Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • As a former NHS manager in a mental health trust... I agree 100% with the actions recommended by stu007.  And I would make especially clear in your letter(s) of complaint that you are extremely concerned about the whereabouts of any confidential letter that was intended to be sent to you in the handwritten envelope.  (Indeed, the fact that a handwritten envelope addressed to you was used would suggest to me that they definitely had something to send you.  It also sounds a bit odd to me that the envelope was handwritten).   As well as complaining in writing to them, I'd contact the clinical team by 'phone first thing on Monday, explain what's happened and tell them to ensure that any confidential information about you that has been sent to a third party must be recovered immediately, and you want confirmation of that.  Well that's what I'd do - see if others think it a good idea or not.  If that had happened at my trust, heads would roll.   There's another poster on these boards called "think about it".  They're involved (I think) in GP practice management and may have some comments too about patient confidentiality.   Oh - I think I would include a photocopy of the handwritten envelope in my complaint to the trust and the ICO.   (I've got to ask - can you say what trust it is?  Don't say if you don't want to.)
    • Hey, thank you very much again for your replies!   - We go to the branches and ask for business accounts, but as I give them my personal name they register them as sole trader accounts in their systems, regardless of my company name being on the agreement.  Suspended our services for high volume messaging -- that is not explicitly covered in terms and conditions Send us letters referencing wrong terms and conditions that we did not sign Terminate the contract and come with a random balance number. We argue unsuccessfully, but they don't follow up with the requested deadlock letter. Pass our account to Lowell in 2017 I pick the account back up when I notice it is affecting my credit file in 2020 I work on the case for about three weeks and file a complaint with CISAS I give Lowell my contract and they see it is my company's name on it so they pass it back to Vodafone Vodafone wants to settle my account quoting they should not charge me anything on the first place and they offer £250 as a compensation for distress. I mistakenly accept the offer because of confusing wording and thinking that the third party adjudicator was already involved in the case, although they would basically get involved on the later stage.  I make a complaint as per CISAS and try to reverse the settlement in the system and have third party adjudicator having a proper look into my case and hopefully reward me a much fairer compensation for all the damages.    I have made a SAR request with both Vodafone and Lowell so far, but still waiting for the Vodafone to send it.    I am now waiting for CISAS to respond, but because I am still upset how much damage this has caused me I am considering taking them to small claims court.  For that I am researching what are the acts I would have to reference in that case.   Obviously Consumer Rights Act 2015 and then Data Protection Act 2018 and perhaps some acts regarding entering into contractual agreements -- can you help with that maybe?        My main concern at the moment is to how to express claims well in a legal language, because £250 they offered feels just patronizing given that there has been everything clearly written in black and white, yet I have had to go though this damaging and humiliating experience. 
    • Cooling off periods do not apply to faulty items. The cooling off period relates to a distance purchase of an item which is of satisfactory quality. Where an item is faulty then it become subject to the rules under the Consumer Rights Act
    • I understand the cooling off period for online purchases, but this is a little different due to the item being collected/paid in person.    A used item was recently sold by auction on eBay. The seller inspected, paid with cash and collected the item in person.    The buyer is now claiming the item to be faulty.    If this transaction was completely remote and the item posted, I would absolutely expect the buyer to be entitled to a refund.    But as the transaction happened in person would the point of the money changing hands be when the contract is made? Therefore not giving the buyer any cooling off period?   I think this is the key information; Used item Paid in person Working when collected Private sale   Thanks!
    • This article has some useful information on how things are working during the Covid crisis.   https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/jun/06/a-guide-to-probate-everything-you-need-to-know   HB
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1675 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/06/motorist-takes-parking-charge-challenge-to-highest-uk-court

 

I would now argue that if any PPC try to use the current judgement in their claim that the defendant highlights that an appeal has now been filed and the reference to Bevis be inappropriate until the supreme court make a ruling.

 

 

Let us hope common sense prevails.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as far as they can say, its been "ruled" on so they will attempt to use it as a "concrete ruling" although its been appealed against


 

We could do with some help from you.

 

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

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, as far as they can say, its been "ruled" on so they will attempt to use it as a "concrete ruling" although its been appealed against

 

It has been ruled upon by a lower court, but as it's now subject to an appeal to a higher court, a PPC attempting to use the judgement without mentioning that it is the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court may find themselves on a rather sticky wicket wink.png


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking Eye do not mention this appeal on their website. They are still gloating on their "win" at the COA. Going on past form, they will probably "forget" to mention the latest appeal in the paperwork they send to motorists and when filing court papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooner than we thought...

 

The Supreme Court will now hear Mr Beavis' appeal alongside that of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, which also involves the enforceability of penalty clauses in contracts.

 

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/beavis-v-parkingeye-ltd.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is the cases are in reality chalk and cheese but the judiciary are making a decision that consumer contracts are to be treated the same as business to business contracts drawn up by lawyers.

This means that you should ensure that you take your solicitor to Sainsburys next time you go by car. The alternative is to buy shares and make sure a nuimber of like-minded people turn up at the AGM and give the chairman a bit of stick under AOB. You wont get any movement but it will have to go in the annual report. Eventually one of the big 4 supermarkets will drop these bandits and then the others will have to follow suit or suffer with the publicity. Supermarket A could run adverts reminding people that you can shop there without being penalised for spending your money with them and at spermarket B you get clobbered with a £90 penalty for being a loyal customer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the Supreme Court judges are more knowledgeable of consumer protection laws and aims, and give equal treatment to both sides in the case rather than the CoA judges who had the appearance of having made their minds up without proper consideration of the consumer laws, and the aims behind it. If a pcn from a council for £35 is a penalty, then a £80 pcn from a private company is a penalty and the fact that at least £65 of that £80 is profit to the ppcs and not loss shows that this system has no place in contract or consumer law. Come on judges. Hopefully they base theur decision on the law and precedents rather than what is in the best interest of the parking companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear the worst...

 

Crapita have friends in high places and know how to shake hands.

 

PE's revenue would be hindered for at least a year at POPLA and through the court system if Mr Beavis was allowed his appeal to be heard , as it should be , on its own merits.

 

As eb states above, chalk and cheese imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the judiciary have been making noises for a while about making consumer contract law the same as commercial contract law as it will make their jobs easier. The reason for pushing the square peg in the round hole is mostly down to the areas of law that most judges specialised in before being made judges and that is commercial law. You will not find a single higher tier judge who was previously a defence barrister in criminal law for example.

When the only tool is a hammer then every job becomes a nail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court will hear the case only on the same evidence presented in the original case. As the original case was so badly handled by Beavis and his representatives I imagine the Supreme Court will reach the same conclusion.

I have to wonder if Beavis is some kind of stool pigeon for the private parking industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

th point of the supreme ourt appeal is to show that the judges misdirected themselves rather than to introduce a raft of new evidence. This is easy to do for a couple of points but is that substantive enough to overturn all of the previous decisions?

They can decide that the judges have misdirected themselves and sent if all back to stage 1 at county court but I dont think that is going to happen. As I said, I think that a decision has been made to make a determination that all contract law is the same and the outcome will make a mockery of half of the 2 conjoined appeals. This means that the likely outcome is that penalty clauses will be added to a lot of contracts in the future and they wont be dressed up as something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both parties counsels will already know the verdict, but are barred from telling anyone. A vigilant observer in Chorley may be able to guess the answer depending on whether the pubs run dry, or whether or not a number of boastful posts appear on parking forums, as happened after the Court of Appeal verdict.

 

Or maybe a sudden rush of 'please pay now we will accept anything' letters...

 

 

 

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/parkingeye-v-beavis-judgment-date.html?m=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

today is judgement day,good luck Barry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just adding the link to the supreme court

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-02.html

 

Just over 10 minutes before the live session.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, no further appeals available.

 

Time to get our thinking caps on.

 

Time to lobby our MP's ?


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has the motorist gained anything from this ruling ?

 

If not, will this case now be seen as very unhelpful to motorists and should never have been started ?

 

This is such a good statement and something a lot of people on other forums dont dare say

 

Barry was a fool to have started this, he was egged on by certain people to appeal to the court of appeal. I have no issue with the case being made in the county court but the next stage had to many risks for other people.

 

He may have thought he was some kind of parking warrior, but he has put the nail in the coffin for thousands of people who will have no choice but to simply pay up now.

 

What is he going to do for people who will lose at POPLA because of his actions? he had tunnel vision with this and he didn't think about the affects on other people. If hadnt tried to be clever then people could still easily win cases. Now it will be virtually impossible to win court cases (bar ones with signage contract etc), and very difficult to win at POPLA.

 

So whats his advice now and will he shell out because of the effects of his actions (we all know the answer to that one)

 

So that is it, illegal penalty clauses are now legal because they have been used by parking companies for a long time and no-one has challenged them before.

As I have postulated, they have now placed a consumer contract on the same footing as a bilateral contract negotiated between lawyers acting for both parties and because money would be lost by the parking companies if it was otherwise and limited the extent of the Unfair Trading Terms legislation in the same way becasue that would curtail PE's ability to enforce their suspect contract.

Follow the money as they say.

Was the case unhelpful? I dont think so, contract law judgements have been heading in that direction for about the last 15 years. Most judges come from a background of commercial law so they are making decisions that would make their previous jobs in the City much easier if they were in place before they became judges.

I also note that they have fired a warning shot at the politicians with regard to the EU legislation and are basically warning the legislators not to interfere with their decision.

 

But what Barry has done is put the nail in the coffin for argument which worked well at POPLA and often worked at the county court.

 

So what is this site going to advise if a parking site has a proper contract, decent signage, what are people to do......?

 

This is taken from CPS website (perky) and i have to say i couldnt agree more, he is spot on:

 

Following the result in the supreme court of Barry Beavis -v- Parking Eye we hope the position is clear in everyones mind, however on checking the various consumer forums they are STILL trying to convince people the charges are not enforceable.

 

The judges were perfectly clear in their judgement that parking charges issued are 100% enforceable and with the Supreme Court being the highest court in the land this decision is binding on ALL other courts – even though the judge hearing the case may disagree.

 

 

We are unsure why the internet forums are still debating the issue, we can only presume it is because they have been proved wrong and all the people who ignored tickets and letters on their advice will quite rightly be unhappy when they receive county court papers through their letterbox.

 

We also suspect that despite the forum advisors hiding behind aliases they are really highly educated and qualified legal experts who know the law better than the 7 supreme court judges that heard the arguments and made the decision.

 

One thing is for certain, thanks to the internet forums they have done wonders for stenthning the legal position of parking companies who issue charges, ensuring the law is no longer unclear and paving the way for clarification.

 

So where does it go from here?

 

It does not go any where, other then it may be a case of paying up when before you didnt need to, this will depend on the operator !

 

Thanks Barry!!

Edited by citizenB
thread tidy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new thread has been started with the latest developments . All posts made in respect of the latest judgment have been copied to the thread linked below.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?455047-Barry-Beavis-loses-Appeal-to-the-Supreme-Court-What-next&p=4816020&posted=1#post4816020

Edited by citizenB

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

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other therad is closed? With this ruling where does that leave a BB holder when they visit a hospital and there are signs up stating that BB have to also pay for parking although the BB has a letter from the hospital asking them to attend an appointment? What would happen if the BB refused to pay and then cha;llenged the invoice as it is not a ticket? Same applies to parking in a retail park where the parking is limited to 1 or 2 hours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is open now :)

 

This one has now been closed permanently.


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

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1675 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...