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
      • 160 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

TPS/BW ANPR PCN - Company Car - Brighton Road Retail Park, Redhill, RH1 6QL ***Statute Barred***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 161 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

OK,

the date you give as receiving the NTK,

was that with the co or the date they passed on the letter?

 

 

It will have been sent out too late for keeper liability anyway but the thick greedy hits dont care about the law, they want money.

 

 

The rest will depend on your employers attitude to all of this,

they dont ahve to pay and they dont ahve to name you as driver

but the parking co may try their luck if your co doesnt refute the claim with some strength.

 

 

As for stopping the money from your pay,

tell them that it is not a fine but an unlawful remand

and as such any deduction from your wages can be considered as an unlawful deduction and that gives you the right to take them to a court or Employment Tribunal to recover the monies.

 

 

Now no-one would want to start that fight so try and get your boss to look at this thread and hopefully they will see that it is not what it seems and they can bat this away.

 

 

as a company they are in a very strong position to get a full costs recovery order should TPS start a legal fight and that will be worth letting TPS know that no prisoners will be taken.

 

If the car park is near to you get some pictures of the signage as I bet that is flawed as well,

 

 

we would like to see the NTK as I bet we can pick more holes in that anyway.

Let your boss know that we will be pleased to offer our advice on this matter should they iwsh to take it on.

 

Their alternative is to name you as the driver and you can then fight it.

Once you have been named then TPS have no reason to contact your company again

 

 

We wll then fight the claim based on the signage and what they say is the event that caused you to owe them money.

 

 

they often get that wrong from the outset and there are loads of other reasons as to why their claim doesnt add up

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gte the company to tell TPS that you were the driver then.

They should then get no further bother nad you cab take it on from a different angle.

 

 

i'm sure that I know the place you parked,

there was no parking managemtn a couple of years ago

so it will be interesting to see their contract.

 

 

Also there are different parts of the parking that are owned by different companies

and you can drive through from one to another.

 

 

That makes me wonder if you parked on land they manage at all.

 

 

I will trya nd see what google streetview tells me but it is something to consider as there must be 3 landlords ther and I would question their rights to claim that you had a contract at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the big sign at the entrance just says customer parking only and there are no other conditions that can form a contrcat on that sign so it is an invitation to treat at most.

 

 

The other signs scattered about the site may well offer a contract but you dont actually have to accept them as you havetaken the main sign at its word and you were a customer and that is that.

 

It used to be the case that you could cut through the side of the car park to Jewsons and the car dealership to the left hand side as you view it from the road but the satellite isnt clear on that point

 

 

so perhaps anyone going through Redhill can let us know whether a car can still pass between this car park and the ones on the industrial estate on Reading Arch Rd.

 

The other thing you can do is if you were there on business all of this time is to contact Halfords and complain bitterly about being taxed to spend your money with them and ask them to get the demand cancelled.

 

 

Find out a suitable address to write to, if you email they will just forward the email to TPS who will tell them the matter has been dealt with (and tell you your appeal has failed so pay up).

 

So, in the long run the signage isnt good enough to create a contract but you will have to get some decent pictures af the sign at the entrance and also of the other signs as they are claiming an overstay so we need to see exactly what those signs say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a mistake for 2 reasons, the first one being that you have now given them a method of harassing you for free for ever and the second one is that they are obliged to write to you withion a certain time limit under the POFA or they lose the right to claim a bean. By contacting them too soon you have negated the protection of the law you would have otherwise had.

 

Always make them do the running.If the company didnt send their paperwork back in time it is not your fault so the argument would have been between the aprking co and the keeper and the parking co would have lost because again no adherence to POFA so no liability.

 

Shame your boss didnt read this post, did you invite him to as suggested?

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

are you up to challenge this bearing in mind it wont be a quick resolution.

 

 

they are just greedy so wont listen to reason so you have to force them into giving up chasing you or them risking losing a court claim

( they will lose a properly defended claim and you have good reasosn to defend).

 

I would fight but I am not you, we advise on how to do things but cabnt decide what to do for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

emailed you?

 

Why on earth did you give them a free harass me pass?

 

Block their email and make sure they get it bounced back as spam.

 

If you had read a number of other peoples topics you would have seen this screaming out at you.

 

You cannot act in isolation, sharing is knowing, knowledge is power.

 

NO PHONE CALLS, NO EMAILS, PROPER LETTER ONLY. Make them spend their money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

No, you should have read what I said after I told you off for emailing in the first place. You block their email and make sure it is bounced back . They will be writing to you if they want to continue, dont inivte them to harass you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

well,

they cant legally add debt recovery charges but anyone who pays up would be unlikely to be aware of this.

 

 

likewise the threat of further costs for passing it to the next desk in their portakabin.

 

They all seem to miss the point about claiming keeper liability,

the laibility is only for the amount claimed,

 

 

any other amount added is not lawful

because no contract exists between the keeper and the company

 

 

so the distance contracts regs apply and the kpeepr hasnt been offered a contract,

just a strict liability for a charge for a breach of contract, which is an entirely different thing.

 

 

I have no doubt that someone at the parking co knows the difference but they need to chisel the debtor otherwise they will have to pay for all these begging letters themselves.

 

 

No doubt some judge will make a Beavis type decision and decide that a breach of contract or even trespass is actually a contract after all.

 

Ignore this letter as before

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...