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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3429 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 was surfing on Scoop (http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news) today and come across this story your thoughts please especially the final few words



Automatic number plate recognition allows cameras to read car number plates.

Invented in Britain in the 1970s, its use by police was followed up by private car park operators who use it because cameras do all the work. Fewer, if any, attendants are needed.


Cameras are linked to computers which recognise numbers and letters on a plate, check cars coming into a car park and then recognise it when it leaves.

If the driver has not paid, or the car has been in the car park longer than allowed, the operator sends the number to the DVLA which will send on the details of the owner’s address to the operator.


The operator will send out a penalty notice – which is unofficial but carries a similar name to the statutory penalty charge notices sent out by councils – demanding a fine be paid. But it is illegal for councils to use it because the system is deemed to be unreliable.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2960986/Thousands-rip-parking-fines-dished-town-hall-car-parks-illegally-using-automatic-number-plate-recognition.html#ixzz3Sf67bGQH "



The BIG question here is that in purple, I am wondering if this argument can be used in the PPC area of law, simple because the law MUST BE EQUAL in ALL aspects.

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having done a Google search with these words "ANPR and parking on private land the law" I came across this statement from the British Parking Association (BPA) see attachment.



If by the admission of the BPA and stating this in writing/public what are the consequences of the statement in the attachment?



By their own words they are using non-compliant equipment if so again what are the implications to this.



I think that using non-compliant equipment should NOT be admissible in Court or "EVIDENCE"

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be a moot point but if there is no-one to approve a device it cannot be approved. Everyting is legal unless legislation says otherwise so legal tp park on someone else's land and legal to offer a contract for doing so and legal to use ANPR to see who is parking. By creating a keeper liability for civil tort the government made one of those historical decisions that is contrary to the rest of the law. However, this is not the first time in recent years that governments have overturned centuries of civil rights or taken people's right away. The Bill of Rights of 1688 put on paper the contract between the monarch, parliament and the people so it was clearly understood by all when William of Orange was invited to become king. The monarchs and the people have, ever since held their part of that bargain. The only ones to break the covenant has been the government/parliament and have done so repeatedly.

So, can ANPR be used as evidence? yes because the faulty law doesnt prohibit it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH the MP's ought to make and/or an Act of Parliament whether or not the use of ANPR by Civilian sources is legal or not. If so what if not get rid of them



If the BPA has and has stated it publicly the equipment is NOT compliant with the law, then it should not be used end of.....



Speed guns are compliant roadside gatso's and so on are compliant the list goes on, they CAN be used in Court because it is deemed for for purpose.



The ones used by the PPC controllers are NOT. So again why are they accepted. I will ask my MP to look into this and post up the result.

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In about a month's time it may be worth telling the suits who come knocking at your door looking for a handout for the next 5 years that you think the PoFA is flawed legislation and ask them to lobby to get it changed in certain respects. Sitting MP's standing again are more likely to listen as they have the most to lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...