Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He wasn't and isn't transferring any funds overseas.  It was 1 small transfer - ironically to me (which he'd done before) - and 2 small ATM withdrawals.  He has a 300/d limit on the card. And can't transfer more than 2k at a time.  This happened a number of months ago. And he isn't able to call the bank from overseas due to health issues.  He's getting his pension monthly (which I set up for him) and he can't access it.  It's a sad state of affairs
    • the RK on a cars v5c is not necessarily the owner nor the driver of a car as long as the person driving is insured it matters not. the bottom line is the VIN Number if push comes to shove that proves without doubt that they are indeed 'the same car' i seriously doubt you'd be that unlucky during the short period this might extend over till sorted.  
    • Sorry but please could you post your documents in a single PDF – multipage single file format. You have seen other witness statements that we want them presented in broadly the same way   Have you read what we have to say about preparing your court bundle?
    • Please will you post up a copy of the claim form in PDF format. If you have difficulty then click upload for some advice is how to do it. It will be helpful if you could just be a little bit more careful about the information you are giving us. What information are you expecting "pre-action"? Please post up the text of the email in which he threatens you with action if you don't respond within 72 hours. Let's also see the email which apparently he sent you complaining that he wasn't happy et cetera…. He said that there are no photos. This means that you don't have any photos? Or that he hasn't any photos? We can help you with this but you are going to have to be a little bit more careful and also responsive. I'm sure you have other things to do it has been 15 hours since we asked you questions and you have come back and responded but not particularly interest the questions we have put to you.  
    • are you defo sure with the wrong name it can be put on my car but not end up with a v5 thats assign to the private plate with arnold when im not that name   last time i had a crash they wanted to see my v5 to make sure its in my name
  • 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

Victory over Parking Eye!!!

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3426 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts



I recently received a PCN from Parking Eye for exceeding the allowed parking time at Aldi. After reading several threads regarding the unfairness of the level of charges, and the questions over the legality I decided to appeal using one of the template letters available at various websites.


Without including the full letter, the key points of the appeal were:


a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.

b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.

c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.

d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.

e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

f). This is not a 'parking ticket' - it is an unsolicited invoice with as much merit as the publicly-derided £100 taken unlawfully from customers by a dingy Blackpool Hotel.


In addition to this I researched the POPLA appeals process & there are several published suggestions on the internet on how to win at this stage.


However, much to my delight I received a reply from Parking Eye within a fortnight advising that they had cancelled the charge & that no outstanding payment is due.


So..... before you panic & consider paying this, please do your research and use the templates that are available to you. Do not ignore the letters (this used to be the advice) but make it clear that you will contest this & fight them all the way to court if necessary. I believe that they will then look for easier targets as many articles on this subject confirm.


If it is this easy to win then it proves that the Parking Firms do not have a case and if they will so easily drop it then it should be very easy to win at the next stage, i.e. POPLA.


Parking Eye claim on their website that they have won many cases at court, however many people believe that these are situations where people have ignored their letters. I would urge you to use the material that is readily available in the form of templates, some people have gone to a great deal of trouble to help consumers in producing these and the do work!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we believe that Parking Eye are being deceptive about their courtroom victories. We believe that most - and maybe all of them are default judgments.

We invite Parking Eye to demonstrate that this is untrue and we will then be very pleased to put the record straight for them

Link to post
Share on other sites





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

Yes we believe that Parking Eye are being deceptive about their courtroom victories. We believe that most - and maybe all of them are default judgments.

We invite Parking Eye to demonstrate that this is untrue and we will then be very pleased to put the record straight for them


BankFodder. ......... parking eye would have to "grow a pair" first :lol::-D


DX. Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

On their website Parking Eye boast about their so-called famous "test case" victory in Cambridge. What they forget to say is that the case is going to appeal later this month . Not only do they fail to mention this on their website, several of their legal reps have also failed to mention it in court , as highlighted by a recent Parking Prankster blog:-




At no point during the meeting or the hearing did the barrister mention that the Beavis case was being appealed. This is a serious breach of the solicitor's code of conduct, which requires that all relevant information, even if not helpful to the solicitor's side of the case is brought to the attention of the court. This is especially relevant if the other side is not professionally represented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe that an epidemic of common sense has broken out at PE but they are doing this for economic reasons. They have to pay money for appeals to go to POPLA where they generally lose a well constructed appeal and it also takes time administering this. If they are successful in PE v Beavis they will be back with a vengeance and I doubt if POPLA will have any relevance for them. There are moves afoot to get the appeal costs added to the parking charge bill and I'm certain they will do that in any case on the back of the Proserve judgement unless they are explicitly told they cant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...