Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, Hotpoint UK has been a subsidiary of Whirlpool for over 20 years. And unlike some domestic goods manufacturers you can buy from them direct and I believe they employ their own service engineers, Is that your situation? You bought direct from Hotpoint and Hotpoint sent out their own engineer?
    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
  • 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

Charge Notice from Excel Parking **Won at POPLA**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3401 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

Hi all.

 

A short while ago my dad received a Parking Charge Notice on his windscreen from Excel Parking Ltd.

Let me try to setup the scene for you,

 

The car park is split in two as it is attached to a leisure park (Cinema, restaurants, gym, etc).

 

 

The Blue spaces are free parking, but only for use if you're using the leisure park and not leaving it,

and they make up a minority of the spaces available.

 

 

Next to these are many more white spaces which are pay & display and are for general use,

ie - you can leave the leisure park. In fairness to Excel, the signs for this are relatively clear and well displayed.

 

What happened was that my dad parked in one of the Blue spaces, but purchased a Pay & Display ticket,

then left the leisure park for around 15-20 minutes.

 

 

When he returned he had a notice stuck to his windscreen.

He sent an appeal letter to Excel Parking, but as you would expect they have rejected it,

giving him to 1st October to pay a reduced fine of £60, after which it will be £100.

They have included a POPLA reference number,

but have stated if the POPLA appeal fails then the full £100 fine will be payable.

 

Now, on the one hand yes he did violate the terms and conditions by parking in a blue space and leaving the leisure park.

But on the other hand, Excel have suffered absolutely no financial loss because he purchased a Pay & Display ticket

(Excel don't dispute that he bought a ticket, just that he parked in the wrong colour space).

 

 

One thing I'm not entirely sure on is if Excel have any jurisdiction of the White spaces, or if they are Council run.

I can't seem to find information one way or the other online,

so I'll have to pop by on the way home from work.

I'll also snap a few pictures of the signage to upload.

 

I have scans of the original parking notice, the Pay & Display ticket and the appeal rejection letter which I will post up when I get home,

but I just wanted to get initial thoughts and advice on the POPLA appeal process.

 

 

I'm handling things on behalf of my dad as he works out of the country most of the year and so is currently abroad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have twenty eight days from the rejection letter ( when the code was generated ), to log your appeal to POPLA.

 

 

As the NTD was appealed , then the driver has been named, so no issue with keeper liability.

 

 

A simple appeal to POPLA, asking for Excel to provide a breakdown of the genuine pre estimate of loss that the charge must represent for the alleged breach of contract, will see the charge cancelled.

Also demand , by sight of contract, proof that Excell has legal authority to issue and pursue parking charge notices.

 

 

As an aside, when you win at POPLA, you could then send a demand to Excell for your money back from the pay and display ticket....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore their petty puerile threats,

They have given you the POPLA code so send your appeal off to POPLA and wait for them to uphold your appeal.

 

Even IF by the very slim chance they don't, then you still don't owe them anything...

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

There is a good chance that VCS have no authority to issue anything in the blue areas so the appeal should be based on 2 points

1/ The appellant does not believe that VCS has the authority to make claims or pursue debts in their own name as per VCS v Ibbotson and demands that Excel parking show sight of a contract with the landowner that assigns such entitlement to them.

2/ That in any case the prescribed fee was paid by the driver and therefore no loss has been made by Excel parking and the appellant puts it to strict proof for Excel to show a breakdown of the losses caused by this action or at least a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

It is worth mentioning the VCS V Ibbotson case because Excel own VCS. This is the appeal decision that says you cannot be penalised for leaving the car park so they are screwed on both points. So go on, stick it to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no issue with keeper liability, my dad was the registered keeper and owner of the car at the time (though he has since sold it) and knows it was him driving it.

 

I'll get the appeal to POPLA logged on behalf of my dad with the request for a breakdown of the pre estimate of loss that the charge must represent. Even at worst, I doubt they can say it cost much, if any, more than the parking ticket. Certainly not £60-£100.

 

Thanks very much for your help guys, I'll keep the thread updated with any further outcomes :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend that you use the 2 pronged appeal I have put forward. I bet they dont have a contract to make claims in their own name for the land that is the "Blue" spaces, otherwise why would there be a differentiation. Make them show that they have a contract, if they cannot produce it then they are making a fraudulent claim so they are likely to just offer no evidence and you win by default.

If you want to stay with just the GPEOL argument then make sure you mention that the prescribed fee was paid so no loss could have occurred to them and that the landlord hasnt made a claim against you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you guys, have just started a new job so been insanely busy.

Have finally gotten the POPLA appeal logged using the approach you recommended eric, including mentioning the VCS v Ibbotson case. I've also uploaded a copy of the pay & display ticket that was purchased as I also mentioned that one had been purchased in the appeal. Will let you guys know when I hear anything back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just an update as promised.

 

 

POPLA Appeal WON!!

 

 

We've had the below notification from POPLA regarding the appeal we submitted for my dad,

 

 

 

 

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has

determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

 

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 8 August 2014 the operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark . The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked in a restricted area of the car park.

 

The appellant made many representations; however, I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant submitted that the charge exceeds the loss to the operator. The implication of this submission is that the parking charge is in fact punitive.

Appellants are not to be expected to use legal terminology. In this case, it appears to be the appellant’s case that the parking charge is in fact sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance and so should be proportionate to the loss suffered. Accordingly, the charge must be shown not to be punitive. This is illustrated by the operator providing a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which reflects the parking charge.

 

In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator submitted a breakdown of the losses they incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included costs such as the debt recovery process and final reminder process costs which cannot be taken into account as the operator has not incurred this loss as a result of the appellant’s breach. I am not minded to accept the debt recovery process as part of the justification as not all parking charge notices will go to the debt recovery process stage. I also find that the operator cannot claim the “2nd Stage Process” to be a separate heading of losses incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. This is because the procedure for dealing with an appeal is not structured in a way so that the appellant can re-appeal to the operator. Therefore I find that it is not reasonable for the operator to pre-estimate this as a loss. I find that the list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a result of the appellant’s breach. This is because it appears that a substantial portion of the costs refer to the debt recovery process and the “2nd Stage Process”.

 

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that the damages sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

 

 

 

 

Took a while but we got there.

A big huge thanks to all you guys for your help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant, well done!

 

They keep trying with their breakdown of a genuine pre estimate of loss.

 

The clue is in the word genuine..

Link to post
Share on other sites

In another POPLA decision, this time involving Highview, the PPC tried to calculate their "loss" by using the average spend of the customers to the store. All well and good, but that figure would only apply if all the parking spaces were occupied thus turning away a potential customer. Even more crucial, that "loss" would be suffered by the store and not by the PPC. Unsurprisingly, the appeal was allowed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad that you got the result you deserve. I am a little purturbed that they didnt consider the assignment of authority first as without that there can be no contract. It is still not clear whether VCS have any say over the blue area at all.

However, even if these points were satisfied by VCS they still lose to GPEOL every time in a free parking area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Just an update as promised.

 

 

POPLA Appeal WON!!

 

 

We've had the below notification from POPLA regarding the appeal we submitted for my dad,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Took a while but we got there.

A big huge thanks to all you guys for your help!

 

Would you be able to PM me? I can't PM you as I don't have enough posts :-(

 

I am going through a similar case (but too late for POPLA) and the full details of your win would be very useful to me.

 

Hope you reads this...

Link to post
Share on other sites

No don't PM him.

 

You need to keep the advice in the open public forum, otherwise you may get bad advice and take it as gospel.

 

If your in the same predicament, then start your own thread and explain who, how, what and why, then others will be able to see it

and it won't go missed on someone elses post.

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

I already have my own thread - look at the recent posts, there is one started by me which I just updated a few minutes ago....

 

Well done.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...