Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Peter McCormack says "ambition is big" and Real Bedford's attendances are increasing with promotions.View the full article
    • How does one obtain the permit? The permit team number is only open between the hours of 9am to 3pm Mon - Fri. It says on the website, To obtain an additional 2 hours, the driver must pay a tariff of £3.00 + booking fees in person at our Security Hut, is that how you get the permit also, from the security hut? What a rigmaroll that would be but maybe just another step to take to try and catch people out?
    • Anotheruser0000 bear in mind that not all Judges are equally versed in the PoFA regulations. Fortunately now most of them are but sometimes a Judge from a higher Court sits in who is well experienced  in Law but not PoFA. and so they sometimes go "offkey" because their knowledge can raise a different set of arguments and solutions. It does seem particularly unfair  when the decision is so  bad . it can also be that in some situations the motorist being a lay person is not sufficiently know ledgeable to be able to counter a Judge's decisions in a way that a barrister could.
    • The argument about the date of receipt is now dead because the PCN  does not comply with the wording  of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  First reason Section 9 [2] [e]  "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges;" Second Reason Section 9 [2][a] "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;" All your PCN does is mark the time you entered and left the car park. It does not include all the myriad things you do in between-driving into the car park, looking for a parking space-perhaps a disabled space or  parent and Child place@ getting the children or disabled person out of the car then going shopping. Coming back; loading the car with shopping [, getting the children or disabled into the car, taking the trolley back to the store; driving to the exit perhaps stopping to let vehicles/pedestrians cross in front of you etc. so subtracting the driving times from before and after parking can make quite a difference from their time to the actual period parking time. So the upshot is now that only the driver is responsible for paying the PCN and the keeper is not liable at all even if the name of the driver is never known by Nexus so well done for not appealing. You obviously want to keep it that way to make it very difficult for them to win in Court if it ever goes that far. Although your question is now moot since  the same objective has been achieved by the non compliant PCN [ie no keeper liability] just  about the only way to dispute the timing of the PCN would be if one kept the envelope and there was a discernible date stamp on it that did not match the date on the PCN. There is a new Act coming out [and it cannot come quickly enough ] and one of the things required is that parking companies will have to prove the date of sending out their PCNs. We are not the only ones who sometimes doubt the veracity of their dates particularly as the later it is sent [unlawfully] the shorter the period motorists have to benefit [?] from the reduced payment. I haven't seen it on your posts but do you know how long you are permitted to park for free?
    • I was so annoyed and frustrated about the fact this case was lost it's been floating around my head all night. Dave962, are you sure that's what the Judge said? .... It doesn't make sense. Did the judge in fact dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant did not make an appeal within 28 days? Effectively telling the PPC about the error entering the registration number and providing proof of payment at that time? To me, that's an important point.  
  • 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

MWA Seetec Peterborough


Chester6
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3754 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

Anyone been on this yet or met the lady who does it? Is Seetec still horrendously pants and unprofessional? Or has it gotten worse somehow? Still unwritten rules like with how many times you can ring the bell?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about Peterborough, but my local Seetec don't know the difference between JSA and ESA, mandatory appointment letters are issued on the first template that comes to hand, so an ESA 'customer' is likely to get a letter intended for a JSA 'customer'.

 

The staff turns over faster than a fan on turbo, and the manager has a chip on his shoulder the size of the HSBC tower.

 

They are worse than pants, pants would be a compliment.

 

I was wrongly referred to them and are rid of them now thankfully, otherwise I'm sure I would have been up for murder.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still unwritten rules like with how many times you can ring the bell?

 

I ring this bell once, and if you do not answer promptly, I will damned well lean on it until you do !!

Do they try to sanction you for ringing the bell too many times ?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was one of the first bunch of victims when it opened and it was terrible

 

 

They refused to let you in but they also refused to help during lunch, thought it ok to make personal calls in plain sight and do paperwork as opposed to being helpful, a receptionist who called you "babe" and a manager who accused me of thinking I am the centre if the world for daring to complain

Didn't help when an interview stunk thanks to homophobia and the interviewer plus the jobcentre didn't care once they sent you there

They have the honour of making Ingeus look professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about Peterborough, but my local Seetec don't know the difference between JSA and ESA, mandatory appointment letters are issued on the first template that comes to hand, so an ESA 'customer' is likely to get a letter intended for a JSA 'customer'.

 

The staff turns over faster than a fan on turbo, and the manager has a chip on his shoulder the size of the HSBC tower.

 

They are worse than pants, pants would be a compliment.

 

I was wrongly referred to them and are rid of them now thankfully, otherwise I'm sure I would have been up for murder.

 

The manager at the time was horrendous and I am sorry to hear of your experiences

Link to post
Share on other sites

The manager at the time was horrendous and I am sorry to hear of your experiences

I feel sorry for the other 24 odd ESA claimants that were referred at the same time I was, they still have to attend the dump. I'll guarantee they aren't having a pleasant time of it.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a receptionist who called you "babe"

 

That is spelt S. I. R. little missy !

 

Worked last time I had to deal with any officialdom :madgrin:

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a response from Seetec's director of operations yesterday to my rather lengthy letter of complaint . Predictably he made no mention whatever of a number of issues I raised, but instead focused on the process involved in lifting a sanction. In fact he seems to think that if it weren't for Seetec's intervention I would still be sanctioned.

 

Interestingly he knew the date the sanction was lifted, the timing and point of origin of e mails sent by various DWP departments to each other regarding the sanction, and other info that could only be obtained if he had privy to JCP/DWP's IT system.

This is good news for me because it adds weight to my assertion that Seetec knew I had voluntary status before they raised the WP08, something they have always denied.

 

All Seetec's documentation pass audit by the DWP according to him, despite my sending him copies of four letters that plainly breach DWP guidelines.

 

 

I'll keep up the pressure methinks.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All Seetec's documentation pass audit by the DWP according to him, despite my sending him copies of four letters that plainly breach DWP guidelines.

 

I'll keep up the pressure methinks.

 

Once you have exhausted their complaints procedure, please take it up with the Independent Complaints Examiner - It will cost Seetec £5,000 for the honour and cause significant discomfort to them.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you have exhausted their complaints procedure, please take it up with the Independent Complaints Examiner - It will cost Seetec £5,000 for the honour and cause significant discomfort to them.

That's my intention Mr.P.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything to avoid signing or don't showCv like with the WP?

 

I haven't a clue as I never engaged with the programme. I would not be surprised though if the usual shenanigans aren't tried on. On another forum I've been reading that some providers are trying to coerce the ESA client group into using Universal Job Match.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...