Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you. Such a good point. They did issue all 3 before I paid though. I only paid one because I didn’t have proof of parking that time, only for two others.    Unfortunately no proof of my appeal as it was just submitted through a form on their website and no copy was sent to me. I only have the reply. I believe I just put something like “we made the honest mistake of using the incorrect parking area on the app” and that’s it. Thanks again for your help. 
    • They are absolute chuckleheads. You paid but because you entered a different car park site also belonging to them they are pursuing you despite them knowing what you had done. It would be very obvious to everyone, including Alliance that your car could not have been in two places at the same time. Thank you for posting the PCN so quickly making it a pity that you appealed since there are so many things wrong with it that you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. They rarely accept appeals since that would mean they lose money but they have virtually no chance of beating you in Court. Very unlikely that they will take you to Court given the circumstances. Just in case you didn't out yourself as the driver could you please post up your appeal.
    • Jasowter I hope that common sense prevails with Iceland and the whole matter can be successfully ended. I would perhaps not have used a spell checker just to prove the dyslexia 🙂 though it may have made it more difficult to read. I noticed that you haven't uploaded the original PCN .Might not be necessary if the nes from Iceland is good. Otherwise perhaps you could get your son to do it by following the upload instructions so that we can appeal again with the extra ammunition provided by the PCN. Most of them rarely manage to get the wording right which means that you as the keeper are not liable to pay the charge-only the driver is and they do not know the name and address of the driver. So that would put you both in the clear if the PCN is non compliant.
    • Thank you so much. Yes, I wish I had done my research and not paid. It's all for the same car park. Here is one of the original PCNs, they are all the same bar different dates. PCN-22.03.24-1.pdf PCN-22.03.24-2.pdf
    • Hi Clou, Welcome to the Forum and thank you for reading first before you posted. There seems to be many problems with Cornwall and getting a signal to use your a phone which could be why these parking companies don't use alternatives. It is a shame you paid the first one as you would probably have not had to pay that one either.  Was the car park at which you paid the same parking company as the one sending you these PCNs? On the subject of PCNs could you please post them up so we can see if they comply with the Act.
  • 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

Hudu V Lloyds (Getting Money Back)


hudu
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5283 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

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Tick yes and send to SCM.

 

Usually no other witnesses.

 

Just tick no regarding agreement of the directions.

 

That quick enough for you.

 

Yay! :cool: Quick enough indeed.

 

But can you just clarify point 2.

 

Secondly, Section C (Witnesses) - I have put my own name obviously, but it asks "witness to which facts'?.

 

Its the "Witness to which facts?" bit that is throwing me.

 

I'm tempted to write "All of them innit!" ;-)

 

What goes in there?

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heeeheee. :p

 

Ok...I'll go with that. Thanks for the quick response.

 

Been at this for hours (Hand Written) - time to go and relax and I'll take it to the court tomorrow.

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry on reflection, 'All facts and matters relevant to this claim.'

 

Probably a bit late, but you can use the PDF version in my post 46, it it easier to complete as you can cut and past and it looks better.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry on reflection, 'All facts and matters relevant to this claim.'

 

Probably a bit late, but you can use the PDF version in my post 46, it it easier to complete as you can cut and past and it looks better.

 

I went with "All facts to be contained in court bundle"

 

As i said, it's handwritten - as I have no printer :x

 

I used my poshest scrawl though. :p

 

Hope the above will suffice after all that? :confused:

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AQ delivered to County Court today. :)

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Awwwww...

 

Had a really nice letter from Lloyds today saying that they thank me for my letter of 20th december where i rejected their goodwill offer and that they know that their solicitors are now dealing with my county court claim.

 

It only took them a month to do that. How sweet.

 

I'll see them in court. Well...probably not...:rolleyes:

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Awwwww...

 

Had a really nice letter from Lloyds today saying that they thank me for my letter of 20th december where i rejected their goodwill offer and that they know that their solicitors are now dealing with my county court claim.

 

It only took them a month to do that. How sweet.

 

I'll see them in court. Well...probably not...:rolleyes:

 

Doubt it. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

A bump and a "Should I be calling the court by now..as I have heard nothing?"

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not unusual to wait this long for directions, however it will do no harm to call the court, they are usually quite helpful and friendly.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

*update*

 

Called the court yesterday. Lady told me that the AQ was with the district judge but he has about 3-4 weeks backlog and is very busy.

 

Couldn't tell me any more.

 

Patiently I wait. :-?:(

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...update...

 

no movement.

 

That is all. :(

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rotherham Crown Court.

 

Glad there are others at the same stage...I lost all my contemporaries when they won ages ago! :lol:

 

Shouldn't be long now...but this has seemed the most frustrating time as everything is out of your hands.

 

Will take a read of your thread.

 

Good luck. :)

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

May 18th!!! Yay!

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks folks... Maybe I jumped the gun a little. :confused:

 

I've been home and actually read the letter now. I don't seem to have a court date after all.

 

Before District Judge ****** in the *****county court

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

The court is considering allocating this matter to the small claims track. The parties shall lodge any objection by 4pm on 18th May 2007.

 

Does anyone know how much longer for a court date after that time? And do Lloyds use such orders to further draw out the process?

 

A confused and slightly dejected hudu. :|

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This order is unusual, looks like the judge is playing is safe before allocation, as your claim in around the small - fast track threshold.

 

Nothing to do with Lloyds delaying tactics.

 

At a guess, it will probably be another month before you hear again with directions that will usually include a hearing date.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It did seem odd, as I was quite clear in my AQ that it was below the threshold before interest and asked that the judge would consider this.

 

You say the judge was probably 'playing safe' - what would be the reasoning behind that?

 

I'm confuzzled. :confused:

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He just wants to give the parties the opportunity to object, prior to allocating a borderline claim to the small claims track, this is speculation on my part though.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

*UPDATE - such that it is*

 

I called the court and they said the court date could be anything up to 15 weeks away.

 

Why have I paid these people money? :mad:

13th Nov 2006 - Preliminary Letter delivered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - LBA - deliverered to branch

30th Nov 2006 - Standard 'we are looking into this letter'

15th Dec 2006 - SAR delivered to branch to demand six years statements (currently pursuing 5 years)

19th Dec 2006 -750 Pounds offered as settlement. Accepted as PART settlement 20th Dec 2006.

Filed with MCOL online - Notice of issue from 17th Jan 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...