Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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 Eye help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4259 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

Hey, just looking for some advice really.

Ive read through all the other posts to do with parking eye notices and as some of them have said the legislations changed on october 1st.

 

I recieved a notice from parking eye today saying i have to pay them £80 as i stayed an hour over in a car park, (that you don't need a ticket for).

 

The reason behind this is that i've just started working in one of the retail units recently and none of my shifts are 2 & 1/2 hours or less (the allowed time).

 

Now other people that I work with park in the same car park (without a permit sticker as far as i know) and have not said anything about parking issues.

 

Should I ignore the notice i received completely, or appeal to them and mention something to work?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

its actually not changed

 

just a wee bit of spoofing by those that wish to frighten people

 

ignore them

 

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

its actually not changed

 

just a wee bit of spoofing by those that wish to frighten people

 

ignore them

 

dx

 

 

RK is now liable. Granted, they would still have to prove the charge is not a penalty and so on but no longer any need to prove contract with driver so should be a walk in the park in court (in the absence of a good defence).

Link to post
Share on other sites

RK is now liable. Granted, they would still have to prove the charge is not a penalty and so on but no longer any need to prove contract with driver so should be a walk in the park in court (in the absence of a good defence).

Not at all sure what this means.

 

*************************************************

 

Read all the material we have about Parking Eye - especially the latest case which is up on the CAGMag.

 

I would very much like to see all the correspondence you receive from them because the High Court has said that much of their communication was not honest and was deceitful.

 

It would be very interesting to see what they are using now.

 

If you could scan it to us at our admin email address, it would be very helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all sure what this means.

 

*************************************************

 

Sorry, I assumed you knew. It's Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 makes the RK liable for a "relevant charge" (includes contract charge or damages for trespass or tort as defined in the schedule) if they can't identify the driver and serve a relevant notice on the keeper. After 28 days the keeper then becomes legally liable for the charge specified in the notice.

 

As such, they no longer have to prove who the driver was (so in the past, if you were RK and got the letter and weren't driving, you could say nothing). Now the risk they have the wrong person is no longer there, so can pursue the RK regardless. They still have to justify the charge or damages, I would imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry it didn't click that RK means registered keeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...