Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for that. Should I still apply for a time order or just continue to make payments as normal?
    • Autocorrect typo. For “ admission instructive settlement" read "administrative settlement"
    • 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
  • 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

Samsung Galaxy SII repair problem on Vodafone Business contract #6707684

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3589 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts


This is my first time post here so please bare with me.


My handset as above (15 mths old on contract) got hot whilst charging on 7 April so I took it off charge.


When i went to try it again later that evening it would not charge and would not switch on.


Took it to a local store the next day who said it would have to go for repair.


It went for repair and was returned to store on 14 April with 'a new LCD screen',

along with a check list saying everything had 'passed' and that the unit had also had a software upgrade

and was now working and ready to go.


When the assistant in store tried it it would still not charge or switch on.

When he looked the battery said 'faulty' across it. So


he called the repair centre only to be told that the batteries had been 'switched' at the repair centre.

Of course I was not happy that the unit was still not working and the store do not hold spare batteries so


called Vodafone only to be asked to go and find a phone shop and buy a battery.

I refused and asked for a replacement unit as clearly there was still an issue with the handset.


They refused to replace and said that they would send out a battery by courier.

Said battery arrived on Wednesday 16 April, but upon insertion phone would still not charge or switch on.


I called VF who said all they could do was put me through to the repairs department.

I explained that it had been repaired and under the Sale of Goods Act was not fit for purpose ie making mobile phone calls.

They said it would have to go back for repair again !!!!


I called Samsung direct who said that they would send a further battery and a jiffy bag (in case that battery didn't work).


2nd replacement battery arrived on 19 April with only about half hour of batter life,

so I reset all my applications and proceeded to put the unit onto charge.

Guess what it wouldn't charge,


powered off and now wont switch on again.


I called VF again and was told it has to go back for repair.

I explained that it has been repaired and had 2 new batteries so clearly is not fit for purpose

ie making mobile calls.


Vodafone are having non of it !!


As you can imagine, I am running out of patience, yes I have been lent a basic phone to use from the store

(who incidentally do not know of the further goings on since I collected the phone on 14 April).


I have been onto live chat and am still told I have to resend for repair 3 times before it can be replaced

and then only at the manufacturers discretion.


I have been pointed to the Contract Terms & Conditions (which incidentally even though they were updated on January 2014

do not say anything about a unit having to be sent for repair 3 times before it can be replaced) !


I am a Business Contract user with 2 lines with VF and feel that the service is appalling.


How can a unit come back with everything ticked as 'pass' still not be working,

then I am asked to send it back for repair again.


Usually, when something electrical goes wrong under warranty you take it back for repair,

if it goes wrong again you are normally offered a replacement.


I was also told on several occasions that 'the Samsung SII is an old phone - the new Samsung S5 comes out on Friday'

- why was I not told that the SII was an 'old phone' when I took out the 24 mth contract 15 mths ago

and that my unit would not be supported by replacement - only repair.


I have all my original paperwork and nowhere does it state this ?


Thank you for reading this epistle but I am really at the end of my tether:mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's great


lee should see this tomorrow



please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a call from the Web team last week to discuss the problem.


Very nice guy, seemed to empathise with the problems encountered with Vodaphone

and the unit and put in a contingency plan in case the unit doesn't work once returned.


Well, I finally got my phone returned from Samsung today.


Put on charge, charged for approx 40 minutes, got very, very hot, powered off and now will not charge again or switch on ..

.................... how they can say it is repaired again I just do not know ????


Hoping to speak with someone at VP tomorrow as a matter of urgency to go with the contingency plan as it will be 1 month on Friday without my phone !!!!


New code: EFT195 [#6771581]


Not happy :evil:

Edited by LizzyB88
to add new code
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...