Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Nov 5: Sold iPad on eBay for 220 GBP, used eBay Packlink as it was recommended by eBay. Nov 6: Handed parcel over to the local shop. Parcel included iPad in its original box. Got proof of postage. Nov 9: Parcel received by buyer - after opening he realised he received a Jaguar/Landrover car part instead of an iPad. The packaging I used with the correct label was opened and the item was replaced. Nov 10: Filed a loss claim and started a tampering investigation with eBay Packlink Nov 25: Received response from eBay Packlink, confirming tampering, approving a refund of 25 GBP + 2.89 GBP postage fees.   So, after accepting that they have thieves running criminal operations in their depots, (stealing iPads and Macbooks as I've read from numerous people in this forum and elsewhere) they decided to compensate me for 25 GBP. This is way off the original value of the item sent, which was sold for 220 GBP.   I am seeking help on the next steps I should take to recover the remaining funds. Please let me know if I need to share any other details.   The poor buyer received a useless car part (he provided pictures) and in theory shall be refunded. This leaves me with around 200 GBP out of pocket and a huge willingness to take any legal avenue that will enable me to get compensated and create problems for those scams.   Any help will be appreciated.   Kind regards
    • Here is my first draft:     Dear Sir or Madame;   With regards to the above vehicle that was purchased from you on the xxxx, there are now some serious problems with the Automatic gearbox and for the last 3 weeks it has been at an independent garage who have diagnosed the problem but cannot guarantee this will cure the problem because the gearbox has not be serviced within Fords milage guidelines. I have the paperwork to show that the gearbox was indeed serviced at 35,000 & 70,000 miles well within the guidelines. The service book has been stamped at 100k for a service but no paperwork was included which is very strange as everything that has been replaced or serviced with this car has been included. After speaking with the garage that did the 100k service they can confirm that the minimum service was done which did not include the gearbox, so the gearbox has gone well over the specified guidelines.   I would like to point out that since the car has been collected, I have only done 1,500 miles so do not believe any fault would be down to ‘wear & tear’.     Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 this car should be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. My rights have been breached because the car you sold me is faulty. I would like you to put this right by repairing the car at your cost at an independent garage.     I expect a full response with 5 working days otherwise I will be taking the matter further.
    • Post the letter here before you send it off please. I certainly think that the missing documents should be referred to although probably in a rather more pointed fashion. Post the letter and will have a look and amended as necessary. In terms of getting other inspections, is there any dispute as to the condition of the vehicle? Have the garage themselves agreed the condition of it? Good news that it's fine at the garage for the moment – but you should ask them what storage fee would be if it went on too long – and in any event if you brought acclaim and won it. No point in giving up an opportunity to get a bit of extra money and if these people are doing you a favour then you may as well tell them that you are prepared to pay for storage if you win your case and if a claim for storage fees is met. It will certainly be reasonable to claim for storage fees – although you would have to produce an invoice for them at some point. However, even a pro forma invoice stating what the tariff is will probably be good enough to begin with
    • Thank you both for those replies.   Dx, I'll get that CPR off ASAP. Would you mind clarifying when you say "use our 2 -5 line defence". Does this literally mean a defense thats 2 to 5 lins in length? Many thanks!   Dave, you're absolutely correct. I always ignore letters from these sorts of firms. The place is very local so no bother at all to get back there. 
  • Our picks

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2692 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

Having seen this thread (and this post in particular )





I am wondering what chance I have of appealing via the county court since I did provide proof of purchase and the council were in no way at a loss as I had proof of purchase


I went through the informal, then formal NTO procedure, and onto PATAS (upheld) believing the council had retained a ticket I had purchased in order to check why it did not remain on the windscreen after applying.


After no budging from their side I was eventually threatened with bailiffs and a seizure of a vehicle to cover their 'losses' and paid up approximately £400 on top of the original penalty.


Now following a FOI request it turns out the Council policy did not inspect the ticket, nor send it off for evaluation, their standard procedure confirmed in writing being to destroy any and all original correspondence sent to them (including the ticket), and retaining only electronic copies, which is absolutely no use to anyone when they have been asked to check for a defective product supplied / purchased for the purpose of 'pay and display'.


Does anyone else know if I migh have recourse using the courts ? I have already been through to the LGO, who (despite confirming the PATAS procedure should not have been the next step, even though it was suggestd as only route by the Council) they have their hands tied in contractural red tape.


Any parking legal eagle I should call, to check on probability of success ?

Edited by Kiki1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what that thread has to do with a Council ticket?? Based on the few details you give you are barking up the wrong tree. Failing to correctly display a ticket in a council car park is a contravention of the traffic order and liable to a penalty, the fact you paid is not relevant (unless the P&D has your VRM on it, its not proof you paid anyway it could have been used in any car). When you go to PATAS you produce your evidence, the Council present theirs, its not the Council responsibility to ensure that your case is well presented that's your job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your thread. You say you went to PATAS and the case was upheld? Then the council should have cancelled the ticket. You say you were threatened with bailiffs - what else happened after the PATAS hearing? What correspondence were you sent?


You can't appeal the case through the courts.


Where is the case now? Have you paid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, the councils side was upheld, as a result of there being no information to the contrary at the time of appeal.


Yes, the 'failure to display' was the offence, I'm unsure as to how the ticket 'could have been used in any car' since the warden that issued the PCN was shown the ticket about a minute after tapping his box of joy, and advised me that I should write off to the LA, enclosing the ticket as proof.


Without any of the above available at the time of PATAS - plus the fact the adjudicator conveniently ignoring that the ticket had been sent back to the LA for investigation as it did not remain in view as it was supposed to - meant the next stages of charge certification and then the bailiffs were an automatic follow on.


Once again my reason for posting is to find out why there is a difference between the pre-estimate costs for a private land parking ticket, and one for the council

Link to post
Share on other sites

Private tickets work on a different legal basis to council ones - namely, breach of contract. The remedy for breach of contract is to sue for losses so the private firms have to offer an estimate of what their losses were.


PCNs of the type you have are penalties, like fines. There is no concept of loss involved and so no need for the council to produce evidence of costs - the charge is there to penalise the owner, not compensate the council.


If the adjudication found against you and you then did not settle the debt, I can't see you have any option other than to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the adjudication found against you and you then did not settle the debt, I can't see you have any option other than to pay.


Thanks or that. Now, with the LGO advising that PATAS should not have been involved, despite the LA giving no option in their documentation following formal rejection after the NTO, as well as Northampton Bulk Court finding in favour (twice) for the registered keeper, they persued the original charge until the bailiffs came knocking.


If the County court in Northampton isdeemed to be part of the process, why is using a county court elsewhere in the country not a suitable step for the RK to persue the LA nw they have cnfirmed they destroyed documentation - paid for and therefore the property of the RK - without evaluating it for the fault that led to the PCN in the first place ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you've been through the ombudsman and also filed two stat decs already? You really have to tell us what's happened if you want meaningful advice. You didn't mention that before. Was the list time Northampton "found in favour of the registered keeper" before or after the adjudication hearing? If after, and they found in favour, what happened then?


What would be most helpful would be just a list of events in order, since the last NTO was issued, so we can tell the history of the case.


To answer your points - I find it bizarre that the LGO would advise that PATAS should not be involved. They are there to get involved! Anyway, whatever the LGO thinks that was right or wrong, it happened, so you can't attach much significance to his or her view, unless there were formal consequences (tell us about it!).


Northampton County Court are there to rubber stamp applications which approve bailiff action. That's rather different from you suing the council/bailiff as a private action, which is what you would have to do to get a court involved. But before even considering that, which points of law are at stake? The council is entitled to penalise drivers and enforce payment - what has happened which is illegal? (Poor work on their part in considering your appeal submission is not against the law - it's a matter for the adjudicator to consider.) You seem to be implying that the council destroyed property belonging to the RK - a used P&D ticket. That alone is hardly likely to get anywhere near a court room and in any case, is a separate issue.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...