Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Ethel Street
      Can't Find Old Work Pension.

      By Ethel Street · Posted

      I had some contact with this company earlier in my working life but I'm afraid there's not a lot I can suggest that you haven't already done. During your grandfather's time  British Celanese was a subsidiary of Courtaulds. Courtaulds was subsequently (after your grandfather had stopped working there) acquired by Alzo Nobel. They in turn closed down the Spondon site and sold it. I have no idea what the number is that you are trying to call. It's a Derby (Spondon) area code but the number appears not to be allocated. From my slim knowledge of the history of the company I would have expected your grandfather's pension to be in the Alzo Nobel (CPS) Pension Scheme.  But Willis Tower Watson are the Pension Scheme Administrator of that scheme and would be the people who should know if your grandfather had contributed. Is your grandfather certain he contributed? Joining pension schemes wasn't compulsory in those days. Or might he have got his contributions returned when he left them? That happened sometimes back then. Sorry not to be of more help.      
    • Laura Cooke
      Bank Parking ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - wrong reg - Appeal failed - Belvedere Street Car Park, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, NG18 1JJ

      By Laura Cooke · Posted

      I am sorry I am not aware of this report from IAS assessors? The Court will consider my application at a online hearing in June. The Court instructed me to send Bank copies of my sons condition proving he could not have been the driver I have heard nothing further. My son is not aware of any proceedings I have not involved him to avoid causing him distress, he has been sectioned a fair few times and I need to avoid this happening.
    • lookinforinfo
      Bank Parking ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - wrong reg - Appeal failed - Belvedere Street Car Park, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, NG18 1JJ

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      I am very pleased that the Court has taken the decision to allow you to  represent your son and hope that he is happy enough with that to relieve the stress he will also be feeling. I do agree that Bank parking are so insensitive, greedy, horrible etc etc to continue proceedings considering  in what it is a very minor case of a wrong number plate . Even their  own  IAS Assessors, who are normally hopelessly biased in favour of their members, went out on a limb and said  " The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." That is damning evidence and you must take that report with you as well as including that in your Witness Statement which we will help you with. I would expect that Bank would discontinue the case at that point.  But I am sorry to say  that you should not count on it.  
    • Mickgibbons1
      Shock !!EVRI has lost my parcel PS5 - court claim issued

      By Mickgibbons1 · Posted

      Evening all,   I have deliberated over this offer for two weeks and I have decided to take their offer. I do understand that some may prefer us to go to court and receive a judgement but with our personal circumstances and my current military commitment that could become an issue. I am so grateful for all the help and support you have all offered me over the last few months. I will continue to monitor this site and push all those that are being wrong to get in touch.   Thank you! what you all do is truly amazing!
    • London1971
      Lowell/Overdales letter of claim now claimform - 2019 paypal EU debt

      By London1971 · Posted

      When I first responded to the PAPLOC, and received that 29 page junk back it was accompanied with a letter saying that they had already responded to my request back on Feb 18th 2023,(I never received it). I was just clearing out some paperwork today and found a letter from Lowell, dated Feb 17th 2023, explaining that they were still waiting for the documents from PayPal, and my account was on hold  until further notice.  Does this mean they were lying and can it be used against them if this goes any further? I have now filed my defence, and have had an acknowledgement from Overdales and the court. A little threatening from Overdales , explaining that part of my defence was invalid because they have now complied with the CCA, and they were still waiting for the Default notice from PayPal.

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Years worth of parking fines found illegal - Council refuses to refund

MaxxPower
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3912 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

Grotesque

Grotesque

Posted
Posted
Sorry I thought you were suing the Council? Who is going to pay you if you win, the Council staff out of their wages, the elected Council out of their allowance or the Council tax payers?

 

Please, don't apologise.

I am enquiring after the case of people who have seemingly paid money, of whom some are not going to be refunded what they should not have been charged. Are you suggesting that Councils should not be sued because 'we all pay for it'? So if 'we pay for it' is that carte blanche to break the law? Mildly disingenuous to say the least.

PS: I'm not suing anyone. Even for the hell of it...

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
green_and_mean

green_and_mean

Posted
Posted
Please, don't apologise.

I am enquiring after the case of people who have seemingly paid money, of whom some are not going to be refunded what they should not have been charged. Are you suggesting that Councils should not be sued because 'we all pay for it'? So if 'we pay for it' is that carte blanche to break the law? Mildly disingenuous to say the least.

PS: I'm not suing anyone. Even for the hell of it...

Cheers!

 

 

The point is they should have been penalised because they parked in contravention, they could have contested it as the evidence was filmed on non certified cameras but they chose not to. The law is quite clear you can appeal any parking penalty the notice even tells you the legislation on the top so you can look up the law and prints the grounds for appeal on the back. If you cannot be bothered or are too lazy why should you get a refund several years later just because someone takes the time to challenge and win an appeal?

Link to post
Share on other sites
green_and_mean

green_and_mean

Posted
Posted
What about those that challenged at the time, lost the appeal and were forced to pay up ? The council is witholding the return of funds taken illegally.

 

They obviously either appealed on the wrong grounds or the adjudicator ruled against them. No funds have been taken illegally the Council is entitled to issue a PCN to any vehicle it believes is in contravention, its up to the owner to dispute this claim using the appeals process.

Look at it this way...

 

I park on a double yellow line to deliver some goods and take 7 minutes to do so. CEO issues PCN after a few minutes as he hasn't seen me loading. I appeal on the basis that there was no sign stating hours of yellow line. Appeal is rejected as no sign is needed on double yellows, I pay up. Some months later a friend tells me you can load on double yellows and I should have appealed on those grounds. Should I now be able to sue the Council as I should not have been liable due to an exemption for loading?

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaisyMouse

MaisyMouse

Posted
Posted
They obviously either appealed on the wrong grounds or the adjudicator ruled against them. No funds have been taken illegally the Council is entitled to issue a PCN to any vehicle it believes is in contravention, its up to the owner to dispute this claim using the appeals process.

Look at it this way...

 

That would suggest there is something fundamentally wrong with the appeals process and the adjudication if a crime (and what the council have done IS as crime), if there is no recourse because of the time it takes for information to come to light.

Link to post
Share on other sites
green_and_mean

green_and_mean

Posted
Posted (edited)
That would suggest there is something fundamentally wrong with the appeals process and the adjudication if a crime (and what the council have done IS as crime), if there is no recourse because of the time it takes for information to come to light.

 

What crime has been committed? The information was available at the time, anyone with a PCN could have asked to see the certification for the camera at any point during their appeal......but they didn't!

 

Laura Macowski, who lives in Newham, believes she may have been issued with one of the illegal tickets.

 

She told the BBC: "I paid a fine issued via a camera on the Romford Road about six months ago which I believe was unlawful. I have absolutely no idea why I got the ticket.

 

 

So she gets a ticket which for some reason she thinks is unlawful hasn't a clue why it was issued despite having the reason clearly printed on the PCN, pays it and now wants a refund out of public funds.....priceless!!

Edited by green_and_mean
Link to post
Share on other sites
green_and_mean

green_and_mean

Posted
Posted
The hardware is a legal prerequisite. So the Council have committed an offence regardless of and notwithstanding any subsequent offences committed by others.

 

Its not an offence though is it? An offence is a criminal act with a fine or jail term laid out in the statute for committing the offence. Failing to certify a cctv device for parking enforcement is not cited as a criminal offence in any statute?

Its no different from issuing a PCN whilst not in uniform, its not an offence nobody can be prosecuted it just invalidates the PCN if challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaisyMouse

MaisyMouse

Posted
Posted
Its not an offence though is it? An offence is a criminal act with a fine or jail term laid out in the statute for committing the offence. Failing to certify a cctv device for parking enforcement is not cited as a criminal offence in any statute?

Its no different from issuing a PCN whilst not in uniform, its not an offence nobody can be prosecuted it just invalidates the PCN if challenged.

 

Criminal maybe the wrong word, councils have the power to evade justice, by virtue of time limits set out in legislation, outside of which the motorist is unable to obtain a due refund.

 

If it was the other way round, I'm sure the authorites would have no hesitation sending in the legal vultures, and throw taxpayers money at clawing back the funds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
green_and_mean

green_and_mean

Posted
Posted
Criminal maybe the wrong word, councils have the power to evade justice, by virtue of time limits set out in legislation, outside of which the motorist is unable to obtain a due refund.

 

If it was the other way round, I'm sure the authorites would have no hesitation sending in the legal vultures, and throw taxpayers money at clawing back the funds.

 

Do you also think that the 28 day limit for serving a PCN is also unfair then? Or what about all the PCNs that got cancelled due to non compliant signage that would now not be after the Herron High Court substantial compliance case? Do you think the Council should chase up all those owners and tell them they now want the PCN paid?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiki1

Kiki1

Posted
Posted

Whilst the 28 day period is within level playing ground territory, the discrepancy of correspondence times (LA has almost two months in order formulate an excuse/reason for rejection, the motorist doesn't get anywhere near the same), plus the ability to issue a charge certificate on a whim is outside the bounds is nothing short of criminal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBogsDollocks

TheBogsDollocks

Posted
Posted (edited)
The point is they should have been penalised because they parked in contravention, they could have contested it as the evidence was filmed on non certified cameras but they chose not to. The law is quite clear you can appeal any parking penalty the notice even tells you the legislation on the top so you can look up the law and prints the grounds for appeal on the back. If you cannot be bothered or are too lazy why should you get a refund several years later just because someone takes the time to challenge and win an appeal?

 

What twaddle. People may not appeal not because they are too lazy but because they trust that the council is acting lawfully. When you get your council tax or water bill you don't instantly delve into the regulating law to see that it is correct just because you can appeal against the sum charged, you trust that it is correct. It is reasonable to assume that a council or authority is acting lawfully. If the cameras were not certified then the PCN is not being served on the evidence of an approved device as claimed and so the evidence is discredited. Judges in the highest courts everywhere in the world dismiss cases due to evidence being discredited. If the council knew that the cameras were not certified and were not "approved devices" then they committed the unlawful act of obtaining money under false pretences.

Edited by TheBogsDollocks
Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBogsDollocks

TheBogsDollocks

Posted
Posted (edited)
I think you mean as far as issuing a penalty charge the offences didn't take place, the legislation that determines if a contravention takes place is a traffic order which has nothing to do with cameras.

 

More twaddle. Your bias is really coming through on this one GM, do you have some affiliation with Newham? A postal PCN reliant on CCTV can only be served on the record produced by an approved device.

 

Reg 10(1)(a) is quite clear

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/10/made

 

No approved device = no lawful postal PCN and no evidence of any contravention regardless of what the traffic order says. Simples!

Edited by TheBogsDollocks
Link to post
Share on other sites
green_and_mean

green_and_mean

Posted
Posted
More twaddle. Your bias is really coming through on this one GM, do you have some affiliation with Newham? A postal PCN reliant on CCTV can only be served on the record produced by an approved device.

 

Reg 10(1)(a) is quite clear

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/10/made

 

No approved device = no lawful postal PCN and no evidence of any contravention regardless of what the traffic order says. Simples!

 

I never said the PCN was lawful but if you park on a yellow line for example you are in contravention even if you never even get caught, let alone have a lawful PCN served on you. Trying to say you can only commit a contravention if you a) get caught and b) get served with a legal PCN is clearly untrue?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ScarletPimpernel

ScarletPimpernel

Posted
Posted
I never said the PCN was lawful but if you park on a yellow line for example you are in contravention even if you never even get caught, let alone have a lawful PCN served on you. Trying to say you can only commit a contravention if you a) get caught and b) get served with a legal PCN is clearly untrue?

 

So what? A local authority cannot use unlawful means to deal with people who commit contraventions.

 

Local authorities must be beyond reproach in all that they do. The real disgrace of many cases concerning LAs and their cowboy enforcement methods is that no-one appears to be properly held to account.

Link to post
Share on other sites
green_and_mean

green_and_mean

Posted
Posted
So what? A local authority cannot use unlawful means to deal with people who commit contraventions.

 

I never said they could, maybe you could point to the post where I said so??

 

If the cameras were unlawful then the recipient of the PCN should have appealed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...