Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont panic and wet yourself and offer payment !! Date of issue – 14 june 2024 date for aos - 2nd july  date to file defence - 16th july      other than the CCA/CRP and if it ever gets that far..a witness statement, you send them NOTHING and dont ever instigate comms with them. esp by email.. i would be sending one final email in reply to theirs above. PLEASE NOTE: email is NOT to be used for any comms with regard to our mutual court claim. else they'll be sending a whole forest of faked agreements/documents to you one minute before a court deadline removing your shace to object/pull them apart as unenforceable etc. dx        
    • Unbelievably I can't find it, I will have a really good look for it when I have a bit more time on my day off this week. AS a side note, I emailed them offering a token payment to settle the account and avoid court action, which unsurprisingly they have declined. However their reply states:  A Claim was accepted on 19 June 2024 which means we cannot set up a payment plan just yet. You should have received a claims pack from the Court. We would ask for this to be completed with your offer of repayment and returned to either ourselves or the Court.  You have 21 days for this to be completed and returned in order to avoid a Judgment by Default. This means we would need to receive this by 10 July 2024. I was under the impression it was 19 days from date on the claim form. which was the 14th, which would be 3rd July. Could I use this against them as it seems like they are giving me false information in the hope of getting a judgement by default?
    • when is your mediation? honestly I don't think that the ups case is much use actually because it concerns third party rights BUT  as we know now the contract for packlink is direct and there are no third parties rights at all so you don't need it, and frankly the really helpful one will be from @occysrazor case but I don't know if they have it. expect evris mediation to be a complete fail yes
    • jk2054: I have ensured there's not reference to the third party rights in the updated letter of claim. BankFodder: thanks for the edits and information. I understand the Consumer Rights Act prohibits EVRi's attempts to avoid liability in their duty and care of accepting to deliver my parcel according to Section 57.  They have accepted to carry my parcel even though I have identified it as a laptop and specified the value so they must take reasonable care to deliver the parcel or face the consequences if it were lost as it seems to be in my case! I hadn't originally referenced Section 72 because of EVRi didn't offer any insurance whether free or for me to purchase. I understand that if I were to have any sort of insurance from EVRi then Section 72 refer to the rules of such secondary contracts. Is this section indicating that the insurance may reduce my rights or remedies to recourse to full compensation if I had been offered and purchased such insurance?  Is it beneficial to include this in the letter of claim (and subsequently reference both Section 57 and 72 in the MCOL?) although it might not be pertinent in my case?  Perhaps this is just to reinforce that in general EVRi and other couriers are taking such liberties with their customers so it is to send a message that they are breaching both sections? I made a few minor edits to the letter of claim but mainly grammatical type stuff and to keep consistent font, black colour, but the edits you provided are included and are extremely helpful and are putting me in a good position to email and post the letter to EVRi this week and get the ball rolling. Thanks. Evri letter of claim.pdf
    • Thank you for getting back to me I will do my best to get hold of the claim form tomorrow  When I spoke to MCOl on friday I asked for the extra 14 days so penty of time Onlymeagain
  • 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

Napier FCN June 2016 - Failure to display ticket - How should i respond?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2902 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

Hello, first post here

 

having read through other threads.

I received a FCN from Napier after parking at Willen Lake,

 

i bought a ticket and it appeared to have blown off my dash into the footwell of my car.

I returned to my car to find an FCN on the windscreen asking for payment of £80

or a reduced charge of £45 if paid within 14 days.

 

I appealed to Napier through their online procedure explaining this situation and attaching a picture of my ticket.

However they responded with a letter attached to an email stating that

because i failed to ensure the ticket was displayed that im still expected to pay.

 

In this letter though, it now says they will accept a £25 payment as a show of good will.

Very simply should i just accept this and pay them,

or is ignoring further correspondence the best route to take?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should NEVER respond to a ticket on the car,

always wait for the notice to keeper as doing what you have done

has now removed most of the protection the PoFA gives you.

 

If the car park is somewhere you can get to easily post up a picture of the signage at the car park

and we will take it from there.

 

 

They offer you that discount because they know they havent suffered a loss

and probably dont have a claim against you if their signage doesnt specifically mention

the display of the receipt for paying the prescribed fee to park.

 

get back to us with pictures of the signage fairly pronto so you can respond to thier offer accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Screen Shot 2016-06-12 at 02.49.07.jpg

 

I hope that has worked. Sorry for the slow reply, I hope the quality is good enough to read the sign. If not I will happily write out what is says..

 

Many thanks for your help on this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, there is no definiton of what they mean by clearly display a ticket.

so it would be considered "de minimis" by any sensible judge as you have obviously paid and displayed the ticket so no loss can have occurred to the parking co.

 

Next question is

where is this sign relative to the entrance to the car park and are there any other signs?

 

 

Reason I ask is often there is a very vague or unitelligible sign at the entrance and then more detailed signs near ticket machines.

 

 

Well, the sign at the entrance, if it refers to other signs or unspecified conditions, isnt a contract but an "invitation to treat" and can be ignored, the same way as you are entitled to ignore a sign that says "all goods up to 50% off.

 

 

That doesnt force you to acually buy anything, just inform you that there is a sale and that you are then expected to make further considerations as to whether the item is reduced by an amount that would lead to an offer of purchase. The shopkeeper cant force you to buy someihing just beacuse you looked at the label.

 

Further to that, how many signs and are any of them different?

does the ticket machine have any terms on it as this sign doesnt give a tariff so may well not be an offer of a contract.

 

All of these points are beyond the understanding of the parking cowboys and even if they did know the difference they arent going to tell you as they lose most of their oncome if people realised that they didnt have to pay a bean because the signage is rubbish.

 

I note that the sign says terms and conditions apply so they must refer to somehting aqnd that means this isnt an offer of a contract so the "invitation to treat" defence will work.

 

Now.

did Napier give you a POPLA code on the letter and tell you how to appeal to the "independent" assessors?

 

 

If not my advice is to ignore them until they write again and then tell them that they have failed to follow the protocols of the PoFA and that will prevent them from taking any legal action as it will fall at the first hurdle.

 

 

So, take note of the above and when they write again tell us and we will suggest a form of words that will hopefully put and end to this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful, the sign pictured above is the only one that the parking "cowboy" (love that by the way),

entered in his pictute evidence.

 

The car park is just down the road from me so i will go back tomorrow

(as i go every week due to playing football at the Lake),

i will look for further sinage and post that to you.

 

On the email reply from them after my appeal they do mention i can go through an independant appeal procedure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the sign at the entrance of the car park and the signage on the ticket machine. There are multiple copies of the previously posted sign dotted around the car park no other different signs are visible.

 

Also attached is my "Fixed Charge Notice" which does not appear to have a POPLA code?

 

Sorry to double post but i thought this e-mail may also be of interest. It is their reply to my initial appeal.

13453921_1274019125943440_1130957224_n.jpg

13472195_1274019149276771_1132333383_n.jpg

13435972_1274019145943438_842589517_n.jpg

13472368_1274014559277230_686872963_n.jpg

13451272_1274014602610559_1471258096_n.jpg

Screen Shot 2016-06-15 at 12.47.57.jpg

Screen Shot 2016-06-15 at 12.47.20.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

you wont get a POPLA code because the IAS doesnt force the issuing of a code

as they dont actually obey any rules that are considered fair.

 

 

However, as they are IAS members and their signage says BPA it isnt compliant

so they wont get one over on you in procedural matters.

 

The signage says nothing about HOW the ticket should be displayed

so as long as you keep the ticket safe then they are onto a hiding to nothing as there is no material breach of contract,

just their pique that you displayed your ticket in the footwell of the car.

 

So, how to respond?

Dont.

 

 

Let them chase you and spend their money making fools of themselves

but at the last minute send them or thier solicitors a letter telling them that you know their claim is flawed because ..

.. and state the above points and say that any claim will be vigourously defended as being vexatious.

 

 

That is a long way away at the moment, Napier tend to be toothless tigers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that sounds very good to me. If that would actually stand against them then wonderful I'll follow that line. I'll await any further correspondence and update when I receive it. Many thanks so far

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received another e-mail letter.

 

 

It's an interesting one.

(Note it's a screen shot of the main body of the letter as I am using my phone to post at the moment.

 

I don't understand why they are being so unreasonable after the fact I've bought and produced a ticket..

 

 

.how is even £25 fair in the case of a ticket only costing £0.90 for the period of time I was there?

 

 

They've made no loss, they already have £0.90 of my money, now they want more than 25x that :')

image.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

convert anything you attach to PDF please

and follow the upload

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

and that letter is a load of ole bull.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OOOO scary.

They are obviously desperate and also have nothing better to do than trawl around

looking for their name being mentioned so they can get some free advice on how to do their job.

Block their email address and report them to your service provider for harassment.

 

The fact they are in a transition between the BPA and the IPC doesnt affect you,

that is their problem that they cannot comply with the law!

 

The fact they are offering you the opportunity to be rooked of £25

instead of their normal fee of around £100 tells you a great deal.

 

 

Any contarct that you are supposed to read as you drive past that has a clause numberd 7c

isnt going to impress a judge that it is clear and thus valid.

 

 

they are wrong about even this being a contractual condition though,

the contract is the sign at the entrance and that doesnt have a clause 7c.

 

 

Anything on the ticket machine is just graffiti legally speaking

as it isnt part of the offer you were made and accepetd when driving in and parking.

 

 

You will have had to have already parked to read the ticket machine scribble

so unless they have a ticket machine in the centre of a roundabout that has words about a foot high

( gosh that will be a very big machine to get all of the milliards of pettifogging detail on)

then their threats and assertions are worthless.

 

Obviously, if they want to get someone to write a proper unilateral contract for them

perhaps they should see a solicitor.

 

 

I'm sure that Gladstones or SCS or Miahs could pen something.

they are so good at screwing up their clients court cases they would no doubt welcome tha change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...