Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks. In that case when it comes to preparing my court bundle I will remover the Bradbury v UPS case. And I agree, @occysrazor 's case is the strongest asset I have in defence. Hopefully the necessary literature will be available by the time of my court date.  
    • Some of this seems to hinge on him not being properly instructed by POL or their legal reps. He was said to be an independent expert but doesn't seem to have known that he should reveal all evidence he was aware of and not just the bits that suited Fujitsu/him. I know he asked for immunity from prosecution, is it still the case that Wyn Williams doesn't want to do this? The last I saw there was still a perjury ivestigation.
    • So I like a bit of fun with the horses and have a few profitable tipsters, when i make a profit i re-invest and try more, nice little way to work on the side. This site looked promising however after joining a Telegram group I was not at all happy with the service as it was completely dead.. a week went past... I thought it was brokedn (expecting 14 tips by now)... 2 weeks went passed.. a tip came in about something happening in a few weeks... the month was nearly up (£49 couldnt be recouped by these bets) I complained via email asking for a refund as it was not as advertised, website says 1-2 tips a day, i expected that.  There's no way i could recoup £49 a month on 1 or two tips.  I didnt get a reply. I tried again,  no reply. Ive then had to up the email wording to request Im now really not happy. I get a reply and it appears they agree a refund (this doesn't get processed) Fed up i send a notice before action letter. I then get various emails of a very unprofessional manner and one towards the end that sounds a bit like a threat. I would encourage others to be very cautious about this website and if that was a threat (I know where you live, i have your postcode)  It becomes a police matter.  Im sure, it is just a recording of my personal data so I cannot be allowed in the telegram group again. Either way, is there anything ive missed? Emails below in order.   On 22/05/2024 11:31,  wrote: Hi I havent had a response to my last two emails, and Im not getting what's displayed on the site (1-2 bets a day) Please can you process a refund as its not what I was expecting   Thanks   --------- From: info@premiumracingtips.com <info@premiumracingtips.com> Sent: 22 May 2024 12:17 To:  Subject: Re: REFUND   Hi X, Are you still in the private telegram group? Regards, Ash -- On 22/05/2024 12:21, I wrote: Hi Its all still logged in yes as per the day it was set up   thanks ---- From: info@premiumracingtips.com <info@premiumracingtips.com> Sent: 22 May 2024 12:25 To:  Subject: Re: REFUND   Hi X That is fine. When did you send the previous emails? This is Marc speaking here I run the service. So on the 1-2 bets per day, some days there are no selections because there is no value or information. It is impossible to make profit long term betting every single day. Did you get on Macduff 33/1 for the Derby? Regards, Marc ----- From: X Sent: 22 May 2024 12:41 To: info@premiumracingtips.com <info@premiumracingtips.com> Subject: Re: REFUND   Hi Marc, I sent a mail on the 16th initially then Monday this week to follow up.   Yes, Got a Derby tip through but nothing else in a week   Ive based this on needing £50 profit required to break even, so expecting 1-2 bets a day (sorry) , £2 average bet profit needed to make a small profit after the subscription fee, as a test then move up as confidence grows   I probably need a larger starting bank to benefit from this properly.   Thanks X ======================================== Then, no further correspondence received until almost a month later: ====================================== 17/06/2024 Good afternoon,   Further to my correspondence below I am notifying you of court proceedings.   If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the county court without further notice. Court fees will be added to the final invoice adding £215 minimum to the refunded amount and this will affect your ability to get credit.   I refer you to the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct under the Civil Procedure Rules, and in particular to paragraph 13-16 which sets out the sanctions the court may impose if you fail to comply with the Practice Direction. I look forward to your acknowledgement. Yours faithfully, X   ============== NOW i get a response! =============   Tuesday 18th/06 Evening X Firstly, I know the law (family member is a QC) so this legal jargon does not work with me. Secondly, you were already processed a pro rata refund on the 5th of June 2024. Sometimes this does not appear on the bank statement. The bank can find this with the Acquirer Reference Numbers (ARN) - 88888888888888888 Once the bank have confirmed this I would personally like an apology for the time you have wasted and the serious accusation. Regards, Marc =================================================== I was going to drop it at this point, throw it in my spam folder as a mistake in my judgement, lessons learned to do due diligence on such a company next time, however this then got my back up when a pestering follow up arrived: ==================================================   From: info@premiumracingtips.com <info@premiumracingtips.com> Sent: 20 June 2024 18:35 To:X Subject: Re: Notice Before action - Court proceedings   Hi X Still waiting on a response and an apology? Regards, Marc --------------------------- On 21/06/2024 09:11, X wrote:  I dont think you read the email correctly, so I will presume you misunderstood.   The only thing Im sorry about is using your service.    To recap:   You didn't respond to emails, of which I had to send multiple to get an ounce of attention You did not confirm any refund or ask to agree on pro-rata reduced refund You do not send out 1-2 tips a day as per your website (trade description act breach) And you seem to forget who is the customer here, you have been dismissive and non responsive and now asking for an apology??   My 14 day notice still stands, I am currently not satisfied with the response and a full refund is still outstanding.   This can be processed easily and without further waste of time. Please process this or send on your final response on this matter (letter of deadlock) so next steps can be taken.     ------------------------------------------------- Sun 23/06/2024 21:18 High importance You replied on Mon 24/06/2024 09:06 Evening X Thanks for another email. Payment has been refunded Acquirer Reference Number (ARN) 8888888888888888888 (altered for security) I am sending this again as you did not acknowledge you have received the refund. This was processed on the 5th of June 2024. Sometimes I have bad actors that join my service and try and defraud my business with similar tactics to what you are attempting. It's pretty embarrassing that you are attempting to defraud a business after you have already been refunded. Tells me a lot about your character. I advise you use this link - https://www.gamstop.co.uk/ Also, for future reference this is your postcode - xxx xxY ???  (altered for security) Regards, Ash -------------------------------------------- My final mail: --------------------------------   I do not agree with any of your statements, in order for fraud to occur something must be untrue. You have other unhappy customers, that's interesting to know.   I acknowledge a partial refund has been received for  £24.99  - so  £25 is still outstanding.  I do not agree to a pro rata refund for something I haven't received.   Thanks for the link, but it doesn't apply to me (unless that was an insult, if so, you're 'business' condones insults to customers?)     Thank you for acknowledging you also have my personal data on file. Under GDPR, I do not consent to you storing any of my personal data and this now must be deleted as well as anywhere it may have been shared.   Thank you  
    • He will be grilled thoroughly, however those above him as culpable.
    • Here is the start of the revised letter to IPC.  do not worry about repercussions from CPM they should have enough problems without  picking on you as well. particularly as they know the case against you is lost.   IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a  PCN on 8/3/24 which was sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar after receiving the Reminder on 16th April 2024. Despite being not the only motorist who has not received A Notice to keeper from CPM. that is not the reason for my complaint. The reason is that when I received the NTK as a result of the sar I noticed that it stated I had 28 days to pay their demand starting from the day after  the NTK was given.  As the NTK was deemed delivered on the 15th March 2024, the earliest the Reminder could have  been sent was the 13th April 2024 which was a Saturday. Yet not only was the Reminder sent a day early before the 28 day period had elapsed their Reminder averred that the 28 day period had elapsed. This is a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 S4 [4] 4)The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given. It is also a breach of your own Code of Practice and calls into question their ability to obtain keeper details from the DVLA. I believe it is a breach of my GDPR . I assume that my CPM Reminder is not the only one that has breached the Act so as you will have to contact CPM and presumably the ICO and the DVLA  I will not be expecting a reply from you for 10 days. However I do hope that you can expedite the matter to avoid me complaining to the ICO and the DVLA.                                        Yours Sincerely  
  • 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

Apcoa parking contravention charge notice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3860 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

Hi,

 

I'm new to this group, so sorry if I have posted something incorrectly.

 

I recently received a PARKING CONTRAVENTION CHARGE NOTICE from APCOA for 04-Not parked in a designated parking area.

 

The carpark was full and I parked my car at the end of a line, where I was causing no obstruction whatsoever, there just happened to be no parking bay for my car. I also paid for my ticket.

 

APCOA are requesting I either pay £50 in 14 days or £75 within 28 days else in the event of non-payment, APCOA will apply to the DVLA for registered vehicle keeper details to facilitate the recovery of this debt.

 

I would like to know if anyone has any experience with this and what I actually should do, i.e. pay the ticket, challenge it on grounds of non-obstruction or simply ignore it (the later seems to be the best way to deal with it from reading other like questions)

 

Can anyone help please - thanks?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore it, you owe nothing, they can do nothing, less for sending reams of deforestation through your door threatening the earth will end if you don't fall for their idle threats and pay for their tea and biscuits.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore it, you owe nothing, they can do nothing, less for sending reams of deforestation through your door threatening the earth will end if you don't fall for their idle threats and pay for their tea and biscuits.

 

Thanks for the reply - how sure are you that they can do nothing? Is this a legal loop hole? I've seen threats with County Courts before, but not DVLA, is this a wording change to make people believe that they are for real now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a "loophole", you just don't owe them a penalty. They can claim you do, and threaten you, but at the end of the day, they can't make you pay if you just refuse - so what can they do?

 

Take you to court.

 

So it's only fair to advise the op that they can do this.

It's unlikely, but several PPC's have been doing this recently, and certainly more than previously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They haven't actually been taking people to court so far. They have just issuing court papers. That's the difference. This appears to be just another part of the threatogram chain, and when a proper defence is put forward then the PPC backs down. That's happened with UKCPS, Minster Baywatch to name just two. So please stop frightening this poster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop sugar coating it and treating the op as an idiot, to be used as fodder in your quest against all PPC's.

None of the surge of court papers issued recently have made any progress beyond entering a defence within the 28 days yet.

 

No PPC has even got to the stage of "backing down" in the recent cases.

 

So please tell them the whole truth, as we do on this forum, and let them make their own informed decision.

Not what you want them to make based on half the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are contradicting yourself. Quote "take you to court .... several PPC's have been doing this recently,"

 

"None of the surge of court papers issued recently have made any progress beyond entering a defence within the 28 days yet"

 

So have they actually taken them to court or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the point of matter here is the reason for the speculative invoice...

 

that being

not parked within lines etc

 

as ANY road marking are PURELY garaffitii on private land

and have no statute in law anyhow.

 

and the fact the no PPC has never taken anyone to court for parking outside of lines

 

pigs will fly.

 

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 can tell them ongoing cases don't count as they haven't been heard yet, I'm not even going to entertain an idiotic pedantic argument with you, the op has the facts and can now make an informed choice.

 

Ok - thanks for your thoughts - from a legal perspective, does anyone know where I stand without adding the emotions into the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

as post 5 ignore!!

 

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

as post 5 ignore!!

 

dx

 

Ok - According to the Protection of Fredoms Act, it "seems" that APCOA have a right to determine who is the owner of the registered vehicle that was parked outside bays in a private land car park.

 

I think this effectively means that APCOA can charge the registered owner even if they weren't the person driving the car. The actual person driving the car enters a "Contract" by parking in the private land carpark which will effectively be passed on to the registered owner.

 

This seems to be a fairly recent bill that the govenment has passed, so I'm wondering if this does affect my circumstances at all and if I SHOULD pay the charge.

 

Is there anyone legal here that knows the answer to this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no it changes nothing

 

there are many threads on the 'new' APCOA here

 

go have a read.

 

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

This is a good summing up of the "new law":-

 

There is a lot of misinformation around concerning the Protection of Freedoms Act. This is largely pedalled by the private parking companies in an attempt to add some kind of legitimacy to their charges, not helped by sloppy and lazy journalism which regurgitates what the parking companies say without checking if it's true or not.

 

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduces the concept of Keeper Liability for private parking charges if the registered keeper fails to divulge who the driver was. That is all.

It does not make parking charges enforceable (or any more enforceable than they were before, which, on the whole is not enforceable at all)

It does not require the registered keeper to name the driver on request - there is no obligation. If the keeper fails to name the driver, the "liability" (such as it is) reverts to the keeper (see previous point). If the driver and keeper are the same person, then there is no difference anyway.

It does not set out any kind of statutory framework for parking charges, they are still based on contract law or trespass, and in that respect nothing has changed

It does not define the wording that must be used to make parking charge notices "legal", "enforceable" or "valid". The Act sets out wording and points that must be included in order for the parking company to be able to apply keeper liability, but using all the correct words does not make the notice any more legally enforceable than it was before (see point 1)

The only thing the Protection of Freedoms Act does is remove from the registered keeper the defence of "I was not the driver." That was always a weak argument. There are far stronger arguments which make such parking charges invalid, all of which still stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good summing up of the "new law":-

 

There is a lot of misinformation around concerning the Protection of Freedoms Act. This is largely pedalled by the private parking companies in an attempt to add some kind of legitimacy to their charges, not helped by sloppy and lazy journalism which regurgitates what the parking companies say without checking if it's true or not.

 

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduces the concept of Keeper Liability for private parking charges if the registered keeper fails to divulge who the driver was. That is all.

It does not make parking charges enforceable (or any more enforceable than they were before, which, on the whole is not enforceable at all)

It does not require the registered keeper to name the driver on request - there is no obligation. If the keeper fails to name the driver, the "liability" (such as it is) reverts to the keeper (see previous point). If the driver and keeper are the same person, then there is no difference anyway.

It does not set out any kind of statutory framework for parking charges, they are still based on contract law or trespass, and in that respect nothing has changed

It does not define the wording that must be used to make parking charge notices "legal", "enforceable" or "valid". The Act sets out wording and points that must be included in order for the parking company to be able to apply keeper liability, but using all the correct words does not make the notice any more legally enforceable than it was before (see point 1)

The only thing the Protection of Freedoms Act does is remove from the registered keeper the defence of "I was not the driver." That was always a weak argument. There are far stronger arguments which make such parking charges invalid, all of which still stand.

 

Ok - so how do I find out if the parking charge notice I have received is "legal, enforceable or valid"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an unenforceable demand, nothing else. The change to the law does not make it any more enforceable, you can either send the standard prove you have authority to charge and cease and desist letter or ignore it.You may need a strong will to ignore as the letters do look very convicing and will threaten all sorts from taking your money to court baliffs taking your children - all hogwash and bluster and will not happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not unless it was the RAILWAY COMPANY that issued the speculative invoice no change

 

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

not unless it was the RAILWAY COMPANY that issued the speculative invoice no change

 

dx

 

ACPOA staff can issue a Byelaw 14 ticket if acting as an agent of a railway company, as per Railway Byelaw 25(1). This is in the same way as Northern Rail use G4S to do (train ticket) checks at rail stations and prosecute hundreds as a result for Byelaw 18.

 

 

 

ACPOA never, as far as I know take anyone to court, civil or criminal. They could though, but then wouldn't make a profit as the (criminal) fine would go to central funds, not them

 

ANYWAY

Regardless, it was a general question whether the ticket was issued at a railway station. Not the specifics of Byelaws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...