Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I agree about your suggestion or settlement, but I don't think you are there yet. Although this is a judgement you will have to make.  For the moment you will need to file a defence to the claim, but there's lots of time and we will see what his response to your letter is and whether or not he agrees to provide you with the information you are asking or if he declines.  It would be useful to have the information but if he declines then this could play into your camp as well.  We may then have to file a process which requires him to comply.  So I understand that you have the electrician statement already in a WhatsApp text.  If you can't get a statement from them then the WhatsApp text will be very useful.
    • I have explained that to her this morning  and have a job starting with her on Tuesday next week so I will chat it through again then As an alternative we can use the whatsapp message wihout the statement of truth direct to the claimant in the letter requesting information as it may help claimant to a decsion My preference is to get this out of the way and settle but not at £1200  £500 or £600 would save us all lots of frustration and time, I have no axe to grind and my client is/ was a very nice man and we both felt the same about each other  
    • We have heard about this waste of taxpayer money in a national crisis ... when hige amounts of it were reported 'dumped near a nature reserve .. but the saga continues Lets hope labor gets a billion back from the duff stuff supplier, and prosecutes the government figures behind the atrocious mismanagement and cronyism   PPE worth £1.4bn from single Covid deal destroyed or written off | Coronavirus | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM UK government deal struck at height of pandemic described as ‘colossal misuse of public funds’  
    • Tell your electrician that they won't have to attend court. A simple statement accompanied by a statement of truth will be more than adequate and they won't hear anything more of it. Tell them that you will have to referred to in court anyway but a written statement will help a lot
    • Claimant: Lowell Portfolio I Limited Our Client: Walker Love Walker Love Ref: Original Lender: Balance:   We have been instructed by our client that you have failed to repay the sums due in respect of the above account. Your Agreement with our client is terminated, which means the balance outstanding is due and our client requires your proposals for payment. Please treat this letter as notice that, unless an agreement is reached within 7 days of the date of this letter, we are instructed by our client to commence court proceedings against you for recovery of the sums outstanding. This means that you may have a Court Decree registered against you. Any Court Decree registered against you may affect your ability to obtain credit in the future. If court action proceeds, we are also instructed to seek legal costs in addition to the sum outstanding from you in order to cover any outlays by our client in having to raise court proceedings If a Decree is obtained then we may be instructed to enforce that Decree which may include an application for an Inhibition against you. This will have the effect of preventing you from selling or granting any further securities against your house, or any land that you may own in Scotland. Rather than issue court proceedings our client would prefer to find a suitable solution to enable you to repay the sums outstanding to it.   To discuss how best these outstanding sums can be repaid please contact Walker Love within the next 7 days by telephone on 0330 678 0335 or by email at contact@walkerlove.com Proposals   Our client may be able to agree to accept less than the sum outstanding in settlement of the sums due from you or, if this is not an option for you, to agree regular payment instalments with you, based on a review of your financial circumstances.   If you need to seek advice then you may wish to contact one or more of the organisations listed below who are able to provide independent advice to you. Yours faithfully   +44 (0)3700 863 000 | www.shoosmiths.com
  • 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

Euro Car Parks Parking Charge NTK


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2164 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

This NTK came to someone I know and quite frankly it's a joke!

 

Date of parking: 08/07/2018

NTK date: 13/07/2018

 

NTK received (last week, I'll check the exact date)

 

The vehicle was parked from 15:43 to 16:02,

the driver went into the pub,

spoke to the pub owner while drinking a coke and left.

 

The car park is for the pub only, not shared iwth shops or anything, post code is RM6 6QT

 

Google nosey neighbour link: https://goo.gl/maps/3bb2EhXYUJN2

 

The reason for the charge being issued is 'Your vehicle was not authorised to park'

 

As the car was there for less than 20 minutes it's not an over stay,

so I'm guessing the driver forgot to get a free ticket or register the reg number at the till.

 

Until I see a photo of the car park signs I won't know.

 

Anyway, any thoughts on this one?

 

One thing I need to add is that the registered keeper moved house a week ago so the NTK was sent to the old address,

I think they need to send at least one response to Euro CP to advise of the change of address and I guess at the same time deny any responsibility for the keeper as the vehicle was parked correctly (dependant on photo of sign)?

Tollgate Ticket.jpg

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry about the date Homer, nor the ticket.

As the car was not authorised to park their it was trespassing which only the land owner can do not a fly-by-night talentless bunch of crooks that masquerade as car parking companies.

Do write and give them the keepers new address. AT the same time he/she could add that they were unaware that Euro parks were able to pursue motorists for trespass though since they don't adhere to the BPA Code of Conduct and offer a full 60% reduction for early payment why should they obey the Regulations in other respects. In any event the keeper has no intention of paying. If they say that Europarks will know that it will be easier getting money from other motorists. They won't give up but can be safely ignored unless they are stupid enough to send a Claim form. Then come back here. There will be unregulated DCAs also threatening loads more money-totally ignore them.

 

They will huff and puff and demand even more money but will eventually give up as they know they cannot take the motorist to Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might not want to do exactly what lookingforinfo states though.

 

The discount is 40% not 60% and, whilst it doesn't make it any more valid, 40% off of £85 is £51, so they're actually offering a discount of more than 40% (ain't that nice of them!). But equally, you don't actually owe them £50 or £85 or any other amount that they can come up with, so it's not really a discount at all :lol:

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

what does not authorised to park mean? it means you were a trespasser an that is down to the landowner or his authorised agent, the bloke in the pub you were talking to so inshort you were authorised unless the bloke was busy telling you to leave, which you did so no actionable trespass.. It has nothing to do with ECP ever. they really are stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...