Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi everyone, I has the pleasure this morning of receiving the attached NTK from "MET Parking Services Ltd" regarding the now infamous Starbucks car park near Stansted Airport. Obviously it is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it was sent more than 14 days after the alleged contravention.  I have seen on various other forums that people have been successfully appealing these via POPLA (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6507793/challanging-parking-ticket-issed-by-med-parking-in-stansted-mcdonalds-starbucks-southgate-park) -- is this worth doing or should I just ignore and keep an eye out for any subsequent letter of claim?   Date of the infringement 02/03/2024 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 09/04/2024  Date received 12/04/2024 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] No Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A - not appealed Who is the parking company? MET Parking Services Where exactly [carpark name and town] (346) Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. BPA/POPLA Thank you in advance for your help. Met Parking Services NTK 09-04-2024.pdf
    • Just wondering if someone can offer some advice. Before I knew about this forum I ended up with a CCJ. I agreed a payment of X per month with the Court and it was agreed and that payment has been kept up to date, except for a period last year from Sep to Dec whereby I was held on suspicion of a crime in Norway (later acquitted I might add) but for 3 months and as such had no way of maintaining the payments each month with no access to be able to make the transfers to these parasitic wasps. When I returned, I paid the 3 months I was behind and have since continued to maintain the payments that was agreed by the Court originally. I have never received any notification or demand from the Court regarding the period I was unable to pay and haven't to date. However, I received this below by email today - not sure how they got my email but perhaps from this original debt as the Original creditor may have passed it on to them. Any thoughts on this please? "The County Court Judgment (CCJ) granted on 11-2018 remains unpaid therefore our client is considering enforcement action. Despite sending you previous reminders, you have failed to engage with us and set up an affordable payment plan for £2444.21 which means our client could instruct us to take further action in the next 14 days. If our client instructs us to apply for a Warrant of Control, a County Court Bailiff could visit you at home to discuss payment of the outstanding balance. Alternatively, our client may instruct us to enforce by way of a Charging Order which will result in the Court securing the outstanding debt against any beneficial interest you hold in a property. This means our client will recover the debt when you come to sell or remortgage your property. Our client may also request an Attachment of Earnings which will result in the Court ordering your employer to deduct payment directly from your wages. In order to avoid this, you must either make a one-off payment of £2444.21 or set up a payment plan with us within 14 days."  
    • Actually you making me go back and double check the Arnold Clark thing rang a bell and the trust took all the payments off my wages. 2 months £111 & 2 months at £115. Im fairly sure that means its paid off?
    • nothing to be scared about at sll... what are you scared over ... lets get that out the window then p'haps we can be given some logical answers as this is all mad. who is the owner on the cars v5c document?..have you got a copy of it? when someone get's a pcn, it will go to the registered keeper of the car, (as whomever issued the pcn will log a reg number, then ask the dvla whom is said person on their database for a fee)  if the RK are a lease company, the lease company should inform the pcn sender of the details of the named HIRER.  the pcn issuers then must reset everything and write a new pcn to the stated hirer including a copy of the relevant hire agreement. if the hirer was not the driver, then they should write back to the pcn issuer stating who the driver at the time of the PCN was. the PCN issuer should then reset everything again and sent a new pcn to the named driver. thats how things work by LAW. if someone in one of the stages has messed up then any pcn is void. lets just assume that the nhs trust is the hirer, the nhs trust just cant payt any pcn they get whereby they know the driver was you and then dock it from your wages!! thats THEFT!! any PCN is solely a matter between whomever was the DRIVER and the PCN issuer, NOTHING to do with any hire company who should be transparent. nothing to do with your employer the hiree, they should be transparent.  now if the pcn issurer has written to the DRIVER and they fail to pay a PCN , eventually the registered keeper ONLY could be held responsible. but that doesnt fit any of your PCN's esp this one!! neither should pay anything to anyone not doc your wages nor add admin fees. again something is not right here. dx   nothing to do with    
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Post-Monarch review finds too many passengers flying unprotected


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2101 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

Post-Monarch review finds too many passengers flying unprotected

 

The Airline Insolvency Review has published its interim report, finding passengers must have clarity and confidence about risks of airline insolvency.

 

Too many air passengers are flying without adequate protection against the insolvency of their airline, a government-commissioned review has reported.

 

The review found passengers must have clarity and confidence about the risks of airline insolvency and how they are protected when they travel.

 

The current protection landscape does not give passengers enough support, is often confusing, and can lead to some passengers paying twice for the same protection while others, whether they know it or not, go unprotected.

 

The Airline Insolvency Review was established by the Department for Transport following the collapse of Monarch in 2017, and has today (12 July 2018) published its interim report.

 

READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/post-monarch-review-finds-too-many-passengers-flying-unprotected

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...