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

CEL ANPR PCN claimform - Alexandra Retail Centre Tunstall Stoke On Trent


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1882 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

As it's within the time to appeal, I'd be tempted to do so. Which has the added bonus of wasting some of CEL's money! laugh.png

 

Something along the lines of..

 

CEL.

 

Ref: PCN number:

Vehicle Index:

 

As the vehicle keeper, I would like to invoke your appeals procedure because your invoice was received on a Friday and I only pay invoices that are received on a Monday.

 

 

Unlucky! Please issue me with a valid POPLA code.

 

Recorded Keeper

 

 

Nothing more, nothing less. Send it as a letter (not email) and get a free certificate of posting from the post office.

 

When they do issue you a Hoopla code, you do a full appeal to Hoopla on the out of time, no keeper liability grounds. We'll be happy to guide you through that. CEL are, at that point, completely stuffed.

 

CEL already know that they're stuffed, they're just hoping that you don't wink.png

 

This is regardless of any result from the DVLA as that may form the basis of a separate complaint.

 

Can we also see the other side of that PCN/NTK please.

 

 

There is some important wording that they must include on it for it to be valid, it's not on the front, so we need to see if it's on the back. Ta thumbup.gif

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yet another CEL fail then. doh.gif

 

Just get that appeal off to them in the post then, so that they can hurry up and reject it and give you your HOOPLA code thumbup.gif

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for curiosity then. what info is missing?

 

It's not just things that are missing, but other things that they've badly worded or 'hidden away' on the page as well.

 

 

The Notice which is to be relied upon to be a Notice to Keeper is compliant only if the following requirements are met.

 

Inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay the parking charge (POFA 2012. Sch 4. Section 9 (2)(b)). Whilst this information might be there, it's hidden away in the small print at the bottom and does not make it clear.

 

The notice does not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service and states that the keeper is "required" to pay the charge rather than "inviting" the keeper to do so. (POFA 2012. Sch 4. Section 9 (2)(e))

 

It does not warn the keeper as per POFA 2012 of the consequences if the amount remains unpaid after 28 days. (POFA 2012. Sch 4. Section 9 (2)(f)). What is there doesn't meet those requirements.

 

The NTK is also confusing in as much as the notice states both that "failing to pay the amount due within 28 days" and that "you have 28 to appeal" and misleading in that "POPLA will not consider appeals that have not been sent to them (us) first". This is misleading in as much as while you do need to appeal to the PPC first (to get a POPLA code) you do not have to appeal to POPLA on the same grounds as your appeal to the PPC.

 

Although the notice does name the creditor and their registered office address, it doesn't really make this information clear. I certainly missed it the first time that I looked at the NTK. (POFA 2012. Sch 4. Section 9 (2)(h))

 

It also falls foul of the POFA in relation to (POFA 2012. Sch 4. Section 9 (5)) in that it did not arrive within the relevant period (14 days from the day following the parking event), they've even printed this on the NTK themselves.

 

And finally from me, and only the DVLA would be able to confirm this, but looking at the date of issue of the NTK, I'd put money on a breach of (POFA 2012. Sch 4. Section 11 (1)(b)).

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had reply today from the DVLA they requested the info on the 28th April. little bit late :lol:

 

Appeal sent waiting for popla code now

 

If they've got any sense, they'll just accept your appeal, no matter what you've written (yeah right!). Anything else is just going to be them throwing money down the drain.

 

But, I'd expect the usual from the PPC. They'll (try to) tell you that the NTK was issued correctly and in line with the Code of Practice for AOS members and that "after careful consideration" they have decided to reject your appeal. Anyone else smell cows?

 

 

As they had no reasonable cause to request your data from the DVLA, there's also a complaint there waiting to happen to the BPA (for breach of the AOS CoP), the DVLA (for their breach of the KADOE contract), the ICO (for the breach of the DPA against both the PPC & the DVLA) and a potential court claim for your Daughter against the PPC for the misuse of her personal data.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There's not really a standard letter for Hoopla, it's all 'click based' now on their website, unless you want to go down the paper & stamp route? Not really necessary with Hoopla.

 

Just select the appeal reason that fits best, I keep meaning to keep a track of these, but keep on forgetting.

 

So, something along the lines of...

 

My reason for appeal is that there can be no keeper liability as the operator has completely failed to follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

I was not the driver at the time in question.

 

The date of the parking event was 05/04/2017

The date of issue of the NTK was 03/05/2017 (upload the NTK as part of your evidence to prove dates). Starting the clock from the day after the parking event that triggered this charge notice, this is 27 days. Well outside the 14 day limit afforded by the PoFA 2012.

 

The operator did not even request the keeper details from the DVLA until 28/04/2017 (confirmed by the DVLA themselves (upload the letter from the DVLA as part of your evidence)) which, starting the clock from the day after the parking event that triggered this charge notice is 22 days later, which proves that the PoFA 2012 has not been complied with and therefore no keeper liability can be created.

 

I therefore request that this appeal be allowed.

 

As for the breach of the Data Protection Act, if POPLA decide against you and CEL are silly enough to take court action against you, I'd definitely put in a counter claim and hit them in the pocket (again). The transcript of that CEL case in the other thread has been ordered and will be online as soon as it's received, so that'll be useful to have a copy of if they're that stupid! whistle.gif

 

We already know that they are that greedy, but it's whether or not they'd be happy to pay you another chunk of petty cash once you've won your counter claim spiteful.gif

  • Confused 1

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...