Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The incident was 03rd March 2024 - and that was the only letter that I have received from MET 15th April 2024 The charge I paid was at the Stansted Airport exit gate (No real relevance now - I thought this charge was for that!!).   Here is the content of email to them (Yes I know I said I was the driver !!!!) as said above -  I thought this charge was for that!! "Stansted Airport" Dear “To whom it may concern” My name is ??  PCN:  ?? Veh Reg: Date of Incident: 03rd March 2024 I have just received a parking charge final reminder letter, dated 10th April 2024 - for an overstay.  This is the first to my knowledge of any overstay. I am aware that I am out of the 28 days, I don’t mean to be rude, this feels like it is a scam My movements on this day in question are, I pulled into what looked like a service station on my way to pick my daughter and family up from Stansted airport. The reason for me pulling into this area was to use a toilet, so I found Starbucks, and when into there, after the above, I then purchased a coffee. After which I then continued with my journey to pick my daughter up. (however after I sent this email I remember that Starbucks was closed so I then I walked over to Macdonalds) There was no signs about parking or any tickets machines to explains about the parking rules. Once at Stansted, I entered and then paid on exit.  So Im not show where I overstayed my welcome.. With gratitude    
    • Just to enlarge on Dave's great rundown of your case under Penalty. In the oft quoted case often seen on PCNs,  viz PE v Beavis while to Judges said there was a case for claiming that £100 was a penalty, this was overruled in this case because PE had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park free for other motorists which outweighed the penalty. Here there is no legitimate interest since the premises were closed. Therefore the charge is a penalty and the case should be thrown out for that reason alone.   The Appeals dept need informing about what and what isn't a valid PCN. Dummies. You should also mention that you were unable to pay by Iphone as there was no internet connection and there was a long  queue to pay on a very busy day . There was no facility for us to pay from the time of our arrival only the time from when we paid at the machine so we felt that was a bit of a scam since we were not parked until we paid. On top of that we had two children to load and unload in the car which should be taken into account since Consideration periods and Grace periods are minimum time. If you weren't the driver and PoFA isn't compliant you are off scot free since only the driver is liable and they are saying it was you. 
    • Thank you dx. I consider myself well and truly told :) x Thank you dx. I consider myself well and truly told :) x
    • Doubt the uneconomic write off would be registered, unless you agreed to accept write off settlement of the claim. It is just cosmetic damage. All that has happened, is that the car has been looked at and they realised the repair costs are going to exceed the value of the car. If the car is perfectly driveable with no upcoming normal work required to pass next MOT, your current Insurers will continue Insurance and you can accept an amount from third party Insurers to go towards you repairing the scratched bodywork.    
  • 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

Xercise4Less - Harlands - CRS - Zinc Ltd - Problem


Bigboss9
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2728 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 sorry to hijack the thread. And apologies for the read. But I'm in a similar situation to OP. After using the advice in the forum I sent a letter via email, stating I would pay the £9.99. I was a memeber for 3 years and on a rolling contract, but I didn't send a cancellation form. As I didn't know it existed. Ended payment in June 16. So I quoted the £9.99 letter. And they responded with this:

 

 

Dear Mr XxxxX

 

Re: CRS Ref No: 8413859 / Xercise 4 Less Ref No: W4015982

 

We wish to advise that cancelling your Direct Debit was not adequate notice of your intention to cancel. The terms of your agreement specifically state that you must give notice in writing. We have received extremely similar claims before, citing the case of the Office of Fair Trading versus Ashbourne Management Services Ltd. As evidence that cancelling the Direct Debit was sufficient. If you believe this case grants you the right to terminate the contract by cancelling your Direct Debit, we believe you are mistaken with regards to Mr. Justice Kitchin's ruling. Such a statement does not appear anywhere in Mr. Justice Kitchin's judgement.

 

A legal precedent can only be drawn from a ruling but the statement you rely upon appears in the Penal Notice issued specifically to Ashbourne Management Services Limited, advising them what they must and must not do.

 

This only applies to Ashbourne Management Services Limited because contracts 1-13 examined in this case were found to be unfair and thus unenforceable. Xercise 4 Less's contracts have not been supplied by Ashbourne Management Services Limited and have never been deemed unfair by a judge. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that the terms regarding how a member may terminate their agreement will not be enforceable in other instances.

 

We are unable to accept your offer of £9.99 as sufficient to settle this debt because more than one month has passed without payment. As you did not complete the cancellation procedure, the club were bound by the contract to hold your membership open for you. A service has been provided during this time, at cost to the club, whether you attended or not.

 

With regards to your comments that our charges are penalties, it is our position that all charges applied to this balance are to cover actual and necessary costs and thus are not penalties. Lord Dunedin, when considering whether charges stipulated at the outset of the agreement were penalties, set out in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd (1914) that:

 

"It is no obstacle to the sum stipulated being a genuine pre-estimate of damage, that the consequences of the breach are such as to make precise pre-estimation almost an impossibility. On the contrary, that is just the situation when it is probable that pre-estimated damage was the true bargain between the parties ( Clydebank Case, Lord Halsbury; Webster v. Bosanquet, Lord Mersey)."

 

The above applies to the charges of £25.00 applied by Harlands and also in regards to our own collection fees of £66.50 both of which are pre-estimates of the average costs incurred from defaulted agreements, but which vary from case to case and cannot be precisely calculated in advance. We believe, therefore, that these charges do not constitute a penalty and are thus fully enforceable.

 

For the above reasons it must remain our position that the balance of £207.47 is correct and due. As a goodwill gesture we are willing to accept the reduced sum of £132.47 as final settlement of this debt if paid in full within 7 days of this correspondence. Payment can be made by Credit/Debit card by calling us on 01444 449165. Alternatively, cheque/postal orders should be made payable to Credit Resolution Services and sent to CRS, 2nd Floor, Rockwood House, 9-17 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH16 3TW.

 

A payment plan can also be set up if you are unable to settle in full, although we do charge a little extra for this.

 

If you are experiencing financial difficulty, there are organisations who offer free debt advice and assistance such as Step Change (0800 1381111), National Debtline (0808 8084000) and your local Citizen Advice Bureau.

 

Please ensure a payment or response is received within the next 7 days, so we can avoid further action being taken.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Castle

 

Collections Department

 

The typical response is do nothing, can you guys advise what I should do? They have also added £26 for having to find my address

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BB and welcome to CAG

 

I've moved your post into your own thread that you can use from now on.

 

It looks like you failed to cancel properly but then used a CAG template letter to offer to pay them the 1 months fee that you owed.

 

Their reply is a standard Long-Winded one that argues everything as per their normal response.

 

If I were you, I'd ignore all contact from Harlands/CRS, Zinc and Spratt Endicott for now but keep us posted.

 

There are just chancers !

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh I was unsure of what to do! I live back at my parents, and I just didn't want my mum to have to encounter bailiffs or anything like that! Cheers mate, out of curiosity what is the next step they normally take?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BB,

 

You will not have anyone turn up demanding payment at your parents' home. Gym m/ship disputes don't involve bailiffs in 99.9% of cases from many years of experience here at CAG

 

The events will normally follow the pattern of - Harlands/CRS; Zinc; then Spratt Endicott.

 

They'll all make threats but it's hot air and the letters always say we MAY, or this COULD. Keep us posted and take comfort from the hundreds of threads here that show absolutely NO court action.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...