Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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 
        • 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

PPC's a setup plan.......Opinions please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3704 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

Good morning everyone,

 

In the small town where I live with have a branch of a quite famous german supermarket (with Parking eye cameras) and two other supermarkets both with their own PPC's.

 

I have recently helped a couple of people defend Parking Eye, speculative Invoices with 100% success, However,

 

I would like to setup all three companies and detail the process of getting the charges dropped in the local media, My idea is this:

 

1. Overstay the Parking Eye park and get an Invoice, also double dip this park with witnesses present to record me times of arrival and departure, so that their First in, Last out ANPR flaw is exposed.

 

2 Overstay the other two car parks and show how to get these invoices dropped in the media also......

 

While I appreciate that parking cannot be a "free for all", I resent the fact that these quasi-legal rackets are scaring people with little money out of their cash!

 

 

Opinions please?

 

Cheers Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem you have is double dipping is easy to explain, ANPR as they call it is nothing of the sort, its CCTV with image capture. There are many reasons that the first exit can be missed by the camera. So it would cover their backside against an accusation of purposely using double dipping.

I am actually following a case with PE of double dipping two entrances on the car park person went twice in one day, they have supplied two photos 4 hours apart with the car going into the car park. They must believe the defendant reversed out. rather then their system is faulty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how the capture system works and it s flaws are fairly well documented but PE and the like would have you believe that it is always correct. A couple of cases have gone to court and PE got a good spanking for it. They will not make any changes as long as it doesnt cost them serious money every time they screw up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem is they will drop their claim and offer some mealy mouthed explanation as to why such as "reviewed the evidence" or "as a gesture of goodwill" and you will get nowhere beyond that in the local paper.

Now, a convoy of say 20 vehicles each having a go at a brief visit and returning 3 hours later and then seeing if they all get tickets for the overstay would be a worthy attempt. they could not claim "goodwill gesture" to 20 identical claims of the same time, it would blow a big hole in their credibility. Then repeat the exercise after the article in the local paper just to show them up again. Do it again at another location with a different circulation area for the local news.

I reckon if you repeated this a dozen times they would eventually start a new database of vehicle reg no's that never get a demand as it would be costing them a fortune in DVLA searches and postage.

I would join in on that one if others would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...