Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

Parking Eye yet again


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3438 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

Hello all. I am a new member of this Forum, thankyou for allowing me to join you.

 

Here in Sleaford the Aldi supermarket uses Parking Eye to manage their car parking.

 

 

PE has cameras at the entrance/exit and various notices around.

 

 

These state that, to qualify for a free 1 1/2 hrs. parking the motorist has to enter their reg. number at consoles in the store.

These are situated at a point after the tills before the store exit.

 

The signs state that failure to comply with this will, note will, result in a parking charge of £70.

 

I know of several people being charged this, including a relative, who accidentally punched in the wrong number, although they bought goods at the store.

 

What is the legal position of this situation, bearing in mind a 1 1/2 hrs. limit is imposed and cameras record this.

 

Any advice and opinions are welcome.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all. I am a new member of this Forum, thankyou for allowing me to join you.

 

 

Here in Sleaford the Aldi supermarket uses Parking Eye to manage their car parking. PE has cameras at the entrance/exit and various notices around. These state that, to qualify for a free 1 1/2 hrs. parking the motorist has to enter their reg. number at consoles in the store. These are situated at a point after the tills before the store exit.

The signs state that failure to comply with this will, note will, result in a parking charge of £70.

I know of several people being charged this, including a relative, who accidentally punched in the wrong number, although they bought goods at the store.

What is the legal position of this situation, bearing in mind a 1 1/2 hrs. limit is imposed and cameras record this.

Any advice and opinions are welcome.

Regards

 

 

Have you received a Parking Charge Notice from PE then?

 

 

This has to be dealt with but more information is needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

 

My relative has received a parking charge notice.

 

 

But has got a dated time stamped receipt, for goods bought at the store, at the time of the ''offence''.

 

 

He is sending PE a copy of this and a demand that the charge be deleted. I will post up the result he gets.

 

My question is,

 

 

what is the position regarding PE demanding, with a threat of £70 charge,

that motorists enter their reg. number, as the cameras already record entry and exit of all vehicles.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes think that there is a tendency to delve too deep into the non-critical detail, certainly with ParkingEye cases, at the outset rather than cut to the quick.

 

The most important issue of all is getting an initial appeal in to PE within 28 days, do that and everything else can fall into place later.

 

It's the POPLA appeal (if it ever comes to that) where the ducks need to be properly lined up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes think that there is a tendency to delve too deep into the non-critical detail, certainly with ParkingEye cases, at the outset rather than cut to the quick.

 

The most important issue of all is getting an initial appeal in to PE within 28 days, do that and everything else can fall into place later.

 

It's the POPLA appeal (if it ever comes to that) where the ducks need to be properly lined up.

 

This is an ANPR job.

 

The NTK has to arrive within 14 days (12 for issue, 2 for delivery)

A lot of the time they are delivered late.

That as you know only too well means it is "timed out" and the PPC can only chase the "Driver" and they don't know who that is.

 

How are we supposed to give advice without the information ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an ANPR job.

 

The NTK has to arrive within 14 days (12 for issue, 2 for delivery)

A lot of the time they are delivered late.

That as you know only too well means it is "timed out" and the PPC can only chase the "Driver" and they don't know who that is.

 

How are we supposed to give advice without the information ?

 

...................because the initial appeal to the PPC should always follows the same carefully worded format irrespective of whether the NtK arrives on time (or not) or whether either of the Notices are compliant or not

 

The PPCs use templated NtKs, so most smart people use templated appeals - keeps it simple and it's scalable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all. Thanks for all your input in reply to my query. I am asking opinions here. f16, I do not have the details to hand, as I am asking as a third party and have to rely on a return of that from the relative. I have passed on all the points to him, but further details I don't have.

My initial question is, what is the opinion of, PE requiring the input of reg.nos. to qualify for free parking, when vehicle details are recorded by camera anyway. And can this requirement be legally enforced.

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the idea is that it confirms that the car park has been used by a shopper, but it makes no difference to the legality of the speculative notice. IMO it makes it no more legal. They can take anyone to court, but if properly defended there is virtually no chance if it being enforced.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all. I am a new member of this Forum, thankyou for allowing me to join you.

 

Here in Sleaford the Aldi supermarket uses Parking Eye to manage their car parking.

 

 

PE has cameras at the entrance/exit and various notices around.

 

 

These state that, to qualify for a free 1 1/2 hrs. parking the motorist has to enter their reg. number at consoles in the store.

These are situated at a point after the tills before the store exit.

 

The signs state that failure to comply with this will, note will, result in a parking charge of £70.

 

I know of several people being charged this, including a relative, who accidentally punched in the wrong number, although they bought goods at the store.

 

What is the legal position of this situation, bearing in mind a 1 1/2 hrs. limit is imposed and cameras record this.

 

Any advice and opinions are welcome.

Regards

 

Have they realised that their ANPR cameras don't work accurately enough and can't be relied on.

I know for a fact that my missus has not got a clue of my REG, but I drop her off and wait in the car park for her, so how would that ever work ? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

...................because the initial appeal to the PPC should always follows the same carefully worded format irrespective of whether the NtK arrives on time (or not) or whether either of the Notices are compliant or not

 

The PPCs use templated NtKs, so most smart people use templated appeals - keeps it simple and it's scalable.

 

Pettyofficer

Glad you posted and didn't give up with all the conflicting advice.

 

Stick with it because Nev Met has got a templated appeal that he can supply without any further information required.

In addition according to his post # 6 you will win without a POPLA appeal.

That saves the PPC £29 (ish, roughly, about, give or take.) Not that I'm interested in saving a PPC money but each to their own.

 

Nev Met will post up the template I would think tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...