Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have received a PCN from Euro Car Parks for MFG - Esso Cobham - Gravesend. I was completely unaware that there was any such limit for parking and always considered this to be a service station. I stopped there to use the toilet, have a coffee and made a couple of work calls. I have read the previous topics on this location which suggest I can ignore this and ECP will not take legal action. The one possible complication is that the vehicle is leased by my employer so I do not want to involve them with the associated reminders and threatening letters. The PCN was first issued to the leasing company Arval who have notified ECP of the hiring company. I have attached a copy of the PCN Notice to Hirer with details removed as per instructions. What options do I have or should I just pay the PCN promptly at the reduced rate of £60? img20240424_23142631.pdf
    • What you have uploaded is a letter with daft empty threats from third-party paper tigers.  Just ignore it. What we need to see is the original invoice you received last October or November.
    • Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of  the original  PCN that they sent to the Hirer  along with your hire agreement documents. Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include  all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer.  Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference. Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper.  You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.  
  • 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

Government admits thousands of fake adverts on its new jobs website


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4100 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

I have successfully argued my case for not signing up and even have it on my job seekers agreement that i do need to I am probably the only person in the country at this moment who has this on their agreement. They will not sanction you for not signing up as they know thay cannot do this as it is not mandatory, however they will try find another way which is what happened to me, my job seekers diary was structinised along with my agreement. The advisor sat there and started counting everything up and then said you have done enough a per your agreement. Luckily for me I had argued previously that my agreement was unreasonable and they backed down and did not go a head with the sanction.

 

My advise is try to be one step ahead of them at all times and document all complaints you have, innudate your MP's with them so you have a record and eventually something will have to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

San-d take the print off from their own union website as that is what I did and tell them you are actually doing them a favour as it quite clearly states that all advisors must hold off from telling claimants to sign up and if they don't can lead to problems for themselves, such as clinical mis-direction. That way it looks like you are looking out for their interests aswell as your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'd go as far as saying 90% of the job on there are fake and definitely not checked.

It's a well known fact that agencies post jobs on there that don't exist because it costs them nothing to do this. Why do it? so you can approach employers and tell them you have x000 people on your books looking for work so they can be picked above other agencies.

Then there's lots of old vacancies that should have been taken off.

and vacancies that just don't add up!!!, links are wrong, wrong contact details that weren't checked, commission only jobs etc etc. and then there's agencies that list a job and won't tell you who the employers is! ( basically ban agencies from advertising on govt sites! )

and this how the Govt can say we have x0000's jobs on their list...!!!!!

Edited by rhino666
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if you can un-register/close your account

HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to play the devil's advocate and I am the last one in the world who wants to defend the DWP but unfortunately you're all missing the point here.

 

The fact that the jobs are fake or not is irrelevant and to be honest we don't really know if they are fake. The problem is that, in order to inflate the number of vacancies available, the DWP has transformed what used to be a mediocre jobsite into a jobsite aggregator.

What this means in practice is that all jobsites on earth have long been hijacked by these so called "web agencies", which are nothing but "a guy with a laptop".

 

The DWP cannot verify all these tens of thousands of vacancies because these agencies don't even know that they are on Universal Jobmatch. Ask any agent you know and they will tell you they have some web based software where they list their vacancy (fake or not) and this will propagate automagically into hundreds of jobsites. These jobsites (Technojobs, Jobsite, Monsters, Totaljobs, Job Warehouse) then are propagated into the UJM.

 

All could be solved if the jobseeker had an option to weed out these aggregators from his/her jobsearch, as it used to be with the old Jobcentre Plus site.

 

I have sent a feature request to the DWP. Why don't we organize a mass feature request on this forum?

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for Poundland"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...