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

Armtrac Security windscreen PNC - Over stay at St.Ives


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2094 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 Jim. The people who reply to your posts are all volunteers [ie unpaid]so there is an expectancy that when you have a problem with the private parking rogues that you do your bit too.

 

For instance if you read other threads on this section you will find that others have been harassed by Amtrac or another company for the same reason as yourself.

 

If you read through some of those threads you will see explanations of why your NTK has flaws.

Nevertheless these companies are stupid, greedy and venal so even if you tell them your notice is not compliant, most tend to ignore your plea and carry on pursuing you and even adding unlawful charges to the original cost.

 

So there is the possibility that you could end up in Court-not because they have a strong case but to encourage others to pay up rather then go to court.

 

With Armtrac it is perhaps not so likely that they will take you to court as some of the other companies, but if they do, it is better you find out yourself the whys and wherefores of what is happening to you.

 

That way, not only do you win in court, but you could get a sizeable payment from Amtrac for the aggravation etc awarded by the court.

 

These parking cheats to comply with the Law have to chase the driver, not you the registered keeper-they cannot assume in Law that you are one and the same person.

 

In all communication with them always word it so that you do not divulge that were the driver if you were.

Things like "I did not see any signs" would be a dead giveaway that you were the driver.

 

If instead you said something like the driver told me they did not see any signs, not only are you not admitting that you were the driver, you also have not indicated the sex of the driver either.

 

They should comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 [POFA] but some do not bother either through stupidity or laziness.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted will give you an idea of what the rogues should do to help win in court.

 

You are lucky in a way that Armtrac use the IPC as they know less about the Laws relating to private parking than you do.

 

Indeed their own Code of Conduct that their members have to adhere to has sections in it that are just totally wrong and would not stand up in Court. So it is perhaps not surprising that their members get the same things wrong too.

 

You would have thought that IPC would have found out by now themselves but stupid is as stupid does and it is in your favour that they cannot get it right.

 

It is a constant source of amazement to me that our ever alert DVLA [that was sarcasm] who have "robust"checks on the private parking companies appear either have not read their Code or if they have, do not understand that what they are reading is wrong in Law.

 

When you read some of the other threads,

you may come across on of Erics brother's suggested letter to a PPC which may seem rude.

 

It is intended to be and once it has been read the less stupid often give up and chase some one else who has less knowledge of the parking laws than they have.

 

The more venal of them keep going and demanding even more money which immediately renders those claims unlawful. The mind boggles as to how dumb these companies are.

 

However when you do get stuck or need help do ask

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...