Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No such thing as bailiffs in the north anymore. HMRC have certain statutory powers, but obviously, they don't apply here. The legislation is much like the rest of the UK: MB either chases the debt themselves or sells it (or a %age) to a DCA. The DCA has no more rights than the original creditor had. They have to apply for a collection judgment against you through the Enforcement of Judgements Office. Hence @lolerz blunt point that
    • This is the full appeal & response :    You reported that you were the registered keeper but is not prepared to state who was driving at the time the parking charge was issued. You reported that you are being held liable for the parking charge.         You completed the appeal on 09/02/2023 18:19:20. Upon arriving at the shopping centre The driver attempted to park in the disabled bay, which at the time was encroached by another vehicle already parked well outside of their bay, not displaying a badge. Due to the nature of the visit, the driver was required to park promptly and exit the vehicle, whilst displaying the blue disabled badge. Upon appealing, apparently the only thing that matters in this case is the sign post stating the parking bays must be adhered to at all times. Without any recognition for the fact the driver was physically not able to park elsewhere & correctly displayed their blue parking badge     The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 16/02/2023 15:02:06.   The Operator Reported That... The appellant was the driver. The appellant was the keeper. The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA.. ANPR/CCTV was used. The Notice to Keeper was sent on 15/12/2022. A response was received from the Notice to Keeper. The ticket was issued on 09/12/2022. The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA. The charge is based in Contract.   The Operator Made The Following Comments... The vehicle was not parked fully within the confines of a marked parking bay whilst parked in one of the carpark that we manage. Signage displayed throughout the site states "Vehicles to be parked within the confines of a marked parking bay". As the vehicle was in breach of the terms and conditions that are stated on the contractual signage throughout the site, a Parking Charge was issued.  As stated in the NGP initial appeal:  Arrived on site with a disabled passenger & as is visible in photo, we were unable to park in the disabled bay due to the other vehicle in the photo encroaching the disabled bay, meaning my passenger could not physically get out of the vehicle if we had parked between the marked lines. Please see photo for proof of blue badge & photo of parking on the day. Blue badge was displayed whilst parked.  >> We would just like to clarify that upon receiving their appeal, we reviewed the CCTV footage from the date in question and at no point did a passenger leave the vehicle nor is the keeper mentioning these facts to this IAS appeal.  We note that during the appeal process that we were provided with a disabled badge, but not the full badge showing whose badge this belongs to. Nevertheless the driver failed to correctly park within confines of the bay.  However for the IAS adjudicators viewing only we have attached a file titled "PCN 400786" This file shows the events that occurred with the driver on this date.  Please see file titled "Malpas Road Shopping Park" which shows what the signage looks like onsite.  Please see the file titled "Vehicle Location" which shows where the vehicle was parked and where the signage was located near by.         I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. A number of images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.  The signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on private land and that vehicles must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked parking bay and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice. I can see from the photographs provided that the Appellant was not parked within the confines of a marked bay, which the Appellant accepts. Whilst I appreciate the circumstances raised by the Appellant, mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. Simply by parking outside of a marked bay the Appellant breached the displayed terms and conditions and as such I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion. I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.  Currently appealed 400786 Issued on 09/12/2022 by New Generation Parking Management Ltd to vehicle registration Originally rejected by operator on 02/02/2023
    • First of all, I'm not sure why you want to given 30 days to do the repair. It is excessive. I have the sense that you feel that you have to be reasonable in order to gain the approval of the court if that's the way it goes. You certainly should be reasonable but 30 days is excessive. Frankly I don't think that you should get the vehicle repaired by Cinch. They have undermined confidence. They have been notified of your quotation and the cause of the problem and they either haven't responded or they have declined to help. You have no way of knowing that if they are allowed to touch your vehicle, that they will do a quality job. I would suggest that the best thing to do is to get the vehicle repaired and then send them the bill. One them that this is what is going to happen and that if they don't pay you within seven days of receiving the bill then you will sue them. So I would book the car in for repairs on a date about 10 days from now. I would then inform Cinch in a letter of claim that the car is now booked in on XXX date. They have already had the inspection report in the estimate for repairs. You're paying the bill and seven days after that if they haven't reimburse you against the bill which you will submit to them, you will have them without any further notice. This will give them about 14 days to respond with the payment. You will have your car repaired and if they refuse – which they probably will – then you issue the claim papers without any more mucking around. If this appeals to you then draft a letter of claim which expresses this plan. Book the car in tomorrow for the work. Once you know the date then jiggle the dates of your letter around so that Cinch have 14 days before you sue them
    • TINY applies here... tough It's Now Yours.  its a person to person private sale  it's not covered by any rules/regulations at all. even if the MOT was fraud a county court claim is not the place to address this issue and most certainly not using the seller as any defendant against such, nor using it as an excuse to try and get out of buying the car and getting a refund. the claim is a dead duck. simply do AOS and file a defence stating this was a private sale between 2 private individuals, the car was test driven and the buyer found no faults nor were any aware of by the seller. dx
  • 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
      • 160 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

Charges pre May 2008


caro
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3623 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

I have become something of a paperwork hoarder but before I need to call in the professional declutterers I've finally made a start on one of the piles that's hidden away.

 

I've stumbled on neatly filed statements for a number of credit cards that were paid off in May 2008. I'm fairly confident there will be charges but as they're probably over 6 years old, is there any point trying to claim them?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most definitely.

ps Do I get 20% commission for my invaluable claims management advice?

 

No commission Oleg but have a virtual drink on me when I get my money back! :-D

 

So what's my argument for them not being SB?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No commission Oleg but have a virtual drink on me when I get my money back! :-D

 

So what's my argument for them not being SB?

 

S32(1)© Limitations Act 1980 - Payments made under a mistake?

 

Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council and all that.

 

EDIT: Ooops...forgot to say that it may well involve court action to go back that far.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy peasy. S B does not apply to unfair charges. Some will claim otherwise but as you know you can post here if they start getting awkward.

[My fee just rose to 30%.]

Oops , apologies for inadvertent cross posting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

S32(1)© Limitations Act 1980 - Payments made under a mistake?

 

Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council and all that.

 

EDIT: Ooops...forgot to say that it may well involve court action to go back that far.

 

Thanks although I probably wouldn't bother with FOS anyway. Have to see if it's worth risking the court fees not to mention oleg's ever increasing percentage!! :p

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he is getting a bit steep isn't he. :lol:

 

Fos won't be interested in charges reclaims, they will side with the OFT report and will just dismiss it. If you go to fos and they refuse then you have another hurdle to overcome in court if you choose that route. The reason being that fos is a duly authorised and (allegedly) competent adjudicator and judges will take that into account with a claim that has been turned down by fos.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...