Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕
    • Though it would be Highview you would  pursue. DCBL are nonentities-on their best day,
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

Would a June EU be illegal??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2879 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

Cameron wants a vote on are membership of the EU on June 23rd, however I’ve got news for him and his hangers-on. The referendum cannot take place until the autumn at the earliest.

 

The fact is that this early referendum is not possible because it will be should be blocked by the Electoral Commission, which insists that at least ten months should pass between Royal Assent being given for a referendum and the vote itself.

 

Dr Richard North said The Royal Assents was given

end Jan; beginning Feb;. This means that the referendum cannot be held until October—at the earliest.

 

Of course, the recommendations of the Electoral Commission could be ignored, but woe betide any politician who meddles with a lawful procedure.

 

P.S. Some extra information for you.

Some EU migrants will get more child benefit than families in this country. The UK will be forced to pay higher rates of child benefit to some EU migrants with children living in other countries under Cameron’s deal, Brussels officials said.

 

Cameron’s agreement allows payments to such workers to be made at ‘local rates’ after his failure to get an outright ban on payments being sent abroad.

 

But an EU official said the payment rate in some EU countries could end up being higher than those currently paid, because they would need to be adjusted according to the local cost of living.

 

That means some EU migrants working in the UK would get paid more in child benefit than British workers raising their children here.

Edited by buckthorn
add
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33141819

 

 

The European Union Referendum Bill was unveiled in the Queen's Speech. This is the UK legislation required to allow the referendum to take place. It has now cleared Parliament and become law, after the government twice saw off attempts in the House of Lords to lower the proposed voting age in the in-out poll to 16. At the same time as the bill made its parliamentary journey, Mr Cameron was seeking approval from other EU leaders for the reforms he wants to achieve before the referendum can take place.

 

So I think it is quite legal :)

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

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
It was only supposed to have been a common market..

 

No, that was the common market, not the EU

 

The Maastricht Treaty (formally, the Treaty on European Union or TEU)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty

 

Are you perhaps suggesting John Major (and the entire British Parliament (except maybe a few naysayers)) didnt notice?

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea started with a common market and evolved into what we have today. The British people were conned then and they are being conned now..

 

Perhaps.

Seems to me more like most people dont really care enough to bother with what their elected officials do.

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is a positive act - just implemented poorly.

 

Now if they were nominal/provisional members, until they achieved parity in pay etc

So that there would not be a flood of poor to the richer extablished nations ...

 

Awkward to implement .. but seems more logical to me.

 

Without the migrant crisis - and lets not forget that Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc etc etc are NOT EU members .....

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

its odd, that when there were the mep elections there was a low turnout. and, who got voted in.

but, no the ref is not illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its odd, that when there were the mep elections there was a low turnout. and, who got voted in.

but, no the ref is not illegal.

 

 

Too true Ford, I'll correct my statement :sad:

 

Seems to me more like too often; too many people dont really care enough to bother to vote for elected officials let alone care (other than whinge) about what the elected officials do.

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I say it: The EU is the worst political move ever to have taken place in history.

Common people got poorer for the benefit of few rich ones.

Not even the second world war can come closer to it because this EU seems to be legally justified by the same few getting richer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seems to me more like too often; too many people dont really care enough to bother to vote for elected officials let alone care (other than whinge) about what the elected officials do.

and, now there is a ref, everyone seems to want to vote. yet, when they had a say prior.....

 

say for eg there is a 60 % turnout. 52% of those vote whatever. thats only around 30 odd % of the voting pop!

Link to post
Share on other sites

and, now there is a ref, everyone seems to want to vote. yet, when they had a say prior.....

 

say for eg there is a 60 % turnout. 52% of those vote whatever. thats only around 30 odd % of the voting pop!

 

I wonder how much is that people simply dont believe anything that politicians say, so feel it pointless?

It seems to me they have a point.

 

Perhaps why politicians rarely actually say anything concrete, as more people can be driven to vote by fear, so if they believe something they really dont want is going to happen - they will vote

 

Hence the politics of fear.

 

Whats worse is that Labour did it FOR the Tories...

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...