Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hey! Sorry for not writing, I have been extremely busy in the past few weeks. I do have a question though and I wanted to see your opinion. I understand that the next step will be probably to take legal action against Amazon. But there is one thing that I haven't tried yet. What do you think about filing an official complaint through a third party, like https://www.econsumer.gov/#crnt or with the relevant (private sector?) ombudsman (I am not sure where I could do that)? And if I am not happy with the ombudsman's decision, I could still take court action. 
    • what about the unnecessary building insurance?   but to be honest you are not going to ever seriously dent a £148k sum  
    • No just the year stated from 2019
    • Or even the off-premises definition c will apply here too. a contract concluded on the business premises of the trader or through any means of distance communication immediately after the consumer was personally and individually addressed in a place which is not the business premises of the trader in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer;   I am not sure what would be classed as 'immediately'   Great to have this discussion by the way which I hadn't contemplated.
    • No negotiations or discussions took place at the agent's premises - the only face-to-face contact was at my home when the agent came for initial introduction and appraisal of the property. Good question regards to the difference between the two. I guess the distance contract applies to sole online purchases whereas bullet (b) of off-premises contract applies to me as the agent's represented visited my home and the offer was made then for the services.   “distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;     “off-premises contract” means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is any of these— (a) a contract concluded in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader; (b) a contract for which an offer was made by the consumer in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, in a place which is not the business premises of the trader; (c) a contract concluded on the business premises of the trader or through any means of distance communication immediately after the consumer was personally and individually addressed in a place which is not the business premises of the trader in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer; (d) a contract concluded during an excursion organised by the trader with the aim or effect of promoting and selling goods or services to the consumer;
  • Our picks

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2828 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 daughter was visiting a friend at her apartment and didn't realise that she had to get a permit.

 

She received a ticket off care parking.

 

They wrote to me as the registered keeper and I have replied stating that I wasn't the driver but they have quoted Protection of Freedom act

stating that this is no longer accepted as a defense.

 

I have successfully fought several PPC's in the past but before the protection of freedom act.

 

Any indication of where to go with this one now would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi the experts will be along but to my mind the only difference now is that PPC's can now chase the registered keeper but the PPC's still face the same problems as before the POF act came into force. So advise I have seen is still ignore.

 

dpick

cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Link to post
Share on other sites

defense my foot!

 

you can safely ignore them

 

it makes no odds in all reality the changes

 

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

You could make it difficult for them and ask them for a copy of the contract that allows thm to claim parking charge son behalf of the LL as you need this for your defence. If they cannot supply this, then nay future correspondence will regarded as harassment which is a criminal offence. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Protection of Freedom act still does not make it worth all the hassle of taking you to court. They have given it their best shot and it's failed.

 

Ignore and move on.

Ash.

 

If you think I have helped you, please add to my reputation by clicking the star button to the left.

Thankyou.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You could make it difficult for them and ask them for a copy of the contract that allows thm to claim parking charge son behalf of the LL as you need this for your defence. If they cannot supply this, then nay future correspondence will regarded as harassment which is a criminal offence. :-)

 

 

Could you explain this a little more please and what is LL. thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

LL = LandLord

 

The jist of the request for sight of the contract is that you are challenging the fact that they have any (contractual) right to operate the carpark on behalf of the landlord and specifically, notwithstanding they can "operate" it, that when someone breaks one of their little made up rules, that they can pursue the driver legally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LL = LandLord

 

The jist of the request for sight of the contract is that you are challenging the fact that they have any (contractual) right to operate the carpark on behalf of the landlord and specifically, notwithstanding they can "operate" it, that when someone breaks one of their little made up rules, that they can pursue the driver legally.

 

I ahve read a lot about the POPLA and the 35 day so called appeal rule. Would you say it's worth persuing that line as they have not sent me an appeal code as believe they are supposed to.

 

Also in the POF act is failure to pay there invoice classed as reasonable cause?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I ahve read a lot about the POPLA and the 35 day so called appeal rule. Would you say it's worth persuing that line as they have not sent me an appeal code as believe they are supposed to.

 

Also in the POF act is failure to pay there invoice classed as reasonable cause?

 

 

Take the advice and ignore!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't ignore. POPLA may be a joke but this is a new procedure backed by DVLA, BPA and legislation, weak and useless legislation but non the less. More ppcs are trying their luck with N1 forms at present. Follow protocol, appeal to PPC then to POPLA, Then send a cease and desist letter threatening charges for any direct or third party letters. It's court or nothing. Now ignore. In the unlikely event of a court hearing, you have done your bit and it will show favour. But once again, court is extremely unlikely

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain PPC's ( including Parking Eye) seem very reluctant to issue POPLA codes and resort to stalling tactics, such as asking for "proof" that somebody has used the shops on site. This seems to suggest that PPCs are not very happy with going down the POPLA route, because it costs them money, and latest figures indicating that about 60% of appeals are upheld in favour of the motorist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...