Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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).
    • Thanks for all the suggestions so far I will amend original WS and send again for review.  While looking at my post at very beginning when I submitted photos of signs around the car park I noticed that it says 5 hours maximum stay while the signage sent by solicitor shows 4 hours maximum stay but mine is related to electric bay abuse not sure if this can be of any use in WS.
  • 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

spoofed by Stemologica/Beutemer/Stemacell - all owned by Henesei Ltd.


ACUnited
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2933 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

Acting on behalf of my mother,

 

 

she like many others on here seem to have been caught with the Stemologica/Beutemer [problem]s going around.

 

 

Just need some advice on how to best proceed.

 

My mum in mid Nov saw a internet advert for free tesco vouchers £100 if she took up the free trial of this product.

 

 

She insists that at no time was she made aware that she binding herself into any contract with them

or that the she would if she didnt cancel and return the free products within 14 days.

 

She has had two debits come out of her account before xmas.

 

 

This has almost ruined xmas for her to the point that she hid it from the entire family

and juggled money to get by over the xmas period without telling my father.

I have found out as she confessed it to me in the past week.

 

So now you now the back story,

I am making it my personal mission that I get this money back for my mother.

She is in her early 60's and the little savings she has I dont want to see being stolen from her.

 

What is the best way for her and myself to proceed.

 

 

She has cancelled the payments to the company (Card Payments, i assume) but is now 2 x £97 down.

 

 

Is there a realistic chance of her getting this money back.

 

 

Whilst my mum can be naive on the internet,

 

 

she isnt when it comes to money and agreeing to contracts etc

 

 

so i know she wouldnt have signed up to this willingly.

 

I would be grateful for any help or any pointers in the right directions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

try the CPA route

the bank might well refund or their fraud debt.

 

 

why don't you get her authority to act upon it too.

 

 

GENERAL NOTES ON CHARGEBACK & Continuous Payment Authority & BACS

.....

We have been telling people to put a letter into their bank instructing them

not to make any payments under any circumstances to these companies

.

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/visa-debit-chargeback/- it works!

usually this should be done using the number on your debit card

.

banks MUST follow written intructions from their customers !

.

This fsa guide has now been updated:

.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/consumer_info/know_your_rights_guide.pdf

http://www.fca.org.uk/news/continuous-payment-authorities-your-right-to-cancel

.

Here's the text:

.

Cancelling a regular

card payment:

.

When you give your credit or debit card details to a company and authorise them to take regular payments from your account,

such as for a gym membership or magazine subscription,

it is known as a ‘recurring transaction’ or ‘continuous payment authority’.

.

These are often confused with direct debits, but do not offer the same guarantee if the amount or date of the payment changes.

.

In most cases, regular payments can be cancelled by telling the company taking the payments.

.

However,

you have the right to cancel them directly with your bank or card issuer by telling it that you have stopped permission for the payments.

Your bank or card issuer must then stop them – it has no right to insist that you agree this first with the company taking the payments.

.

Be aware, though, that you will still be responsible for paying any money that you owe.

and that CANELLING YOUR CARD WILL NOT STOP THE CPA

.

..

.

New june 2013

.

Regulator orders Banks and mutuals to review complaints about not cancelling recurring payments from November 2009.

.

Consumers who have set up a regular payment from their account will now be able to successfully cancel that arrangement

by contacting their card provider, the Financial Conduct Authority said.

.

The FCA has been examining how easy it is for customers to cancel Continuous Payment Authorities (CPAs)

due either to payday lendersicon or for other regular payments such as subscriptions or gymicon memberships.

.

CPAs, which are also commonly called recurring transactions or recurring payments,

are relatively easy to set up but can be hard to cancel, causing problems for consumers trying to manage their finances,the FCA said.

.

Now, following the FCA review of how the largest high street banks and mutuals process requests to cancel CPAs, they have agreed that they will ensure that when

a customer asks for a recurring payment to end, that will be sufficient to cancel the arrangement. They have also confirmed that should a payment go through by

mistake following cancellation by a customer the customer will be refunded immediately.

.

In addition to securing this commitment, the largest banks and mutuals have agreed to review every individual complaint they have received about the non-

cancellation of a CPA and to pay redress where payments have continued to be made despite the customer cancelling the arrangement. This applies to all complaints

since November 2009 when the Financial Services Authority, the FCA’s predecessor, began regulating banking conduct.

.

Clive Adamson, the FCA’s director of supervision, said: “It’s important that consumers are confident that banks are meeting their everyday banking needs. Today

customers can be confident that when they ask for a Continuous Payment Authority to be cancelled – it will be cancelled - and that it can be done easily.

.

“We recognise that historically this is an area where some customers have struggled but the banks and mutuals have responded positively to our work on this issue.

From now on we expect them to be getting this right. In addition, they have committed to review past complaints.”

.

.

Also mentioned your displeasure that as whomever took your money had obviously attempted this many times

probably activating your banks own anti fraud software - nobody had the decency to inform my you this was going on.?

.

.In the FSA's own words:

.

..

What should I do about a payment from my account that I didn’t authorise?

.

Your bank must refund an unauthorised transaction.

Money can only be taken from your account if you have authorised the transaction

or if your bank can prove you were at fault –

.

see below.

Contact your bank immediately if you notice an unauthorised payment from your account.

.

If you are sure you did not authorise the payment, you can claim a refund.

.

However, your bank does not have to refund you if you do not tell it about the payment until 13 months

or more after the date it left your account.

.

Your bank must refund an unauthorised transaction

.

------------------

.

Your bank may only refuse a refund for an unauthorised transaction if:

.

? it can prove you authorised the transaction

– though your bank cannot simply say that use of your password,

card and PIN proves you authorised a payment; or

.

? it can prove you are at fault because you acted fraudulently,

or because you deliberately,

or with gross negligence, failed to protect the details of your card, PIN or password in a way that allowed the transaction

.

-----------------------

.

How quickly must my bank refund me for an unauthorised transaction?

.

The bank must make the refund immediately unless it has evidence that one of the above reasons applies.

Your bank may ask you to answer some questions and fill out a form confirming what has happened,

but it cannot delay your refund while it waits for you to return the form.

If the bank has evidence that one of the above reasons for refusing a refund applies,

it may investigate before making a refund

but must look into it as quickly as possible.

If your bank rejects your claim for a refund it should explain why.

If the transaction was on a credit card, the refund may not happen immediately.

But the card issuer cannot charge interest or ask for repayment of the amount unless it can prove you are liable to pay

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

Same problem with me.

Tried phoning.

Waste of time.

Emailed them pointing out that only one sample was signed up for.

So how come 2 payments of £97.95 were debited.

Am still hounding them.

 

By the way they also set up two online customer accounts on the Customer's behalf.

 

With an AutoRefill option ticked on your behalf @ £49.95 monthly with other options one of which is Do not send me AutoRefill.

 

If you have not logged into your mothers acount (details are in the emails confirming order dispatch) I would advise you to do so immediately and tick the do not send option.

I hope you have done this. If the emails are not available contact the bank by phone and writing and tell them not pay any more charges to both stemologica and beautemer.

Please post how you get and I will do the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mother has no longer got any of the emails (she deleted them with concerns that they may have had viruses embedded within them).

 

 

She assured me that no further payments have been taken out.

 

Looked at one of their websites and see that T&C's are only accessible by scrolling down.

 

 

The T&C's are similar in colour to the background and they do mention that by keeping the 'free trial'

they are willing to sign up to a regular delivery of these items unless returned within 14 days.

 

I cant see how the bank will be willing to refund this when the T&C's are there if not a little unscrupulous.

 

 

Any advice on how to approach this with the bank would be great

as i dont want to just take the query to the bank and then get it refused at the first hurdle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

follow the advice in post 2.

 

 

its a well known spoof

you wont be the first I bet

 

 

dx

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

I have now discovered that when you take up the Stemologica offer,

as well as getting the beautemer product added and charged for it, a

nd then registered as a customer on both Stemologica and Beautegold sites

 

 

you will also be rregistered on the Stemacell site as well, a

 

 

nd probably for all the other sites run by this company.

 

 

You are in fact dealing with the one company namely Henesei Ltd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I have contacted Trading Standards Advice, and the practice is contravening BritishConsumer Contract Regulations (Contracts at a Distance) for quite a few reasons. However, as many of these companies give addresses in the UK that are PO Box numbers, the possibility is that they are operating from a non-UK base and therefore not regulated by UK law. If an actual address can be found, the situation could be different. Does anyone have one for these companies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

very old thread chrissie

if you look at other threads concerning these

you'll see several addresses

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...