Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No, do the section 75 chargeback to your credit card provider.
    • See what dx thinks but it seems to me that sending a photo of your own pass isn't relevant to what happened. Let's wait and see what he says. HB
    • 1st letter image.pdf1st letter 2nd page.pdf
    • Many thanks for the replies and advice!   I what to send this email to the Starbucks CEO and the area manager. Your thoughts would be appreciated.   [email protected] [email protected]   Re: MET Parking PNC at your Starbucks Southgate site   Dear Ms Rayner, / Dear Heather Christie,   I have received a Notice to Keeper regarding a Parking Charge Notice of £100 for the driver parking in the Southgate Park Car Park, otherwise infamously known as the Stanstead Starbucks/McDonalds car park(s).   Issued by: MET Parking Services Ltd Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXX Vehicle Registration Number: XXXX XXX Date of Contravention: XX.XX.XXXX Time: XX:XX - XX:XX   After a little research it apears that the driver is not alone in being caught in what is commonly described as a scam, and has featured in the national press and on the mainstream television.   It is a shame that the reputation of Starbucks is being tarnished by this, with your customers leaving the lowest possible reviews on Trustpilot and Trip Advisor at this location, and to be associated with what on the face of it appears to be a doubious and predatory car park management company.   In this instance, during the early hours of the morning the driver required a coffee and parked up outside Starbucks with the intention of purchasing one from yourselves. Unfortunately, you were closed so the driver walked to McDonalds next door and ordered a coffee, and for this I have received the Notice to Keeper.   It is claimed that the car park is two separate car parks (Starbucks/McDonalds). However, there is no barrier or road markings to identity a boundary, and the signage in the car park(s) and outside your property is ambiguous, as such the terms would most likely be deemed unfair and unenforcable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   I understand that Starbucks-Euro Garages neither operate or benefit from the charges imposed by MET Parking. However, MET Parking is your client.   Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.   However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   As the driver’s intention of the visit was genuine, I would be grateful if you could please instruct your client to cancel this Notice to Keeper/Parking Charge Notice.   Kind regards
    • I received the promised call back from the Saga man today who informed me that the undertakers have decreed it IS a modification and they will need to recalculate a quote individually for me. However it all sounds very arbitrary. The more I think about it, and with help from forum replies, the more I am sure that it is not a modification. If for example the original seatback had become damaged by a spillage or a tear, I would be entitled to replace it with the nearest available part. The problem is when it comes to a payout after an accident, there is no telling what an individual insurer will decide when he notices the change. I am still undecided which of the two best routes to go with, either don't mention the replacement at all, or fill in the quote form without mentioning, and when it comes to buying the insurance over the phone, mention it at the time.
  • 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

TV Licensing "We called card"


CRTJM
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2529 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

Hello,

 

To give some background:

I rent a property that I do not spend time in, I visit maybe once a week.

It's mostly a place that collects my mail and stores some things since a relatives death.

 

Yesterday evening I picked up a card from TV Licensing stating that

"They had visited the property but I wasn't in".

 

 

The time on the card was "20:31".

The card states on the back

"We will reshedule a visit". (It also contains the usual stuff about "This is the start of an investigation".)

 

The card appears to be from a few days ago.

 

All lights were switched off with all of the blinds drawn, a small crack in the blinds may or may not have revealed an unplugged and switched off television hiding in the corner of the room..

 

 

They would have to have been looking really quite hard to see it behind the box on the desk at the other end of the room (in the dark of night).

 

I spent a minute or so getting the correct angle to have seen to that far across the room through the small crack in the blinds.

 

I have removed the unplugged television from the house, and notified TV licensing that I don't need a television licence in that property.

 

Do I have anything to be concerned about?

 

(No, I have never spoken to, signed, or even seen a licensing person).

 

Thanks all,

Edited by CRTJM
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to be worried about at all.

 

You also don't have to engage with them, despite any threats of an investigation (let them investigate if they wish!)

 

Agree.

 

People seem to misunderstand. It is not illegal to own a TV, video machine or other equipment that can access live TV programmes. You just cannot be caught in a house watching or recording live programmes without a licence.

 

If you don't ever watch TV programmes in this house, then visit TV licencing site and complete the form saying that you don't need a licence as no one at the house watches live TV programmes. If you have a TV licence at another permanent address that might cover you anyway. After you complete the form they might still visit but given that several million have notified them, it is very unlikely when you will be there.

  • Confused 1

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your replies guys, I forgot to mention there's also a landlord installed small TV upstairs that I think has been turned on a total of once, I've checked to ensure that it's unplugged too. I can't imagine this changes anything.

 

The notification was sent yesterday after I'd picked up the card, I won't be switching on television / signal receiving equipment of any type in the property.

 

Thanks again guys.

Edited by CRTJM
Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] and notified TV licensing that I don't need a television licence in that property.

 

Oh dear... You didn't give them your name did you ?

 

You will get a letter addressed to you each month instead of "The legal occupier" making all kinds of thinly veiled threats of impending court action. The letters culminate in a threat of a doorstep visit (which rarely takes place), and then the cycle starts all over again. After a few iterations, you will start treating the letters with idle contempt.

 

I have had one of these doorstep visits, and have declined to answer any questions and refused entry. These people are just door to door salesmen with no more authority or rights as any other unknown oik off the street.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen arguments both for and against telling them, and the consensus seems to be that they do actually go away for a little while.

 

The declaration form consists of my initial and last name, no first or second names given.

 

(by which time I will be long gone, I've actually scheduled to vacate the property in just over two).

 

Thank you again for your replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...