Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Today , after a lotof years i recieved a letter from this lot. Very friendly, "Were writing to remind you that we havent had any contact from you in a while".  The velvet fist, followed by  a veiled threat to get their preferred debt collectors involved. Yep dead right. In 1992/3 I took out a Student load under duress from DHSS. uP TO 2000 I hadsucessfully gotten deferment on low income. But rarther thansign on as unemployed,I decided to be self employed. I applied and they asked for all sorts of documents. I obliged and then correspondance ceased from them, circa 2001. To date  I have had no correspondance from Student Loans. I was made  redundant in 2009 and  reached 65 in 2012 , at which age the loan should have been cancelled. Now ,today, 12 years on retirement and 11 ( at least years after last contact) I get a letter with veiled threats. Do I , as I smell a scam a) ignore it and hope that Erudio will think that this phishing attempt has failed or b) respond with a statute barred letter or c) remind them of legal terms that loan should be cancelled 12 years ago or d) combination of b) +c)      
    • But I'm not mixing and matching. Sure, when researching I do check multiple avenues, but when speaking, I will open a single post. The Fb post was made in March, it is now June, time has passed, and when the suggestion was made, no further information was given on how I should progress beyond "send a letter", which has meant that I've needed to start another stream - this one, but only after taking the time to research first.
    • hes not turning you away he is simply saying that you should stick to one channel of advice. he is perfectly happy with that channel being this forum, and he will help you   all he is saying, and I agree, is that you should stick to one help channel, not mix and match 3/4
    • As long as we are clear . Do the reading and post your letter of claim in draft form as requested and we can go from there.    
    • Hold on @BankFodder, that was a bit harsh. I spoke with the EVRi complaints Facebook group to begin with, a user on that group told me to send a letter but didn't give any specifics. Here at CAG, I was looking more for specific help as I've never raised such a claim before, and wanted to be sure that my claim was correct, which is why I've researched information with the other groups too, to be sure; but you seem to have assumed that I've made some form of contact with the other groups, such that I find your comments and tone to be very unfair. And I do know a thing or two about forums, that forum users are unpaid volunteers, I happen to be a Tableau Ambassador, and so perform a very similar role helping others in an unpaid capacity  
  • 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

PPC Signage & Website compliance with the Companies Act


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3582 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

New thread for discussing (possible) PPC signage and website non compliance with the Companies Act 2006.

 

I've asked that a couple of posts be moved here from another thread, and we can then continue the discussion without hijacking another thread :)

Edited by citizenB

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following this thread, I took liberty of taking a few photos of the signage of a car park near me where they operate,

and it seems all of their signs are in breach of the companies act!!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]52626[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]52627[/ATTACH]

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following this thread, I took liberty of taking a few photos of the signage of a car park near me where they operate,

and it seems all of their signs are in breach of the companies act!!

 

I'd like to think so, but I'm not 100% sure that a geographic address needs to be displayed on signage. Though I am waiting for someone from Companies House to get back to me, so I shall ask the question.

 

If it does need to be on there, it will certainly make life interesting (and expensive) for the companies concerned, as while their signs might comply with the BPA/IPC codes of practice, they won't comply with the law. Open season on PPC's :D

 

Here's a pic I took yesterday for another matter. Different company, and there are apparently two companies operating in the car park. But one displays a full geographic address, while the other doesn't. Could be interesting times ahead ;)

 

As an aside.. UKPC, who are using an 0870 number, don't include details of the call tariff, which I think is a legal requirement, and Highview parking have their old address on all of the signage and seem to have two company numbers, one of which is exactly the same as UKPC.

 

IMG_0003.JPG

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I've heard back from the Companies House - Breaches team, and there's good news and bad.

 

The Good news is that Local Parking Security are about to get stamped on from a great height due to the fact that their website does not comply with the disclosure regulations in the Companies Act 2006. Shame :D

 

I'd bet it will soon lol

 

 

The bad news is that signage is not covered by the trading disclosures, so doesn't need to carry the full registered office address. However, I shall be reporting Highview Parking for the sign in my post above, as they appear to be using someone elses company number on their sign, and any other PPC websites that don't comply with the regulations.

 

So if you find any that don't have a full geographic address on them, please post the sites in this thread and I shall go and bother Companies House, and cost the PPC's a bit of cash into the bargain.

 

 

For clarity, the company website of a (registered) limited company should have the following information on it, which could be in the footer or on a contact us page.

 

The full address of the registered office. A PO Box doesn't comply unless it also has a geographic address included.

 

PO Box 123

Anytown

AB1 2CD

 

For instance, is no good.

 

PO Box 123

1 Any Road

Anytown

AB1 2CD

 

Is fine.

 

The website must include a contact email address and not just a contact form (I didn't know that)

 

The website must state where the company is registered. Just the company registration number isn't good enough. It must state Registered in England & Wales. Number 8923849 or similar, or Registered in Wales. Number 8923849 or similar, or Registered in Scotland. Number 8923849 or similar.

 

Get out there and get looking, between us I'm sure we can cost the industry a sizeable chunk of change in fees to have their websites redesigned :wink::violin:

 

 

 

And possibly even get the directors of the companies concerned up in court themselves.

 

Q. What can happen if the company fails to comply with the trading disclosure requirements?

A. The company and every one of its officers in default will be committing an offence and they may be liable to a fine.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff Dragonfly.

 

As a thread today was about these herberts, which country are they registered in? I can't find it?

 

http://www.ngpltd.com/home

 

 

They also tell blatant untruths...

 

Q. Is it true that the registered keeper need not give you any information about the driver of the vehicle at the time and date in question?

 

A.* No this is not true. *This was very true up until the changes in legislation on October 1st*2012 and there lies the problem. *That is why parking companies were reluctant to take people to court unless they had Photographic or video evidence clearly displaying the driver of the vehicle at the time and date in question.

 

*

 

*

 

Q. Do you take people to court?

 

A.*Yes, since the Protections of Freedoms Act (2012) came into force on 1st October 2012 a lot of the BPA approved parking companies are now pursuing people through the courts.

 

*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks armadillo, I shall have pleasure in letting Companies House know. It's odd that they do include the required information (Registred in E&W) on their invoice, but not on their website. Bad NGP! :roll:

 

Unfortunately, I don't think they'll be all that interested in your second two points, but as long as we, on here, know the truth and continue to let others know, that's the main thing :)

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Park Direct UK ( http://www.parkdirectuk.com/ ) reported to Companies House. I've never seen such a shambles of a website.

 

No registered office address at all, not even a PO Box.

No telephone number.

No email address.

 

CH are going to have a field day with this mob :D

 

 

Though I'm assuming that there's no law against it, I've also found something else rather 'interesting'...

 

Park Direct UK Limited.

Company Number: 06266347

Registered Address:

Unit 7, Tomo Estate

Packet Boat Lane

Uxbridge

UB8 2JP

 

Inc. Date: 01 Jun 2007

 

Status: DISSOLVED.

 

Directors (1): Mr Abraham Saliba

Park Direct UK Limited.

Company Number: 07437795

Registered Address:

1 Furzeground Way

Stockley Park East

Uxbridge

Middlesex

UB11 1BD

 

Inc. Date: 12 Nov 2010

 

Status: ACTIVE

 

Director(s) 1: Mr Abraham Saliba

 

2nd bite at the same cherry having found it too bitter the first time?

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, but not at all surprising TBH...

 

Indicative of the whole sordid industry...exposing them is the only way to force them to play by the rules.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have today reported none other than ParkingEye to Companies House and OfCom (I'm sure that will raise a smile with some).

 

They have been reported to Companies House on the grounds of their breach of the Trading Disclosures Regulations. Namely.

 

1) Failing to disclose on their website their company number.

2) Failing to disclose on their website the region in which their company is registered. And

3) Failing to disclose on their website their registered office (geographic address)

 

They have further been reported to OfCom on the grounds of the fact that they only display an 0844 number, which can cost up to 41p a minute to call from a mobile, yet fail to warn people of the possible costs involved, or supply an alternative geographic telephone number in the 01 or 02 number ranges.

 

Should give them something to think about owned.gifw00t.gif

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...