Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they are out of time with their NTK anyway ignore them now sad you didn't spot this in the 1st place! none of what you have done was ever necessary!!
    • So what does this latest pronouncement from Juncker mean- is it more game playing or are we truly stuffed with my deal or no deal?
    • please answer the following questions.   1 Date of the infringement- 21/06/19   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]- 12/07/19   3 Date received 15/07/19   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? N I can't see it   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes a ANPR Camera showing arrival and exit but separate parking machine in car park not at gates    6 Have you appealed? Y Post up your appeal] I am waiting for a copy of my appeal but I have other emails sent i can send  Have you had a response? Y. Email was never sent as they stated on 29th July. Finally got the notice of regection sent by email on 3rd Oct.    7 Who is the parking company? National Car Parks Limited owned by Park24.co   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] NCP, Terrace Road, Bournemouth    For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Not on the letter but found on line its BPA   There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, BPA please check HERE   If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here   in either case scan up bothsides of any letters/tickets in or appeals made out to ONE MULTIPAGE PDF ONL
    • Not much point in appealing. You paid for 4 hours and stayed for an extra 45 minutes. Goes to show what a bunch of crooks you are dealing with when you first appealed they delayed their response until you came liable for the higher charge and they wouldn't reduce that sum.   From now on just ignore everything you get from NCP  and their unregulated debt collectors (birds of a feather). They will try to frighten you with increased costs  that you can safely ignore.   In the  meantime please complete the questions asked by dx above and post up any PCNs so we can see if they got them right.   Also we need to see their signs in the car park especially the one at the entrance; any that are different from the others and the T and Cs on the ticket machine.   Before posting the PCNs please delete your name and reg. number plus anything else that might identify yourself.  
    • Don't forget ... the attorney general (Cox) who apparently advised 'misleading the Queen, Parliament and the British people as ' sounds good to me .. actually said they could ..   He doesn’t much like the idea of staying in the European customs union But said he would be willing to accept one if it would secure the goal of getting Britain out of the EU.    BUT He followed with “If we decided (meaningless distracting time suggestion) that we wanted to review our membership of any such customs union if we signed it – and I'm not saying we will – that's a matter for negotiation and discussion,”
  • Our picks

Fred Bear

Out of country; SLC demanding 'audited' accounts

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2529 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

My son got ripped off by the system some years ago. His college tutor advised him to redo year 2 of his course. So he took the advice, didn't complete the last few weeks of year 2, and intended to restart that year the following Sept (2007). However, the college converted into a university in the meantime and he was told during the Summer holidays that he couldn't retake year 2 as planned. He appealed and was told he could return at the end of the school year to retake only the bit he'd missed. The Student Loan Company (SLC) deemed that would amount to part-time education and so he would not be entitled to continue his student loan. Without the loan, he couldn't continue and so was forced to drop out. SLC then deemed that he'd intentionally dropped out and so was liable to repay the loan in full. I suspect that the SLC decision is perverse, but that's not the point of my post.


Since leaving full-time education, he hasn't earned enough to take him over the payment threshold. He's now emigrated to Australia and set up his own business that's making insufficient profit to take him over the payment threshold. Unfortunately, SLC are demanding that evidence of his income be verified by an accountant or lawyer, which would incur significant professional fees. I have to ask why a copy of his tax return to the ATO would not be adequate and whether SLC have the right to demand that my son, effectively, spends a large proportion (more than he can afford) of his income on having his accounts professionally verified/audited when the only reason for doing so is SLC's demand?


All help gratefully received.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...