Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you can't just reject the car after more than 30 days of it being in your possession. you can put in a complaint under your consumer rights act 2015 citing the <6mts rule whereby they have one chance to repair the vehicle and should that again fail for the same reason(s) you can then reject it. dx  
    • they do hold particulars of claim and MUST for 6yrs. they might not have a copy of the claimform to send you but can copy and paste the POC from their screen to an email pdf or read it out to you. thats why we say record your calls sadly paperwork wriggles this old wont help you get it set aside. i very much doubt. and it will cost £275  probably cheaper to contact VCS and pay it and get it marked as settled.  it'll still show on your credit file but at least as settled. dx    
    • you can goto your local CC and get it signed for free. dx  
    • the courts have told me they haven't got the particulars of claim details. What they have produced is the judgement claim with the wrong address on it.  Would I be right to assume that if I can send proof of my actual address at the time with this form, that would suffice to dispute the judgement. I was thinking of including information re the previous case I won in 2017 for the same alleged offence. Unfortunately because it was so long ago the courts apparently dont keep the records but I've got a photo of the court judgement and a letter from my letting agent stating I had my own space. Would you recommend adding this to my dispute. I want to ask the judge to order VCS to pay my expenses. Figured this might help.
    • Please will you monitor the thread for a reply on Sunday. Also when you make posts please can you spice them with lots of paragraph spaces etc because it becomes very difficult to read on a small screen such as a telephone and it tends to put people off.
  • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4079 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 just received a parking ticket for contravention 622 where I was parked next to a cobbled garage entrance. Because this was on a busy road, I made sure I was not jutting out beyond other cars parked along the road in front and behind me. These cars were parked next to the pavement. In doing so I had my inside wheels a few inches onto the cobble of the forecourt and I assume this is why I received the ticket.

 

622 states 'parked with one or more wheels over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriage way'. Well this was not a footpath because the footpath ended where the garage entrance began. Is a garage entrance a 'road' ? I know about not parking on pavements but this seems draconian.

 

Any suggestions? Have I got grounds to fight it?

 

From previous threads on this its seems that this used to be specifically used for people parking on pavements but they have now removed that clarification so it applies more broadly. How are we supposed to know about new rules and when changes occur?

 

I have attached a photo..(I think!)

 

Thanks

 

Tessa

 

 

[ATTACH]43344[/ATTACH]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's technically a code 62 rather than 622. It's not important - the key thing is the description:

 

"Parked with one or more wheels over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway"

 

Based on your description, it was issued for a valid reason. Whether it was necessary (as you say, draconian) is another question. I can't really see what's going on in the photo though.

 

By all means appeal it. You may have technically committed the deed, but if you appeal on the basis of common sense and fair play, you might get a result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...