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

MET PCN McDonalds Gatwick - June 17


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2290 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, my post is relevant as its another MET PARKING CHARGE NOTICE debacle.

 

 

This time at Mcdonalds, Gatwick

 

As per the previous poster,

 

my first correspondence from MET was a 'reminder' document.

 

Please see the 2 files attached.

 

I have two questions before I lodge my complaint / appeal with MET.

 

First - I received this notification 25 working days after the alleged infraction

- yes the car was there on that date however "the driver" was not aware of any parking restrictions, nor did "the driver" notice any signage - which seems a regular theme.

 

Secondly - the notice wording suggests the drivers details have been provided by the registered keeper?????? There must be some telepathy going on here :!:

 

Would appreciate peoples views on whether I should respond to MET using the many templates provided OR just ignore the letter given the 2 points raised above..

 

Thanks

attachment.pdf

Edited by simon521128
Amended attachment
Link to post
Share on other sites

its an ANPR PCN - they are out of time.

they needed to of sent that within 14days.

 

 

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

Thanks DX - so spend the time appealing on the grounds they are non-compliant with POFA 12 OR just ignore.?

 

I would further assume that if this was a reminder for an original PCN there should be some reference to the fact this is indeed a reminder and the charge notice date would reflect the original???

 

Could be a good tactic on their behalf - stick reminder on it so people wrongly assume they must have missed the original....

 

Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Ok No problem - as requested

 

1 Date of the infringement 13/06/2017

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 18/07/2017

 

3 Date received 20/07/17

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] N

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes - as per earlier posted PDF

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up you appeal] NOT YET - AWAITING ADVICE

 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up

 

7 Who is the parking company? MET Parking Services

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] McDonalds, Gatwick, RH6 0NN

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IAS

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so out of time imho ignore them

 

I think theres a few threads here whereby they or another ppc try and pull this stunt.

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

so you now ignore them.

They will write again and then pass on to a toothless dca, who you ignore some more.

 

If you get a lba you respond to it but come back here for help with the wording.

 

There is no keeper liability and they are contacting you in that capacity.

 

the pope could have been driving as far as they know

Link to post
Share on other sites

they intimate that you are the driver and have been named as such by the keeper.

That will be an interesting document to produce when you ask for it should they wish to take things further.

 

Obviously you could deny being the driver at the time and tell them to refer the matter back to the originator of this scurrilous accusation

 

I also note that they have a £1.50 payment charge for cards.

You could send them an envelope recorded delivery and a short letter saying that "enclosed is the correct sum in cash to pay their non-existent contractual obligation".

 

 

Obviously as you dont agree their is a contract you dont include any money and leave them wondering about the use of the english language.

 

you then use the RM receipt confirmation to prove the debt has been fully discharged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

very easy money as mugs keep paying them

if people stopped paying DCA's tomorrow the whole industry would collapse

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

  • 2 months later...

Morning All,

 

Please find attached a letter from Debt Recovery Plus who appear to be in cahoots with MET. Reason for sending this in is to show they at are also making lawless assumptions such as if you don't respond you agree liability and that since 2015 motorists are being taken to court.... They even provide a link !

 

I shall continue to ignore but felt this might be useful to others.

 

Thanks

PCN DR letter.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are going to recommend something to the person who paid them to write this letter.

 

Well I recommend that you use sudso soap for whiter whites but I cant make you use it and nor do sudso have to sell you anything.

 

It is all the usual noise and you are right about silence not equalling liability,

 

 

POFA can transfer that liability from one person to another under strict protocols but not actually magic a contract out of nothing

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi All,

 

Very quick 2nd letter from DRS as I have ignored them. Joke is it says if I don't pay, they will advise MET to take me to court.. What a waste of peoples time.

They again include the reference to the 2015 ruling which appears to have no foundation.

 

Does anyone know if MET have actually taken anyone to court? sure I saw something official that said they hadn't?

 

Unable to attach the JPG for some reason - will try again later

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

read upload

attach as pdf

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

hidden

remove the bar code and the ref number!

 

 

safe to ignore powerless dca's

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

MET have a problem with suing people because they usually have a deal with a tenant of the land and anyway, with motorway services they have always faield to convince a judge they have both a right to claim and sufficient signage and payment methods to cope with overstays.

 

For those reasons court is not likley but before they get there they have to send you a lba and you respond to that and your response will blow their claim out of the water

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for the responses guys. Aw shucks - the nice DRP people have now spoken to MET and agreed to give me further 14 days to pay... Really.!!! As if..

 

Latest attached for peoples reference - I have not made any contact at all with either company. Makes me laugh - they have no proof any of these letters have actually been received ....

 

Keep up the good work..

PCN DR3.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

so they have spoken to MET who have paid them another fiver to send a last hooragh letter to you.

 

they are going to recommend that Met sue you.

 

Well it wont matter one way or another what they say, it is like me recommending you use sudso soap, I cant sue you if you dont.

 

Do not believe that proof of delivery is needed tough,

 

the law says a letter is deemed delivered 2 days after posting for first class and 5 days after posting for second class, whether you get them or not.

 

Just file them away safely in case you need them

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...