Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • PCNWarrior
      PCN - MFG - ESSO COBHAM - GRAVESEND

      By PCNWarrior · Posted

      I have received a PCN from Euro Car Parks for MFG - Esso Cobham - Gravesend. I was completely unaware that there was any such limit for parking and always considered this to be a service station. I stopped there to use the toilet, have a coffee and made a couple of work calls. I have read the previous topics on this location which suggest I can ignore this and ECP will not take legal action. The one possible complication is that the vehicle is leased by my employer so I do not want to involve them with the associated reminders and threatening letters. The PCN was first issued to the leasing company Arval who have notified ECP of the hiring company. I have attached a copy of the PCN Notice to Hirer with details removed as per instructions. What options do I have or should I just pay the PCN promptly at the reduced rate of £60? img20240424_23142631.pdf
    • FTMDave
      PARKING FINE STANTED AIRPORT MCDONALDS

      By FTMDave · Posted

      What you have uploaded is a letter with daft empty threats from third-party paper tigers.  Just ignore it. What we need to see is the original invoice you received last October or November.
    • gmlmonika
      PARKING FINE STANTED AIRPORT MCDONALDS

      By gmlmonika · Posted

      TERMINAL NOTICE.pdf
    • gmlmonika
      PARKING FINE STANTED AIRPORT MCDONALDS

      By gmlmonika · Posted

      Please find attached 
    • lookinforinfo
      NPC ANPR PCN Claimform - Taxi - Appealed - No Parking Or Waiting At Anytime - St Thomas Hospital, London, Se1 7eh.

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of  the original  PCN that they sent to the Hirer  along with your hire agreement documents. Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include  all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer.  Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference. Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper.  You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.  

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Accused of Defamation/False accusations following Website Review

Brottare

By Brottare
in General Legal Issues

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3144 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

Brottare

Brottare

Posted
Posted

Hi, I hope you can help me. I posted a negative review on a website of a removal company. That company is now threatening me with defamation and false accusations unless I remove the review. I instructed the website to do this via email (I have no other means of contact) and copied in the removal company contact. It states, however, on the website that it can take up to 7 business days to remove the review and, after 6 business days, the review is still there. Note I am not able to remove or edit the review myself. I explained to the removal company that I cannot remove the review and that it can take up to 7 business days to have the review removed however they said yesterday, 6 business days after requesting the review to be removed, that they will issue court proceedings.

 

 

I noted that there are other reviews on the website for that particular company that I would consider to be similar in nature and have been there for several months.

 

 

My questions are:

 

 

1. Can the removal company issue court proceedings to me despite no longer living in the UK?

2. What exactly is the process for issuing court proceedings? Does someone have to physically give me something to do this rather than online?

3. Is there anything else I can do if the review is still not removed after 7 business days?

 

 

Any help would be appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites
BankFodder

BankFodder

Posted
Posted

The first thing to ask yourself, is whether your review is factual and truthful? If it is, then it is not defamatory.

 

It would be quite complicated for the company to issue proceedings out of the jurisdiction. You should understand that there are lots of companies who receive negative reviews on the Internet and go to great lengths to have them removed – but always short of litigation.

 

Litigation is often threatened but very rarely followed up

 

Maybe you can give us a link to the review.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BankFodder

BankFodder

Posted
Posted

Incidentally, you may find that this company is doing the rounds at the moment and trying to clean up the Internet.

 

You may find that over the next few days or weeks lots of negative reviews will be removed either by the authors or by website hosts who are worried about their own liability.

 

You should now start scouring the Internet and make sure that you get screenshots of every negative review which has ever been posted about this company. One of the things that would help you if by chance they started an action – very unlikely – would be for you to be able to show that any damage suffered by the company was not caused purely by you but that in fact your comments were simply one of many other similar comments from other ordinary people.

 

It would also be of help to you to be able to show that other people had independently formed the same view of this company and so therefore what you are saying is likely to be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brottare

Brottare

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks BankFodder - tried to send a PM but it says your mailbox is full. I'd rather not share the review now before the 7 days is up. The part of the review referring to defamation, according to the removalist's representative, is that I said that some of the removalists were teenagers. I will certainly take your advice and take screenshots now as I consider some of the reviews to be far harsher than mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BankFodder

BankFodder

Posted
Posted

Okay. I've read the review.

 

It seems to me that all the most serious points can be verified by photographs, correspondence, claims paperwork and so forth.

 

Do you have all the relevant paper and correspondence stored away? Are you able to show that what you have said about the fundamental elements of their service this correct?

 

The using of teenagers as employees seems to me to be completely incidental to the main problem that your goods suffered damage and then you had difficulties communicating and difficulties processing your claim.

 

I can imagine that maybe the only thing that you can't substantiate this fact that some of the workers were teenagers.

 

Is your comment that they were teenagers based on real assessment of them? Or were you simply sniping and saying that they had teenage attitudes?

 

I think that you are panicking unnecessarily.

 

Please have a look at the most recent legislation on this subject – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted

you will see that apart from anything else, your comments must cause serious harm.

 

I think that you should be little bit more robust in respect of the threats.

 

Read the legislation. As long as you are satisfied that the most important elements – the lack of professionalism, the lack of care, the damage and the reluctance to process your insurance claim can be substantiated – and I suppose that must be the case, then whether or not they employed teenagers seems to be completely trivial and can scarcely be imagined to cause them or likely to cause them serious financial harm.

 

Maybe you would like to email me a copy of their letter to you.

 

Frankly I think that you have nothing to worry about and I think that this is simply an exercise in censoring the Internet

Link to post
Share on other sites
unclebulgaria67

unclebulgaria67

Posted
Posted
Okay. I've read the review.

 

It seems to me that all the most serious points can be verified by photographs, correspondence, claims paperwork and so forth.

 

Do you have all the relevant paper and correspondence stored away? Are you able to show that what you have said about the fundamental elements of their service this correct?

 

The using of teenagers as employees seems to me to be completely incidental to the main problem that your goods suffered damage and then you had difficulties communicating and difficulties processing your claim.

 

I can imagine that maybe the only thing that you can't substantiate this fact that some of the workers were teenagers.

 

Is your comment that they were teenagers based on real assessment of them? Or were you simply sniping and saying that they had teenage attitudes?

 

I think that you are panicking unnecessarily.

 

Please have a look at the most recent legislation on this subject – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted

you will see that apart from anything else, your comments must cause serious harm.

 

I think that you should be little bit more robust in respect of the threats.

 

Read the legislation. As long as you are satisfied that the most important elements – the lack of professionalism, the lack of care, the damage and the reluctance to process your insurance claim can be substantiated – and I suppose that must be the case, then whether or not they employed teenagers seems to be completely trivial and can scarcely be imagined to cause them or likely to cause them serious financial harm.

 

Maybe you would like to email me a copy of their letter to you.

 

Frankly I think that you have nothing to worry about and I think that this is simply an exercise in censoring the Internet

 

They probably threaten everyone who adds a negative review. Saying that some of their staff were teenagers could be seen as a compliment I.e youthful in appearance and energetic.

 

You should never have asked for the review to be removed and could have simply submitted a correction for anything which you now believe to be mistaken on.

 

Nothing is going to happen.

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brottare

Brottare

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks BankFodder and definitely appreciate your frank reply! There is no letter to me just emails sent to me which I have placed in a document and forwarded. I have all the photographic evidence to support the damage claims and all the emails are stored and phone records demonstrating the delays I incurred. A couple of the men certainly looked like teenagers. The insurance claim was finally paid so the claim was deemed valid by an insurance company so I believe I have all the necessary evidence to support my review.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BankFodder

BankFodder

Posted
Posted

It is very difficult to follow the exact chain of correspondence in the form you have sent it to me.

 

I think it will be much more helpful if you can simply send me the individual emails.

 

However, I notice that you are being told that your post is costing them thousands of pounds per day.

 

I don't believe it. Also, there is no reference by them – an unfortunate by you that yours is just one of quite a few other negative posts about them.

 

It is certainly true that they are getting quite a lot of good reviews and that the poor reviews are in the minority, however the kind of matters that you are complaining about must be fully documented I am sure.

 

Quite frankly in the exchange that I have seen, it is difficult to discern exactly what they are complaining about and the whole exchange seems to be a bit of a mess – although maybe that's because of the way that you have sent it to me.

 

I would be writing to them and telling them that if they want to continue the exchange, that you want them to layout exactly which words or phrases in your view they object to and where they consider that they are untrue and to say so.

 

Also, I would tell them that you doubt very much that they are suffering the losses they claim and the in any event they are unable to attribute any alleged losses to a single review made by you when in fact there are many other negative reviews about them on the Internet.

 

Tell them that you want evidence of this and that they would have to provide it to a court anyway.

 

I would tell them that you won't be entering into any further correspondence unless they let you have the information you have asked for and in the form that you have stipulated.

 

I noticed by the way the quite a lot of their argument is based on the fact that as the matter has now been settled by payment of the insurance claim, there is simply no need to have the review up any more.

 

This is not a basis for removing negative reviews and the fact that an insurance claim has been paid out so that the matter has been settled financially, does not undermine the truth of what you are saying – and if anything it suggests that what you are saying is correct.

 

I do not see anywhere in the exchange that you have provided to me anything which disputes the fact that the damage that you are claiming did occur.

 

It seems to me that what you are saying is either true or substantially true. It seems to be pretty factual. It also seems to me that where you have expressed opinion, that this is your honest opinion. It also seems to me highly unlikely that they have been caused any serious damage by your review – particularly when taken in the tech talent he of all the reviews.

 

As I have said, I think that this is simply an attempt by them to clean up the Internet. Many companies do this and actually, they get away with it as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brottare

Brottare

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks all, especially BankFodder. The emails were pasted from a Hotmail account to a word document so the formatting gets a bit messy. I won't forward the separate emails as you've pretty much summed up everything there. I haven't replied to his last 2 emails and wasn't planning to without advice and only if he continues sending me emails. Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BankFodder

BankFodder

Posted
Posted

I think that you should respond a final time as I have suggested. I think that you need to show them that it has gone far enough and that you are calling their bluff.

Frankly I would also add to my reviews that you had been subject to this pressure - but that may not be to your taste

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Brottare

Brottare

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Hi, I would be interested in knowing which removal company you had issue with. I just had issue with one and won in court against them. I'm ready to bet that it's the same one.

 

I've not heard anything from the removalist for a while and, to be honest, I'd just rather forget about the whole thing. Feel free to name the company (maybe send a PM, I couldn't send one as I don't have enough posts) and I can confirm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brottare

Brottare

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Paul,

 

Not the same company but I imagine it's quite common for shoddy removal companies to play the same game in the hope of scaring off people. You've only got to read some of the horror stories on removalreviews.co.uk to see the problems people face. Congratulations to you though!

Best Regards

Brottare

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...