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
      • 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

Interesting situation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3249 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

i'll try and keep this as concise as possible, one of my employees went to meet a client in his apartment and parked in the residents car park in what he thought was the clients parking space. The client is one of a few people who actually live there all year and the rest of the apartments are on short holiday lets. to gain access to the car park you need to take a ticket and then the resident uses a pass card to allow exit. It appears that my employee parked in another person allocated parking space and although the car park was almost empty the other person took a photograph of his number plate and sent it to Vinci Parking who then sent to the car lease company. No PCN was fixed to the car. The lease company did nothing for a month and we then informed Vinci not to contact them again as they were charging £25 admin fee. The company then received a letter and demand from a debt collector which we duly ignored and this week we received a letter from a genuine solicitor notifying us that they intend to start legal action. I would be grateful for any advice on what to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry somehow the post was duplicated

 

I think i would write back contesting it, saying that the car was parked while visiting an owner/occupant at x no property and as far as you are concerned parking arrangements were followed. That there is no contract in relation to parking with any company or other tenant at the carpark in question, where parking is shared with many properties.

 

I doubt any court action would follow and wonder what Solicitors would pursue such a small amount.

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

i'll try and keep this as concise as possible, one of my employees went to meet a client in his apartment and parked in the residents car park in what he thought was the clients parking space. The client is one of a few people who actually live there all year and the rest of the apartments are on short holiday lets. to gain access to the car park you need to take a ticket and then the resident uses a pass card to allow exit. It appears that my employee parked in another person allocated parking space and although the car park was almost empty the other person took a photograph of his number plate and sent it to Vinci Parking who then sent to the car lease company. No PCN was fixed to the car. The lease company did nothing for a month and we then informed Vinci not to contact them again as they were charging £25 admin fee. The company then received a letter and demand from a debt collector which we duly ignored and this week we received a letter from a genuine solicitor notifying us that they intend to start legal action. I would be grateful for any advice on what to do.

 

 

Dates? Give us dates of what you have described please...

 

 

Can you tell us the name of the ' genuine solicitor ' please?

 

 

noidea.gif Gladstones....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Armadillo, dates as below

letter from Vinci parking to lease company 9th March 2015, this quoted a PCN number issued on 31/01/2015 lthough none was left on vehicle

Letter received from lease company17th March 2105

demand from ZZPS debt collectors received 22/04/2015 and ignored

Letter received from Wright Hassall solicitors 16th July 2015 although date on letter states 6th July 2015.

we asked client to speak to apartment management regarding this and they sent an email 21st July attaching a very dark photo of number plate taken by other occupant with statement that car was parked in wrong space.

Thanks for your interest

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would write back as suggested, saying that the car was parked during a visit to a owner occupant at the property and they will confirm this. Therefore there is no legal basis for this to be considered further.

 

I bet the person who has the parking space does not have a car, but they get a fee everytime someone pays an invoice to this parking company, after they had reported.

 

I would question the lease arrangements at the flats and whether it allows each parking space to be treated as separate in the way this parking company is dealing with it. I cannot see them succeeding in any defended court action.

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

Homer do I detect a hint of irony in your reply, I actually googled them to check and they appear kosher, are they just another bunch of cowboys like ZZPS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Homer do I detect a hint of irony in your reply, I actually googled them to check and they appear kosher, are they just another bunch of cowboys like ZZPS

 

It is just a trading name. More of a debt chasing admin company.

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

Wright Hassal are real solicitors but in this case they are working as debt collectors and have no more rights to demand money than your cat does. They are relying on the letterhead to scare you into paying up rather than any instruction or right.

You can respond by saying that there has been no breach of contract and put it to "strict proof" that Vinci have a contract with the individuals who own their spaces rather than the management company for the block who do not have the legal authority to do anything in their own name.

They wont respond with anything sensible but it creates a paper trail and basically demands proof of contract and if that isnt forthcoming they wont be wanting to explain the matter to a judge as they wont have shown a cause of action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...