Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1st letter image.pdf1st letter 2nd page.pdf
    • Many thanks for the replies and advice!   I what to send this email to the Starbucks CEO and the area manager. Your thoughts would be appreciated.   [email protected] [email protected]   Re: MET Parking PNC at your Starbucks Southgate site   Dear Ms Rayner, / Dear Heather Christie,   I have received a Notice to Keeper regarding a Parking Charge Notice of £100 for the driver parking in the Southgate Park Car Park, otherwise infamously known as the Stanstead Starbucks/McDonalds car park(s).   Issued by: MET Parking Services Ltd Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXX Vehicle Registration Number: XXXX XXX Date of Contravention: XX.XX.XXXX Time: XX:XX - XX:XX   After a little research it apears that the driver is not alone in being caught in what is commonly described as a scam, and has featured in the national press and on the mainstream television.   It is a shame that the reputation of Starbucks is being tarnished by this, with your customers leaving the lowest possible reviews on Trustpilot and Trip Advisor at this location, and to be associated with what on the face of it appears to be a doubious and predatory car park management company.   In this instance, during the early hours of the morning the driver required a coffee and parked up outside Starbucks with the intention of purchasing one from yourselves. Unfortunately, you were closed so the driver walked to McDonalds next door and ordered a coffee, and for this I have received the Notice to Keeper.   It is claimed that the car park is two separate car parks (Starbucks/McDonalds). However, there is no barrier or road markings to identity a boundary, and the signage in the car park(s) and outside your property is ambiguous, as such the terms would most likely be deemed unfair and unenforcable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   I understand that Starbucks-Euro Garages neither operate or benefit from the charges imposed by MET Parking. However, MET Parking is your client.   Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.   However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   As the driver’s intention of the visit was genuine, I would be grateful if you could please instruct your client to cancel this Notice to Keeper/Parking Charge Notice.   Kind regards
    • I received the promised call back from the Saga man today who informed me that the undertakers have decreed it IS a modification and they will need to recalculate a quote individually for me. However it all sounds very arbitrary. The more I think about it, and with help from forum replies, the more I am sure that it is not a modification. If for example the original seatback had become damaged by a spillage or a tear, I would be entitled to replace it with the nearest available part. The problem is when it comes to a payout after an accident, there is no telling what an individual insurer will decide when he notices the change. I am still undecided which of the two best routes to go with, either don't mention the replacement at all, or fill in the quote form without mentioning, and when it comes to buying the insurance over the phone, mention it at the time.
    • Please post up their letter so we understand what they've asked. You need to cover up your name and address and their reference number. HB
    • Hello,  I received the standard letter.  I don't understand No. 3: If this is in relation to a ticket irregularity, then if you were unable to produce a pass because you did not have it with you or if your pass was withdrawn because you were unable to produce a valid photocard to accompany it, please enclose a photocopy of the pass/photocard with your reply. Question: do i enclose my photocard? my partner's freedom pass was confiscated.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4124 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

Unforutnately 18 months ago I ran into debt with a private hospital who have subsequently taken me to court.

 

I completed all the paperwork before the hearing admitting to the debt of £900 and offering a monthly repayment.

 

I heard nothing until a notice of seizure pushed through my letter box from Marstons Bailiffs.

They followed this up at the beginning of Dec with a further letter asking me to sign a walking possession agreement.

 

My problem is they have listed a vehicle parked outside my house as one of the assetts they will take

however it's actually my partners car albeit does have a personal plate on it which used to be mine but the vehicle is actually his and registered as so.

 

I've not been able to do anything due to having to take time off work to care for a sick relative who unfortunately died between Christmas and New Year

now have funeral costs to pay and I am starting to panic about Marstons.

 

I understand the responsibility is on me to prove I do not own this vehicle etc

which can easily be dowe as he has his original receipt from the garage and also I have photocopied the log book.

 

My other problem is the house is a rented furnished property so I can't agree to them coming in as I do not own the electricals, furniture etc.

 

I have drafted a letter to them which I can post today again offering the repayment plan (which they did state I could do)

and enclosed the copy of the cars log book and also advised it is a rental property therefore I cannot sign thheir 'walking poossession'

 

howwever I have heard all manner of horror stories that they can turn up with the police etc, change locks I don't want to involve my landlord

 

do I post this letter to Marstons and keep fingers crossed they will finally accept my offer of £50 per month.

 

Oh and the car was purchased for £650 so doesn't even go part way to what I now owe.

 

They did say it was not too late to offer a repayment plan but to put it in writing along with an initial 1st payment

however I cannot make a first payment till the end of Jan as I received no salary for December as I had to take unpaid leave.

 

Any advise would be really helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important to be aware that with judgments that have been transferred up to the High Court to enforce there regulations provide that the OWNER of the goods levied upon should send a Third Party Claim form to the relevant enforcement company. This form is very simple and I can provide some wording later on this morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important to be aware that with judgments that have been transferred up to the High Court to enforce there regulations provide that the OWNER of the goods levied upon should send a Third Party Claim form to the relevant enforcement company. This form is very simple and I can provide some wording later on this morning.
.

 

Thanks Tom

 

is it still worth sending them this letter with a copy of the log book.

Just don't know what to do if they turn up at the house with a pick up truck lol.

 

Don't want an argument in the street with them but oh will go mad if they try to take his car.

 

It's my debt and even their letter states

"where motor vehicles have been seized we require defendants to arrange to it for

a copy of the vehicle registration document

so we can satisfy ourselves as to the ownership of the vehicle prior to its removal'.

 

So confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have no right of entry regardless of what the paperwork they have says. Whatever happens do not allow them entry. In the interim the car should be moved well away, they will remove it pending proof of ownership.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading your post it would seem that the letter from Marston Group advises the DEFENDANT ( who is you) to provide any evidence such as a log book etc if a car levied upon does not belong to you. I would therefore suggest that you simply send the info as requested and if possible...by email. If you are unable to scan the logbook, I would suggest sending an email in any event to advise that the car does not belong to you and that documentary evidence is being sent in the post. Make sure that you only send a copy of the log book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:|Thanks Guys

- I returned the paperwork to the court admitting the money I owed detailing all my expenditure and offering to committ to a monthly payment plan

as I was unable to attend the court hearing.

 

I heard nothing back until this now from Marstons so I can only assume they just decided my monthly plan wasn't good enough.

 

The 2nd letter from Marstons states '

It may be the case that the claimants will accept payments by installments if you cannot settle in full with us at once.

However all offers together with a first payment on accounts must be sent to us and we will then take instructions on any offer you make'

 

I have put together a letter to Marstons with a copy of the DVLA log Book and also advising the property is rented fully furnished and again offering to make monthyl payments,

 

however I cannot make the first payment until the end of Jan so should I just send the letter anyway.

 

I have access to a scanner so I can scan the log book and email it when I get home tonight but that wont be until after 9ish.

 

I get the impression that they will not refuse the vhicle without first etsablishing who the legal owner is

(see comment in my original post) but am I just being niave?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst it is true that you can indeed make a payment proposal through Marstons they will if it is approved take a cut of any payments made. For arguments sake you offer £100 per month, their cut for this will be 35% - 40% meaning your indebtedness reduces at a minimal rate. It would be better to try & cut Marstons out of the equation and deal direct with your creditor.To approach them direct will fail as they will become responsible for all of the charges that the HCEO has administered.

 

Instead make an application for a Variation Order, this is dealt with by the Court who will set a level that is affordable and as long as you keep paying on time should show the level of debt reduce more quickly. You apply for this on Form N245 available from HMCTS website - the Form is quite straightforward and needs you to fill a comprehensive I&E. The cost of this is £45 although if on certain Benefits or low wage this may be waived - see Form EX160a & 160c for details. The Form is returned to the Court where the CCJ was granted.

 

The most important thing to have to deal with is the HCEO. You may apply for a Stay of Execution against the Writ they have, if granted it will halt all further enforcement action & charges. The grounds you may apply on are:

1 - you cannot afford the fees the HCEO is demanding

2 - pending determination of a Variation Order application

3 - the HCEO is threatening to remove & sell goods belonging to a 3rd Party

This application is made on Form N244 - cost £80 although as above the fee may be waived. This time the Form is a little bit more awkward but can offer help with this if needed. This time the Form needs to be returned to the High Court or a County Court that acts as a District Registry of the High Court. I cannot stress how important this application is.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks PloderTom will get those forms downloaded today - in the interim I have scanned a copy of the V5 so should I still email it to Marstons as OH is adament he is not hiding his car but he works nights so if they came in the day and took it he wouldn't know until he got up and then he'd been unable to get to work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I say the Stay is the most important application and in my opinion is always best taken in person to Court where you explain the urgency of the application. The majority of times a Judge can be found who will hear the application immediately.

 

In the meantime submit the details of the car and see what they say.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Bailiffs cannot seize property belonging to others but remember the car's V5 is merely proof of the registered keeper and NOT proof of ownership, but if your partner has proof of purchase of the vehicle that will be fine. Just for information, Marstons is a debt collection company, their paperwork is very misleading and they like to give the impression they are linked to the High Court, they are not they are merely a debt collection company who is employed by the court. Do not let them into your property at any time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for information, marstons is a debt collection company, their paperwork is very misleading and they like to give the impression they are linked to the High Court, they are not they are merely a debt collection company who is employed by the court.

 

That is a little misleading.

 

Marstons are Certificated Bailiffs and HCEO

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377382-Certificated-Bailiff-Register-Updated&highlight=marstons

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you have to be very careful as to what capacity the scumbags from marstons are operating as, it may not be immediately apparent.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

we dont know what the debt is for either.

 

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

Hi

 

Sorry just to clarify, yes Marstons are certified bailiffs and they are used by the High Court but they are a separate business entity and that business entity is not owned in any way by the courts. Marstons paperwork gives the impression that it has come from the high court itself and this is not the case. However the same rules apply to Marstons as to other bailiffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...