Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • utter BS, doesn't matter you signed it. pers i'd be writing as per the other threads here rejecting the car as not as described under CRA etc and be done with it. as its a debit card you could also do a full chargeback within 120 days to your bank and simply dump the car back to BMW. 100's of like threads to read here. get your ducks inline. make sure you know what you are doing and off you go. dont take any BS from BMW, no matter what you sign it does NOT remove your consumer rights. p'haps it might be on the off chance you are a good manager , a quick phonecall tomorrow saying you dont want it because (no bla bla fitted) it might be resolved in 5 mins..i will guess to date you not tried
    • No need to worry about Rwanda Just give all the illegals one way trip to Northern Ireland then they can wander off into the EU through your beloved open border.     Job Done 😂🤣  
    • despite the evidence mounting against Chrichton, Vennells wrote in a meeting note that Crichton 'was possibly more loyal to her professional conduct requirements' "Vennells said Crichton was upset that the Post Office had ruined her reputation and compromised her by undertaking a further review of the Second Sight handling. Crichton was said to be ‘very emotional’ and her ‘ego and self-esteem have been undermined’."   That it seems all about their own interests - says a lot about both Chrichton and Vennels views on 'professional conduct requirements' eh?   Former Post Office chief executive Paula Vennells complained that general counsel put her integrity 'above interests of business' | Law Gazette WWW.LAWGAZETTE.CO.UK Susan Crichton was left waiting outside board meeting to discuss damaging forensic accountant's report, inquiry hears.  
  • 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

PCN from LONDON PARKING SOLUTIONS


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3638 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

The reason you were ticketed was "left site". This has already been proven at a court that this doesnt matter and therefore the issuing of the ticket cannot properly be taken further. You canwrite to the company and appeal, saying that the conditions of parking do not exclude going elsewhere (dont say that you wre ONLY elsewhere) and that this has been subject to a court decision and therefore you are not obliged to pay a fee for parking as you did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 month later...

How was the letter addressed to you? As driver or RK of the vehicle? Did they invite you to name the driver at the time and do they mention pursuing the RK if the driver is not identified.

As for leaving the car park, that reason for ticketing was blown out of the water ages ago.

Appeal on the grounds of no loss caused by your action and that £100 is a penalty, not an estimate of loss. they will reject this but give you the all-important POPLA ref no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a point of interest you could ask them as RK how are you supposed to know about the ticket discount period if the driver doesnt tell you about the ticket. Dont mention the defence for leaving car park as at this stage they havent identified the driver and are not chasing you are the driver but keeper of the vehicle. Make them do the work and hopefully the mistakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dx is a person who is one of the site administrators.

 

they sent you a letter as they didnt get a response from the driver of the vehicle, which they are entitled to do.

 

You can appeal this charge, initially to them but do so only as the keeper of the vehicle.

 

They will probably reject your appeal but should give you a POPLA reference number.

 

If they dont their actions are limited to pursuing the driver and not the RK so it is important to make sure of the capacity in which all correspondence is addressed.

 

Your appeal should simply state that no loss has been caused to the company by the actions of the driver of the vehicle and that claiming a charge for the driver leaving the premises is contrary to an appeal court's determination and therefore their claim is a penalty and not an estimate of their liquidated losses.

 

they will probably tell you that they dont accept this as a reason for an appeal and should then give you the POPLA ref code.

(why would they uphold your appeal when their entire business model is based on telling lies to people)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That will be fine as it is going to the parking co and they are very unlikely to agree to a reduction in income just because you are right so just wait for teh rejection letter and the POPLA ref number. Use a slightly different approach to them when you get it, the wording is available in other posts here and people will tell you what you say according to the response of LPS

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In other words, they are claiming their establishment costs. I bet their accountants have a headache. You dont have until the 14th, they havent followed the procedure they need to follow yet so dont give them a bean and wait until you get the notice to keeper and then come back here for what to say and do next. They should have given you a POPLA ref number if they are rejesting your appeal as driver but there again, you havent said you were the driver so wait for the correct demand and tell us when it arrives on your doormat. Too soon and they can be brushed off on a technicality and too late they get the same treatment. You have read the threads here so you must have an idea of the ploys they use to get you to pay up.

Now leave your pen alone and make them waste their money

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot desking in the collections dept. As others say. write back stating debt is disputed in its entirety and they should pass the whole matter back to its originator. Say that any further communication from Roxburge will be considered as harassment.

The arguments about incorrect procedures are to bash the parking company, you dont need to justify yourself to a DCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

LPS do have an alternative choice-forget the entire matter as they are timed out. I would let them make the next move and if you get a further demand write back heading your post letter before action and point out that the company is in breach of the PoFA in claiming against you as RK and that any further approaches by Roxburge will result in you making a complaint of harassment as a criminal and civil tort without further notice to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...