the Small Claims Court, & a defence has been filed by the clamping company.

 

They state the following in their defence: "The claimant was parked in a designated disabled parking bay at the entertainment complex without displaying a blue badge. Upon entering the complex the claimant was abiding by our terms & conditions of parking. There are over 50 signs situated throughout the complex stating our terms & conditions of parking.

 

Whilst we appreciate the claimant was experiencing temporary mobility issues, the disabled bays are to be used strictly for blue badge holders only...the claimaint had parked in a disabled bay without a Blue Badge therefore resulting in his vehicle being immobilized as stated on our signs situated throughout the complex".

 

My point is that the signs do not stipulate that a blue badge must be displayed. It states that vehicles will be immobilised "if improperly parked in a designated disabled parking bay." There is no mention of a blue badge, & I thought that the blue badge scheme did not apply on private land anyway. Also, when my wife called to to discuss this with the clamping company, they stated over the telephone that the signs clearly state that a blue badge must be displayed. This is incorrect, as can be seen from the image earlier in this thread. When my wife challenged this, they hung up on her.

 

I have to respond by 16th November, but would appreciate any thoughts or comments before I do.

 

Thanks in advance.

They cannot make you display a BB on private land as there is no law that states it should be displayed on private land. More importantly there is no such thing as a disabled bay on private land as any lines yellow, white or pink are meaningless. They haven't a hope in hell of winning and are bluffing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my point; thanks!

They cannot make you display a BB on private land as there is no law that states it should be displayed on private land. More importantly there is no such thing as a disabled bay on private land as any lines yellow, white or pink are meaningless. They haven't a hope in hell of winning and are bluffing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So their defence says they clamped through contract and not through trespass ! Note that they have no statutory authority whatsoever to enforce Blue Badge parking so they rely on contract. Fundamental error isn't it ? Don't forget these aspects of contact law, 1) contract terms must not be unfair, especially when a consumer deals with a company. 2) contract terms must not be punitive; in the event of a breach of contract the innocent party can only recover in damages what he has lost as a result of the breach. The contract may include an estimate of the damage that would be caused by a breach but the law will not uphold a “penalty clause”. see http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/clamping%20-%20elliott%20-%20090709%20-%20report.pdf from which I have quoted.

Edited by lamma
Link to post
Share on other sites

So their defence says they clamped through contract and not through trespass ! Note that they have no statutory authority whatsoever to enforce Blue Badge parking so they rely on contract. Fundamental error isn't it ? Don't forget these aspects of contact law, 1) contract terms must not be unfair, especially when a consumer deals with a company. 2) contract terms must not be punitive; in the event of a breach of contract the innocent party can only recover in damages what he has lost as a result of the breach. The contract may include an estimate of the damage that would be caused by a breach but the law will not uphold a “penalty clause”. see http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/clamping%20-%20elliott%20-%20090709%20-%20report.pdf from which I have quoted.

Plus blackmail as you cannot get your vehicle until you pay some silly fee and perhaps even imprisonment as unable to leave due to fact that the OP was on crutches and it was night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sign is very clear in what it says and - assuming that additional signs do not provide guidance that only blue badge holders may use a disabled bay or that detail has not been cropped from the photograph - then the OP could present a sound argument for his use of the space as being reasonable at the time.

 

A comment about the blue badge scheme is warranted however. The blue badge scheme has no statutory weight in private car parks. However, it is perfectly possible (though perhaps not advisable for the reasons set out in the Equality Act) for a landowner to establish a condition that anyone using a disabled space in his car park must be a blue badge holder and, furthermore, must display that badge if they are to use such a space. Simply establishing "blue badge" spaces - as many supermarkets/retail parks have done (courtesy of their PPC contractors) without a more explicit statement does not, in my opinion, establish a condition and could be argued to be deceptive in its effect and, quite possibly, its intention.

 

The clampers seem to have made a pig's ear of establishing their case based on what the OP has posted. Normally, clampers rely on the principle of volenti non fit injuria - (to a willing person, injury is not done) but that does not appear to be what this outfit are doing - though it would be useful to read their entire defence (scrubbed of personal/event details) to be sure. That being said one suspects that a judge in a small claims setting is likely to take a pragmatic view and whether the clampers explicitly seek to rely on volenti or not, I believe that is the principle that is most likely to be applied.

 

Have a good look at the case of Arthur v Anker and that of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest (which expanded upon the earlier Arthur decision) which will explain the tests that need to be applied. The overriding principle is that warning signs must be clear as to their purpose and obvious in terms of number and position. In addition, not only must the signs have been seen but they must have been understood and, by implication, have been capable of being understood.

 

A sign that says "Vehicles Parked Without Authority Will be Clamped" is as clear as you could want. These signs, however, are not clear and appear to add no requirement that a blue badge be displayed as the clampers assert in their defence. As a consequence their content is open to interpretation. The OP was disabled - albeit - temporarily.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore consider for illustrative purposes the instances where a person who is qualified as disabled at the point of diagnosis (e.g. MS) but who does not have a blue badge. The Equality Act applies and should be used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you again for the responses.

 

My wife & I visited the site again on Sunday. Guess what? The original signs have been replaced! The new sign now clearly states the conditions of parking. Vehicles will be issued with a Parking Charge Notice (as opposed to previously being immobilised) "if parked in a designated parking space between 2 white lines, if parked in a disabled bay without displaying a valid blue badge".

 

When we visited the complex originally the old signs stated "if improperly patked in a designated disabled parking bay". If they had stated that a blue badge had to be displayed when the incident took place, we would not have parked there. The new signs are no longer ambiguous.

 

Do you think that we should mention this in our response to the clamping company's defence to our claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you again for the responses.

Vehicles will be issued with a Parking Charge Notice (as opposed to previously being immobilised) "if parked in a designated parking space between 2 white lines, if parked in a disabled bay without displaying a valid blue badge".

There is no law compelling you to display a Blue badge when on private land. Take the advice already given and ignore their pleading letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thinks it all depends on whether they charge or not for blue badge holders.

As the blue badge scheme is not any legal authority for ppcs, surely it is discrimination by them to even insist on a blue badge. For example, take a shopping centre car park such as asda, tesco, etc. take 2 employees of that firm who work on the tills, both doing the same job, one is disabled and the other is not. They both have to be paid the same based on equal qualifications and experience and skills etc, in other words the employer cannot discriminate against either of them based on their disability and pay one less than the other. So they both earning approx the same salary, yet one can display a blue badge and not pay to park his/her car in the parking area everyday, yet the other has to pay for parking every day, thus rendering the non disabled person for instance £150 per month worse off. This is clearly a financial discrimination and as the plc are appointed or are agents of the employer, then both are responsible for this discrimination. How can a ppc justify that one person has to pay and the other not?Or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thinks it all depends on whether they charge or not for blue badge holders.

As the blue badge scheme is not any legal authority for ppcs, surely it is discrimination by them to even insist on a blue badge. For example, take a shopping centre car park such as asda, tesco, etc. take 2 employees of that firm who work on the tills, both doing the same job, one is disabled and the other is not. They both have to be paid the same based on equal qualifications and experience and skills etc, in other words the employer cannot discriminate against either of them based on their disability and pay one less than the other. So they both earning approx the same salary, yet one can display a blue badge and not pay to park his/her car in the parking area everyday, yet the other has to pay for parking every day, thus rendering the non disabled person for instance £150 per month worse off. This is clearly a financial discrimination and as the plc are appointed or are agents of the employer, then both are responsible for this discrimination. How can a ppc justify that one person has to pay and the other not?Or not?

 

In case you don't understand, neither is under any obligation to pay a PPC anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you don't understand, neither is under any obligation to pay a PPC anything.

 

I know that fully well thanks. Got many of their fraudulent and fake invoices. Just another hurdle for them I believe as far as blue badges go. What gives them the right to discriminate against non-disabled drivers financially - NOTHING! Nothing in statute that allows them, and even if there was I believe would breach HRA and ECHR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that fully well thanks. Got many of their fraudulent and fake invoices. Just another hurdle for them I believe as far as blue badges go. What gives them the right to discriminate against non-disabled drivers financially - NOTHING! Nothing in statute that allows them, and even if there was I believe would breach HRA and ECHR.

Are you advocating that a person with a BB should pay the same as a person without a BB?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Are you advocating that a person with a BB should pay the same as a person without a BB?

Thanks all for your help and advice. Just to let you know, the defence struck out and I WON!!! Got my reimbursement cheque from them last week

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...