Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)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; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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

Car mechanic problems!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2598 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

Partially......it does effect further litigation against 3rd parties...but also against the main defendant...I wish you would drop this idea of the credit card company and just concentrate on the defendant...your claim could have been proceeding by now if you would follow the advice.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 451
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

the advice on here is mostly helpful but at times very confusing,

contradictory and incorrect (not pointing the finger at you Andy

-you've easily been the most helpful)

 

please bare with me Andy.

I am trying to remove the credit card co from this whole situation hence the amendment/discontinuance.

 

I am making mistakes

however all this is a very good learning experience and am actually quite excited in a way to go to court

(if it goes that far)

because I want to see what it is like.regarding further litigation against the main defendant,

 

how would the discontinuance route affect that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

" litigation against the main defendant... how would the discontinuance route affect that? "

 

CPR 38.7 (b) above

 

If you hadn't added them to the particulars which I didn't advise...then we wouldn't be doing this now:-)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

" litigation against the main defendant... how would the discontinuance route affect that? "

 

CPR 38.7 (b) above

 

the way I have understood this is point is as follows

 

...if I discontinue the claim against the 2nd defendant

now and in the future I decide to sue them for the same thing,

then I will need a judges permission.

 

I don't understand this point to have any relevance to the 1st defendant.

 

please correct me if I am wrong.

 

If you hadn't added them to the particulars which I didn't advise...then we wouldn't be doing this now:-)

 

Agreed!

momentary lapse of brand function!

apologies Andy.

all good learning though I must say.

I've learnt so much so far.

Many thanks for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is correct......Only if the 1st defendant has submitted a defence already would you require permission.

 

CPR 38.2

 

(3) Where there is more than one defendant, the claimant may discontinue all or part of a claim against all or any of the defendants.

 

So just send the N279 to the 2nd defendant.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is correct......

 

CPR 38.2

 

(3) Where there is more than one defendant, the claimant may discontinue all or part of a claim against all or any of the defendants.

 

just send the N279 to the 2nd defendant.

 

confused again!

where did 38.2 come from?

I thought we were talking about 38.7?

 

I still don't understand how this affects the claim against the 1st defendant.

 

the above means to me that I am ABLE to discontinue the claim if I so choose.

 

I am not choosing to discontinue it against the 1st defendant, only the 2nd

 

"So just send the N279 to the 2nd defendant

."that's what I've been saying this whole time.

..hence me wondering why this was not mentioned before as the way forward rather than filing an amendment costing me £50.

 

the n279 is free and does the job aptly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we cant remember every point of law......you could always consult a Solicitor if you are unhappy with our service.:-D

 

Be aware that the 2nd defendant could stop your discontinuance...and could sue you....so that's a further reason I advised the N244 as opposed to discontinuance.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the claim has been served now ? ...you have taken so long since the 3rd November asking so many questions...I don't think you can use an N244 and have no option but to use the Notice of discontinuance now. (N279)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity you didn't consider that before adding the 2nd defendants of your own accord :roll:

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can see the claim has not been allocated to a track

and until it is allocated you would not be covered by cpr 38.6(3) as that only applies to claims that have been allocated to small claims track and yours at this stage is trackless

 

 

- so theoretically the defendant would be entitled to any costs incurred up to the point of receiving the discontinuance if you discontinued before it was allocated to SCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like they got the discontinuance the day after they acknowledged. awaiting a letter from them saying they are done with the claim. fingers crossed.also got notice today that the defendant will be defending the whole claim personally (I assume personally because he signed him name on the acknowledgement). is he able to involve lawyers later on in court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

quick update.

 

case against 2nd defendant has been discontinued and defendant has told me in writing that it is closed at their end.

 

so just the 1st and only defendant left in the mix now.

 

as of 2 days ago,

no submission by them to the courts, just the notification that they will be responding in 28 days.

 

they have around 2 weeks left to respond.

 

I'm actually quite excited about all of this! I cant be bothered to go to court but if it comes to that,

 

I think it will be quite fun in some ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I saw it and that bit shouldn't even pass through your mind. Attending is secondary "but if it comes to that". You should be keen to go especially if you think you have a good case and will win. Seeing the look on their faces when they lose will be something worth capturing and is the biggest part of the pleasure of winning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am keen to go if it comes to that but I don't like the fact that my time will be taken up,

 

I am quite busy especially nowadays with many different projects on

 

. if I had nothing else on,

 

I would not have an issue with it using my time.

 

btw, what does this mean...."British Courts can now hear US-Style Class Action lawsuits"its in your sig

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that if you have a lot of people with the same problem with a company/product etc;

instead of you all taking turns to go to court individually,

one person can go representing all of you.

 

Neat Huh!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...