Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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 
        • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Someone elses EE Signal Booster Box is causing interference!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2295 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

The Issue

 

One of the neighbouring offices at my place of work has recently added an EE signal booster box to their office, which effectively acts as a 3G mast which then routes all calls though their internet connection. You can't opt in or opt out to this like on Vodafone or other networks, if someone has one on EE, your EE phone will simply use that connection when in range.

 

I used to get a moderate 4G signal in my office without any call quality issues, but now my phone has a full 3G signal instead. Their internet connection is terrible and my mobile internet often cuts off and calls drop off frequently.

 

Ofcom

 

I've done a bit of research regarding these boosters, and have found that 3G booster boxes are only legal for consumers if provided by a service provider such as EE, as long as they don't cause interference to other people / customers.

 

My complaint with EE

 

I called up a few times, and was told that there is nothing I can do about it, apart from turn on WiFi calling. I can't use WiFi at work. Eventually after speaking to the cancellations department, I got through to someone who seemed to be genuinely interested in helping me. He said I can't cancel without paying the rest of my contract. I quoted the Ofcom document I found, he literally read half of it while I was on the phone to him. We ended the call with him saying he would find out more information.

 

The next day, he calls and says he's spoken to lots of people internally but as it's a brand new issue they've never faced, they went away to look into it more. Eventually coming back with that there is nothing I can do, and nothing they can do about it. They did suggest I speak to the people that have the signal booster, but there is literally around 20 offices that it could be. I suggested about proving me with a signal box but they said they wouldn't because that would cause interference :lol:

 

(My phone cut out around 5 times while on the calls with EE due to this bloody signal box and WiFi calling)

 

Possible resolution

 

As my job requires me to be contactable at work, I got permission to use WiFi at work, and so I could use WiFi calling at work, the next time EE called, I told the guy this, and he agreed to end the complaint, and credited me with 1 month free.

 

WiFi calling simply doesn't work

 

I've made several calls at work, and with WiFi calling on, the line is dead on my side, but the other side's phone rings, and is also dead when picking up. I miss a lot of calls now where my phone just doesn't ring.

 

Why I'm posting this

 

I cannot use my mobile phone in the one place I use it the most which is in the office. I need to be contactable as often as possible. I feel like they are breaking the law by having providing a signal box which is causing interference to other devices. I feel that EE should have an opt out feature to allow my phone to avoid using other peoples signal boxes on bad internet connections, otherwise there is nothing stopping anyone from connecting a signal booster to a internet connection designed to drop out every few seconds.

 

Am I overreacting or are EE breaking the law?

Link to post
Share on other sites

why not approach the firm that's installed the new EE box?

it might be near your wall etc or beaming you way

 

a slight re orientation or a tin foil bag or A4 covered tinfoil sheet could be used to screen the signal your way.

 

we used to install Wi-Fi repeaters throughout multi floored building

an extremely simple box covered in tin foil where required solved inter floor / room roaming perfectly.

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

Depending on your phone, in settings you may be able to tell your handset to ignore 2g & 3g networks, meaning that it only connect to a 4g signal.

 

Of course, that'll be a pain in the neck if you're not getting a 4g signal, and you might have to change the settings when you get to (and leave) the office (if the 4g signal isn't too great in your area), but it would at least solve the immediate problem.

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

 

One of the neighbouring offices at my place of work has recently added an EE signal booster box to their office, which effectively acts as a 3G mast .......

 

 

They did suggest I speak to the people that have the signal booster, but there is literally around 20 offices that it could be.

 

 

why not approach the firm that's installed the new EE box?

it might be near your wall etc or beaming you way

 

a slight re orientation or a tin foil bag or A4 covered tinfoil sheet could be used to screen the signal your way.

 

we used to install Wi-Fi repeaters throughout multi floored building

an extremely simple box covered in tin foil where required solved inter floor / room roaming perfectly.

 

Which of the 20+ offices should the OP try first?

How will the OP know that the person at that office (if they say “not us guv”) actually has any idea what a femtocell is......

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...