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

Parking five and 14 day issue limit


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2868 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

 

I wondering if someone can please provide some comments.

 

I received a parking eye type fine through the post dated 5th January .

 

 

The incident occurred 12th December.

 

I written to the company a few days after receiving their letter to explain that they are outside of the 14 day statutory time limit to issue the fine.

 

 

They ignored my letter and sent another standard letter requiring me to pay up.

 

 

Over the course of a few months I have received numerous requests from them for payment and I have written to them 5 times without reply.

 

I received a solicitors letter telling me the fine is 236 pounds and that I did not contest the fine within 28 days (which I did)

I replied to the solicitors letters this time using recorded delivery.

 

 

They replied acknowledging my letter and mentioned that sometimes it takes longer than 14 days for them to receive the information from the DVLA.

 

 

however in my recoded delivery letter that I had sent to them,

I made no reference to the 14 days, so they are effectively acknowledging that they have received my previous correspondance to which they have not replied.

 

Is the 14 day statutory limit absolutely strict?

or do they have mitigation if the DVLA are slow to provide driver details.

 

not sure if this is clear

-Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you please clarify where they use the word fine please

 

 

and fill this out too?

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket

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

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

if using ANPR or similar then the 14 day limit is the law otherwise no keeper liability can be created. If you said you were driving at the time then they can chase you as the driver as it is then down to contract law.

 

Assuming you didnt then they will usually just ignore your comments and continue to send out begging letters but they know that they can do nothing else because if they wanted to try their luck at court they would lose.

 

However, occasionally the greedy gits do that in the hope that people then panic and pay up rather than just stating that the parking company has no cause for action against the keeper. One day someone will get so fed up of this harassment and abuse of process they will start a class action against the parking co and they will then probably be bankrupted but as long as people pay up and grumble afterwards the ex-clampers will always try it on as it does yield them good results.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...