Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • 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

Ship It Appliances - Who is responsible for removal of faulty cooker ?


Rich_
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3425 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

We bought a gas oven before Christmas which goes out after about 15 mins or so It hasn't worked correctly since it was installed .

 

 

We've informed the retailer, and the manufacturer has sent an engineer twice and replaced parts under the warranty and it still goes out.

 

 

We fitted the oven at our cost which was fair enough and paid for the cooker by debit card .

 

We have rejected the appliance as unfit for purpose ,

the engineer they sent says there's nothing more he can do with it.

 

 

the retailer has said they will refund us as neither they, nor the manufacturer can supply us with another alternative replacement

(why would we want the same one again after new parts have failed to solve the issue).

 

 

We've phoned them several times and feel we are being stalled and held to ransom with delay tactics .

They keep trying to involve the manufacturer , but our contract is with the retailer and we've told them this .

 

 

When I ring them back tomorrow I think I may be told to have the thing uninstalled and shipped back to them before I get refunded ... more delays .

 

 

We've had no cooker since before christmas and don't have a microwave having to use other peoples ovens when needed.

 

My question .

I have told them we want the installation charge reimbursed .

Am I correct to do this?

they say their terms and conditions say they don't have to do that .

 

 

if that's so you could spend as much on fitting and removal as on the oven if this is a retailers policy

and you were unlucky enough to get another dud appliance

and who should pay the return shipping cost ?

 

 

I believe the sale of goods act says they should if it's faulty ?

 

The problem . They have my £400,

I own a faulty oven which is no use

and paid a gas fitter to install.

 

 

They seem to be holding the cards.

 

 

This is why I think they seem in no hurry to sort this any time soon.

 

 

It's taking up too much of our time now and is becoming stressful .

Not to mention being without an oven since before christmas

and spoiled food because the oven has gone out before it's cooked !

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are completely correct. They must refund you and all associated expenses - plus a reasonable sum for the inconvenience you are experiencing. Which company did you get it from - or are you trying to protect them?

 

Keep tight records of all the problems caused - including the number of times you have had to use other people's ovens and what problems that entailed.

 

Frankly I would be sending them an LBA giving them only 7 days to sort it al out or I would sue them in the Small Claims County Court

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick reply,

 

It came from Ship It Appliances who actually get predominantly good feedback on customer reviews on the likes of amazon etc

and they have said they WILL refund the money for the cooker but possibly not the fitting/removal

 

 

it's just all the delays

 

 

I'm contacting the manufacturer / my manager etc.

 

 

I feel we've been patient and given them enough time to put this right in the way of repairs

 

 

I also told them if the repair was not effective we'd be after a refund .

 

 

Hopefully they will sort it out tomorrow when I call them and redeem themselves .

 

 

I just wanted to find out where I stood as the trading standards etc are closed at weekend ,

although the sale of goods act seems clear enough .

Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't be talking to them on the phone unless you are recording the calls. If this has to be taken further, they will deny everything they said. Either record or do all your correspondence by letter.

 

 

You should also involve Amazon in this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the website for ship it applicances http://www.shipitappliances.com/

 

Here are their T&Cs

Terms and Conditions

 

content_bg.png

At Ship It Appliances we are committed to providing the highest level of customer service available, however should you not be 100% satisfied with the goods you receive please refer to the following below.

 

Ship It Appliances Terms And Conditions

If the packaging is damaged please do not sign for the goods and return with the courier.

Please contact Ship It Appliances at [email protected] within 24 hours of receiving goods.

All goods should be received back by our office within 14 days of receipt of goods.

All goods should be returned as new with original packaging.

For damaged and faulty goods we will make arrangements with yourselves and our courier for collection.

If the item is faulty please provide us with exact details of the problem by email.

We must receive the original item back to us to confirm the fault before we can issue a refund or replacement.

If the customer has simply “changed their mind” or ordered the incorrect goods a collection and re-stocking fee may apply.

We will provide you with our returns address and returns instructions by email after you notify us of the issue.

The item must be ‘as new’ in the original packaging in a saleable condition, any retail packaging must be intact and undamaged , the item must be complete with all accessories, cables, instruction manuals etc if any were included.

Please do not return your item without contacting us first, we are unable to accept unauthorized returns.

Also in this case the customer will be responsible for any damages and return transportation costs. We will provide you with our returns address and returns instructions by email after you notify us of the issue.

All Products From Ship It Appliances Come With The Manufacturer’s Standard Warranty.

 

In an unlikely event of a manufacturing defect please contact Ship It Appliances within 7 days of receipt of goods. Any contact outside of the 14 day (subject to manufactures warranty) shall be treated as a final sale and no refund can be issued.

 

Thank you for your valued custom.

http://www.shipitappliances.com/terms-and-conditions

 

There last T&C as to no refunds if no contact within 14 days is an unlawful and unenforceable term.

 

I see also that they are in breach of their own terms because they say

For damaged and faulty goods we will make arrangements with yourselves and our courier for collection.
- although they would be liable for this anyway.

 

Looks as if ship it appliances is a company to steer clear if

Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't be talking to them on the phone unless you are recording the calls. If this has to be taken further, they will deny everything they said. Either record or do all your correspondence by letter.

 

 

You should also involve Amazon in this.

 

I see what you are saying and agree it's just letters take a lot of time and we been without the cooker for a while now . From the good advice I've been given it seems as though all they should be saying is that they'll refund what I want ie the oven money and fitting and acting upon that ? I take it you have to inform someone you are recording a call ? Does email suffice as a letter ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not need to give warnings that you are recording a call if it is for private use.

Email is fine.

 

Uninstall it yourself and charge them for the work. It is easy enough to pull a cooker out of its carcase/kitchen unit. The set about getting a new one. Email them that you will be charging them storage if it is not removed within 5 days.

Take pictures of it so that it can be seen that it is in good condition - just in case any scratches/damage appears later

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting those T&Cs .

 

They're a bit confusing and not in logical sequence , but I read it as the 14 day thing applies only if the packaging is damaged on arrival, but for faulty goods they will make arrangements to collect it ? but as you say the last bit throws that into doubt ? and what does (subject to manufacturers warranty) mean in that context ?

 

I don't however see why I should have to wait until they get the goods back to them before I am refunded it's had an engineer to it twice , what if they say there's nothing wrong with it ? it has stayed alight for up to half an hour before going off usually less . It's the bits about returning it in it's original packaging that concerns me ? We haven't got it, or does that just apply to if you change your mind ? I can't return it in a saleable condition when as far as I can see it's faulty .

Edited by Rich_
Link to post
Share on other sites

The returning it in resalable condition would refer to a rejection of a product after sale rather than a faulty appliance.

 

 

Also keep in mind that for the first six months, they have to prove the oven wasn't faulty when they sold it to you not you show that it was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you , we'll see what they have to say tomorrow . We didn't buy it from them through Amazon mind you , just read the customer comments on there .

Edited by Rich_
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...