Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
    • Thank you for posting their WS. If we start with the actual WS made by the director one would have doubts that they had even read PoFA let alone understood it. Point 10  we only have the word of the director that the contract has been extended. I should have had the corroboration of the Client. Point 12 The Judge HHJ Simkiss was not the usual Judge on motoring cases and his decisions on the necessity of contracts did not align with PoFA. In Schedule 4 [1[ it is quite clearly spelt out- “relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—(a)the owner or occupier of the land; or (b authorised, under or  by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land; And the laughable piece of paper from the land owners cannot be described as a contract. I respectfully ask that the case be dismissed as there is no contract. WE do not even know what the parking regulations are which is really basic. It is respectfully asked that without a valid contract the case cannot continue. One would imagine that were there a valid contract it would have been produced.  So the contract that Bank has with the motorist must come from the landowner. Bank on their own cannot impose their own contract. How could a director of a parking company sign a Statement of Truth which included Point 11. Point 14. There is no offer of a contract at the entrance to the car park. Doubtful if it is even an offer to treat. The entrance sign sign does not comply with the IPC Code of Conduct nor is there any indication that ANPR cameras are in force. A major fault and breach of GDPR. Despite the lack of being offered a contract at the entrance [and how anyone could see what was offered by way of a contract in the car park is impossible owing to none of the signs in the WS being at all legible] payment was made for the car to park. A young person in the car made the payment. But before they did that, they helped an elderly lady to make her payment as she was having difficulty. After arranging payment for the lady the young lad made his payment right behind. Unfortunately he entered the old lady's number again rather than paying .for the car he was in. This can be confirmed by looking at the Allow List print out on page 25. The defendant's car arrived at 12.49 and at 12.51 and 12.52  there are two payments for the same vrm. This was also remarked on by the IPC adjudicator when the PCN was appealed.  So it is quite disgraceful that Bank have continued to pursue the Defendant knowing that it was a question of  entering the wrong vrm.  Point 21 The Defendant is not obliged to name the driver, they are only invited to do so under S9[2][e]. Also it is unreasonable to assume that the keeper is the driver. The Courts do not do that for good reason. The keeper in this case does not have a driving licence. Point 22. The Defendant DID make a further appeal which though it was also turned down their reply was very telling and should have led to the charge being dropped were the company not greedy and willing to pursue the Defendant regardless of the evidence they had in their own hands. Point 23 [111] it's a bit rich asking the Defendant to act justly and at proportionate cost while acting completely unjustly themselves and then adding an unlawful 70% on to the invoice. This  is despite PoFA S4[5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9[2][d].  Point 23 [1v] the Director can deny all he wants but the PCN does not comply with PoFA. S9 [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 only quotes the ANPR arrival and departure times which obviously includes a fair amount of driving between the two cameras. Plus the driver and passengers are a mixture of disabled and aged persons who require more time than just a young fit single driver to exit the car and later re enter. So the ANPR times cannot be the same as the required parking period as stipulated in the ACT. Moreover in S9[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; You will note that in the PCN the words in parentheses are not included but at the start of Section 9 the word "must" is included. As there are two faults in the PCN it follows that Bank cannot pursue the keeper . And as the driver does not have a driving licence their case must fail on that alone. And that is not even taking into consideration that the payment was made. Point 23 [v] your company is wrong a payment was made. very difficult to prove a cash payment two weeks later when the PCN arrives. However the evidence was in your print out for anyone to see had they actually done due diligence prior to writing to the DVLA. Indeed as the Defendant had paid there was no reasonable cause to have applied for the keeper details. Point 24 the Defendant did not breach the contract. The PCN claimed the Defendant failed to make a payment when they had made a payment.   I haven't finished yet but that is something to start with
    • You don't appeal to anyone. You haven't' received a demand from a statutory body like the council, the police or the courts. It's just a dodgy cowboy company trying it on. You simply don't pay.  In the vast majority of these cases the company deforest the Amazon with threats about how they are going to divert a drone from Ukraine and make it land on your home - but in the end they do nothing.
    • honestly you sound like you work the claimant yes affixed dont appeal to anyone no cant be “argued either way”  
    • Because of the tsunami of cases we are having for this scam site, over the weekend I had a look at MET cases we have here stretching back to June 2014.  Yes, ten years. MET have not once had the guts to put a case in front of a judge. In about 5% of cases they have issued court papers in the hope that the motorist will be terrified of going to court and will give in.  However, when the motorist defended, it was MET who bottled it.  Every time.
  • 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

Toyota Franchise Claiming brakes/tyres etc need changing (not) when doing a std service.


king12345
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2903 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

Hi guys,

I took my 2 year old car to the main dealer (a franchise really) for scheduled full service.

Of course after an hour of leaving the car I get the telephone call telling me that many things are wrong, not part of the service and not covered by warranty.

The classic split wiper blades was there, discs and pads, four tyres, brake fluid etc.

I declined all the extra work and when i went to collect the car I was told that tyres and brakes make the car unroadworthy.

I questioned that some things that were supposed to be included in the full service were not done and i was asked to pay for them.

The bloke left and came back with a different invoice listing the things that should have been included.

I suppose that they didn't do a full service, but just changed oil and filter.

I went straight to ats tyres and they said that my tyres and brakes are absolutely fine and don't need changing for many more miles.

In fact I only covered less than 10k miles mainly on motorway.

Brakes looked as good as new they said.

I wrote to the manufacturer ceo and they passed the bucket back to the garage.

Their manager wants to inspect the car in my presence so to put things right.

I am not really comfortable with them even looking at my car from a mile away and I fear that they will agree to complete the service and then sabotage something.

What would you do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toyota Yaris, 10k Miles, tyres were rotated at 8000 miles by ats and tracking checked but was perfect.

Tyres are wearing evenly and still have another 10k miles to do before being changed accordingly to ats.

I confirm that the tyres are perfectly fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should let them do it. First off, they won't want bad publicity so will check things properly and it will be in your presence. If they say the tyres are low, then they will have to show

you on the depth guage and the same with anything else they condemned.

 

You don't have to consent to any further paid for work being done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, all good to that point.

My problem is if they want to complete the service that they should have done and tell me to leave the car.

You know the health and safety rubbish that you can't watch a mechanic fix your car...

What would they do at that point???

Loose some bolts? Sugar in the engine??? Drain gearbox oil slightly so to make it break in a few months???

I can't trust them.

I was thinking of letting them see the car in my presence and anything they point out that they should have done, I get it done by another garage and bill them.

Is it too sneaky?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think on balance you should take up their offer and go back and ask them to show why the parts need changing. Whilst ATS have confirmed the tyres look ok the dealer should be working to the manufacturers specification. So it might be that they have seen something they are required to report but a less knowledgeable company like ATS might not know about. An example of this would be if the car was operated in the UAE where you are not allowed to use cars on tyres outside 3 years from the date stamp for example. Further, brake checks would include a check on the disc thickness and condition. Whilst the pads could well have many miles left it doesn't necessarily run true that the disc condition follows. I come across this often with cars used for primarily motorway use where the brakes are seldom used. Pads are ok but the disc is knackered.

Interestingly, some manufacturers are now insisting on disc changes every time the pads are changed or every major service (two years) which seems absurd. The fluid change every two years is a standard item as is hydroscopic but there is no requirement to measure water content, but then that requires samples larger than the capacity of the brake sytem anyway and some seriously specialist equipment which dealers just wont have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know if they have.

When they called me they said that I had to pay for brake fluid, air filter and fob key battery and I declined.

When I went to collect the car the invoice they produced didn't include these items.

While at the desk I looked at their leaflet and realised that these things should have been included.

I queried it and the bloke just printed another invoice with these items on it.

I concluded that they hadn't done them, would you?

Haven't had time to check the air filter which is the only thing that would be evident if not changed.

I'll look at it in a couple of days, I'm away for work atm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sabotage! Loosen some bolts!

 

Plain silly. Never heard anything like it. This is a Toyota Dealer you are writing about, not the 'A' Team.

 

H

46 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

HMCTS Approved Technical Expert and Independent Motor Trade Consultant

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Not really Conniff.

I emailed the service manager 4 times but he's ignored me.

Time to write to Toyota head office again I suppose.

 

They're happy to scare customers with the dangerous/unroadworthy business, who's stopping them loosen a few bolts to crack up a suspension which of course is not covered by warranty?

 

Or loose the gearbox sump and give it a hammer blow so to look like it hit a road hump.

 

Driver error, gearbox failure after a few months, not under warranty, that will be £3000 Sir, thanks (idiot).

All with a smile in their face...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankfully, the phraseology used in response to my post highlights how little you know about the subject.

 

Just to clarify, some gearboxes, mostly auto's, have an oil sump, if it was damaged, this wouldn't be covered under warranty. It would however almost certainly be covered by the vehicles insurance.

 

H

46 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

HMCTS Approved Technical Expert and Independent Motor Trade Consultant

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know and experienced in the past insurance companies take your money and try not to pay out at all costs.

Imagine if I called my insurance and told them that my gearbox is broken because at unknown time of an unknown date at an unknown location and in unknown circumstances I unknowingly damaged my gearbox sump, lost the oil and damaged the gearbox.

Are you sure they'll say: Sure Sir, send us the bill and we'll pay you immediately.

In your dreams!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well have you tried????

 

 

I cannot believe this thread. People with the knowledge and experience are trying to assist you.

 

 

So let's cut to the chase. what do you want out of this?

 

 

Frankly if you were a customer of mine I'd be telling you where to go and not in any polite terms either and be willing to pay any court judgement just to get rid of you. You sound wholly unreasonable and ignorant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I wouldn't be your customer if you get angry at a computer screen, I don't even want to imagine what you would do in real life.

 

I read many complaints about Toyota garages that you defend so vehemently and they all say the same thing: You take your car there for a cheap service and they produce a monstrous bill telling you that the car is a scrap.

You might think that I am ignorant and I fully support your statement.

In fact i only learned to read a couple of weeks ago via an online course. 😁

There you won a match, happy?

 

Back to the real subject, I would have liked them to look at the car in my presence and explain on what points it's to be deemed dangerous as suggested by their employee.

But maybe I will never get the chance considering that the manager has ignored all my emails.

Will have to vote with my feet and go somewhere else.

I just wish I could service the car myself so to be sure that it was serviced properly, but I need a stupid stamp on the book to preserve the warranty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can read many complaints about dealers from any franchise, the problem being is that you don't ever hear about the good ones as this is a site for people in trouble who are looking for help. Despite people advising you what to do you seem to ignore the advice.

 

 

Why have you not taken the dealers offer to take the car back in??? Given what you have posted I'm not surprised the service manager is ignoring you. You need to get pff your high horse that every dealer is out to screw you. They have regulations to work to and are closely monitored which is why you end up with a list of work required to keep within the manufacturers specifications. You don't have to buy it, it's just advisory but you seem to think it's mandatory.

 

 

It seems to me that no matter what advised to do you have your own set agenda yet admit you are ignorant but then go on to advise other people as to what they should do.

 

 

Frankly I think given that you admit to having no automotive industry knowledge you should shut up and take the advice of people in the know who have tried to help you .

 

 

If you take that advice on board or not is your choice but don't then come back moaning you think you have been hard done by.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had the capacity to read past the first line of my post you would have noticed that I responded to the garage manager's email trying to book an appointment to take my car back there. I wrote four emails with my availability and he ignored all of them.

No agenda from my part, but they've proved that they don't want to deal with the fact that they tried to con me.

And I'm still not sure that they really fully serviced the car as they claim.

 

So, I have followed the advice, I have accepted to take my car back there and given them a flexible availability, but the manager ignored my emails.

Why?

 

Because if he leaves it at that he will only get another bad review which will be lost in the internet shadows.

If he got me in his garage he would have to admit their wrongdoing and in today's world where everyone records conflicting conversations, he might find himself in a difficult situation.

So better for him to ignore, logically.

 

On a separate note, I was being sarcastic when I let you be right in saying I was ignorant.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.

 

I've been messing about with cars and motorbikes since I was a boy, in fact I still drive my 20 year old vw which runs perfectly because I was the only one ever to work on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[i]Modify, fix, maintain, swap parts, dismantle, enhance performance etc.[/i]

 

You of course notified your insurance of this, didn't you?

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Toyota Franchise Claiming brakes/tyres etc need changing (not) when doing a std service.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...