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

ParkingEye, Forster Square Bradford, PCN - **CANCELLED BY BRITISH LAND**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2798 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

Good afternoon,

On 07/10/2016 I parked in the Bradford Forster Square carpark, lost track of time, and overstayed by 37 minutes.

 

On 17/10/16 I received a Parking Charge Notice for £85, payment to be made within 28 days of issue (of notice); discounted to £50 if I pay within 14 days.

 

They have stated the Date Issued as 13/10/2016 in the reference section and 10/11/2016 in the big black box, but that is probably irrelevant.

 

I have entries on my bank statement to prove I went to Costa there,

I actually spent all morning there catching up with an old friend,

but the entries are dated 08/10/16.

I guess their payments don't show up automatically.

 

I have emailed Costa for help, they replied immediately saying they have no influence.

I also emailed the land owner, British Land but have had no response yet.

I have read quite a lot about parking charges in the last few days, mostly about Beavis...

 

I remember reading on one thread on this forum that the company placing the parking restriction signs must have planning permission.

 

I have checked Bradford's planning portal and cannot find an application for PP for parking restriction signs at Forster Square.

 

I then telephoned Bradford's planning dept and was told that the signs were probably small enough not to require PP.

 

I told him the signs are 0.9m x 0.7m, to which he suggested that I email the enforcement team.

 

I have done this and included the measurements and a photo of a sign.

I know the enforcement team are thin on the ground and I think it unlikely that they'll carry out an investigation in a time scale that will be of help to me.

 

What I would like to know from the kind people on this forum is, do I have a case for no contract because of a lack of PP for the signs?

 

I have read The Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regs and I think I have a case, but I'm not a lawyer

 

! I hope to use this in ParkingEye's appeals process.

If I am unsuccessful I will probably pay up as I do not want to pay the full charge, which I'll have to pay if I go over 14 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is no pp then keep that for the court case if they are that stupid

 

Appeal for any reason you like. Sorry dog was stuck in the toilet

You want the popla code

Costs them more money

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

Thank you DX100UK.

 

If I use the lack of PP in an appeal to ParkingEye, do you think that that would be sufficient for them to cancel the charge?

 

I have had a look for PP for parking restriction signs but have only found applications for shop and 'welcome' signs.

 

I find it strange that there doesn't seem to be anything on the web about this, given that I think a lot of people will have been caught out at this site.

Hasn't anyone challenged the validity of these signs before?!

 

Incidentally I am referring to Forster Square Retail Park, and not the train station!

 

As to saving the PP point for court,

I'm afraid I have no stomach for court.

 

I'm a regular person with little familiarity with the law.

I know that this is exactly what these parking companies prey on,

but I need to be able to sleep at night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not like a court nothing to worry about

Dx

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

It is not the parking restrictions that PE use that need PP but the signs they have in place to offer you a contract.

 

 

They need PP under the advertising hoardings display regs as do all signs, even your house number.

Signs have differetn categories so not all need express planning permission but those PE use do

 

Costa are caught between a roak and a hard place,

they are tenants and it is they who suffer by the contract between BL and PE

 

The original planning consent for the development and car park may have wording like customer parking for 3 hours only, it could be in the application alone and even so that makes it part of the original consent.

 

 

PE like to shorten this to 1 or 2 hours as they then catch more people but that is breaking the law.

They know this, have appealed in some cases to the council and even courts but have lost so they know it is unlawful but they carry on in the hiope that no-one notices.

 

 

They are also known to lie to the court when it is raised as a defence point against their claims so peopel have to be on their toes.

 

You need to read up on the requirements under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 so you know exactly what you are talking about next time you contact the council, different signs for different purposes and size of signage that need permission are listed but havedifferent categories and PE will claim theirs are "informational", just like bus stops and train station names!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news!

 

I've had a response from the land owner, British Land.

 

 

BL have apologised for any distress caused and have confirmed that they have contacted ParkingEye and the parking charge has been cancelled!

 

 

It would seem that there are decent people in the world of business after all.

 

I'd like to say thanks to the kind folks who took the time to reply to my thread.

 

When I get a response from Bradford Planning Dept regarding the parking restriction signs I'll update the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how did you contact them EMail?

 

 

dx

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

10/10

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

That is quoite unusual for big outfits like BL, they usually dont get involved. They obviously want to keep the goodwill of their tenants who are the very reason people go there in the first place. They may have woken up to this blindingly obvious fact and we will see more of it.

Well done to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be worth bearing in mind that these decisions by the landowner sometimes fall foul of "left-hand/right-hand" syndrome, and that PE may continue to pursue this charge (passing it to their pet lawyers, DCAs, etc.).

Make sure you don't destroy any evidence. First hint of any continuation, initiate proceedings for harassment.

 

 

But well done!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...