Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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

My Cover - Demanding more payments and threatening Court Action


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4009 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

This is my very first posting so I am hoping somebody can help please:attention:

My brother has learning difficulties and I have his mail forwarded to my address so that I can help him to manage his affairs.

 

I stepped in to manage his affairs because my brother was unable to stand up to telephone salesmen

who were bombarding him with calls in his own home.

 

The situation was so bad (he was falling deeper and deeper in debt) that he has now gone into sheltered accommodation

where he has some protection from people who take advantage of vulnerable people like him.

 

When he moved into the shelter last October I helped him to sort out his affairs

and found that he had a number of insurance policies from different providers which provided him with contents cover.

 

One of these policies, from My Cover, provided him with unnecessary satellite TV insurance.

 

As he was moving I contacted the company to cancel the policy and I was told that the policy could not be cancelled

unless My Cover received this request in writing.

 

I wrote this cancellation letter (which my brother signed) and sent it to the company on the 5 October 2012.

 

Shortly afterwards I received a letter telling me that the company would not cancel the policy

unless they received a cheque for £25 to cover the cost of "administration" for the cancellation of this policy.

 

Again, I wrote a letter dated 12 November 2012 cancelling this policy

and enclosed a £25 cheque from my brother for the administration fee.

My brother signed this letter.

 

We heard nothing more from My Cover and I thought the matter was settled

until we received a letter from them today which was dated the 24th April 2013.

 

The letter had gone to my brother's previous address

(as I check the empty house regularly, I know the letter could not have been received any earlier than the 3rd May).

 

The tone of the letter is very threatening and states that:

'

the insurance is still active (nearly 6 months after our last contact with the company)

because My Cover has not received the cancellation letter

that My Cover is prepared to cancel the agreement if we pay another £25 administration fee within 14 days

(we are already past that 14th day i.e. 8 May 2013)

 

that, should my brother not pay this additional administration fee the matter

will be referred to their Legal Department and my brother will be taken to Court.

 

The letter goes on to explain that my brother will be liable to costs etc

and that a County Court Judgement will seriously affect his credit rating etc

 

Can you advise me on the next best step please?

 

I have the original letters on my computer and these prove when the letters were typed up

but I can't prove that My Cover has received these letters so what can we do about this?

 

Also, I am very suspicious about their reasons for not contacting my brother for nearly 6 months.

 

Surely, if they genuinely thought he was in arrears they would have contacted him before that?

 

Any advice would be welcome

Many thanks

Wendy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is your brother subject to the Mental Health Act 1983, at all?

 

If he is then the contracts are probably void. If he isn't then yo might want to look into this for his future protection.

 

Has your £25 cheque been cashed? If it has then there is nothing they can do.

 

If it hasn't been cashed then I think your position is that you did cancel when you say you did but that you still owe them £25.

 

They have acknowledged your original cancellation letter - and that is enough to be a valid cancellation. They should have written to you for the administrative fee.

They cannot hold your contract to ransom for an administrative fee.

 

What is the value of the outstanding amount anyway?

The Small claims limit is now £10,000 so if they sued you for anything less than this they would not get their costs back - only their claim fee.

 

I suggest that you find out if the cheque was cashed.

If it wasn't then send them £25

Tell them that the cancellation was valid when they were originally told about it.

tell them that their threat of costs is dishonest and an abuse.

tell them that it will all be told to the court if they sue

Tell them they are a bunch of bullies and tell them I said so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yea met this lot before

 

quite honestly i'd complain to his bank too.

 

if he was know vulnerable?

then they should have been keeping an eye on the dd's he set up.

 

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

Thanks very much for this BankFodder. I will do exactly as you suggest - and I will sleep better tonight having read your advice!

 

No, my brother is not subject to the Mental Health Act (I don't think so anyway) but I will definitely look into that.

 

Many thanks again

 

Wendy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx

I have no faith in banks in this respect. I have taken issue with his bank for selling him products that were obviously inappropriate for somebody with his income and lifestyle. That put a stop to it, but their salespeople must have known they were not acting ethically when they sold it.

thanks

Wendy

Link to post
Share on other sites

you appear to have a very good mis-selling case here.

 

its an insurance, the fos will eat them alive

selling this via cold call to this kind of person.

 

I know someone with a special needs daughter.

 

she got signed up to mobile phone ins by a cold call

 

we got the lot back.

 

worth thinking about,

 

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

If you brother has a power of attorney acting for him, they should send the Insurers a complaint and threaten to involve the FOS. If no power of attorney, then someone will need to write a letter on his behalf and get him to sign it. While the matter is subject to a complaint, the Insurers should not take enforcement action.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to do something about it but it is now some time back (a year or so) but I was fighting so many fires at the time that I did not pursue it. Could I still claim the money back or have I left it too late do you think?

thanks

Wendy

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is nothing in terms of rules to prevent you.

 

the only thing they could ever use would be statute of limitations act

 

that's 6yrs!

 

i'm also wondering if anything in the 'new' bcobs stuff might help

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...