Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

JNC75

Am I childish to consider taking a minicab to the small claims court?!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 405 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I've got it in my head that I should take a local minicab firm to the small claims court. Some friends think I'm stupid, others think I should go for it. Perhaps someone on this forum can knock some sense into me?

 

On the 30th July 2018 I called my local minicab firm and booked a cab for 4am the next morning (31st) to take my family to the airport for a holiday. I was told this would cost me £30.00. I live 25 minutes drive from the airport and the flight was scheduled for 0630.

 

At 04.05hrs the next morning with no taxi present I called the cab firm. When the phone was eventually answered I was apologised to and assured that a taxi was on its way and would be with me between 10 and 15 minutes.

 

At 04.20hrs, with no taxi having arrived, I called the minicab firm again. I was told again that the taxi was almost with me but when I pressed the operator for an actual location he admitted the driver was in another area which I know to be at least another 15 minutes drive away, possibly more. (This is not subjective, Google Maps etc shows this to be the case).

 

I felt I was unable to trust the person I was speaking to on the phone seeing as they had already lied to me with the initial claim that the car was almost with me. Worried that I may miss my flight I felt I had no choice but to drive to the airport and use the long stay car park. What should have been a nice gentle beginning to a holiday was a rushed nightmare.

 

If the operator had simply been honest the first time I had spoken to him and admitted no one would be with me for at least half an hour it would have been a lot more helpful & I wouldn't have had to make my last minute decision of driving to the airport; I could have tried to call a competitor or tried my luck with Uber. But I felt I didn’t have time for either.

 

The cost of 8 nights parking at the airport came in at a sizable £239.00!! And I don't really have £239 to throw away lightly. My question is should I take the cab firm to the small claims court to get that money back? My issue is not just that the cab was late but that the operator was lying to me, the combination of which could have meant me missing my flight.

 

Now I’m not completely unreasonable and seeing as my original plan had been to book another cab through the same firm for the journey home on the 8th August, presumably at the cost of another £30.00, I would be willing to accept £179 from them (ie the £239.10 cost of the parking minus the amount I would have paid had the driver turned up).

 

I emailed the cab firm while I was away to express my frustrations and have never received a reply. On return to the UK I sent a letter by recorded delivery (which I can confirm they received) reiterating my complaint and asking for £179.00. I asked them to respond within 14 days. It’s now day 16 and I have heard nothing. So do I take this to the small claims court, something I have never played with before? Or do I give up and just feed my kids bread and rice for the next month?

 

Did I ever receive a text message / anything in writing confirming the taxi I booked? No I didn’t.

 

Did I record the conversations? Of course not. So they may choose to contest my version of events.

 

How can I prove my account? Other than having my wife back me up (probably not a very independent witness) my mobile phone show me calling the cab firm on the 30th July when I booked the taxi. It also shows me calling them at 0405 and at 0420. Why else would I be calling a minicab firm at these times? Why else would I have an airport long stay car parking ticket timed at 0450hrs that same morning? I would like to think that this evidence backs up my account to the standard of ‘balance of probability’.

 

Their website is currently down (I don’t know how long this has been the case) so I cannot see their terms and conditions.

 

Any advice / suggestions to grow up would be much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like you have been reasonable in deducting the £60 from their Bill.

Imo I think the phone record is enough to prove that you engaged in a contract with them and they didn't fulfil their part.

Time is of essence in cab booking, so they can't say that half hour delay is acceptable, especially for an airport run.

I would carry on taking them to court as the extra expense you'd risk is quite modest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something to also consider is as this is a cab firm they would need an operaters licence from the council so no harm in having a wee chat with the councils licencing dept for cab firms, they may even note this for when it comes time for the cab firm to renew its operators licence.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO knowing someone very well that has owned and operated private hire firms for more that 45yrs , I've gotta say you don't stand a chance.

 

it wont hurt you to write to the owner of the firm and ask politely if they would be willing to help you out and come to some arrangement.

 

sadly there is no guaranteed cab via private hire


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have one person say ‘go for it’ & another saying I don’t have a chance! Love it!

 

Thanks for taking the time to read my post. And cheers for your advice even if i’m still not much clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that's what a forum is for

if we all said the same thing it would be just recommended template responses with no need for a discussion.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basis of my answer are as follow:

1. You booked a service and they accepted your custom, therefore entering into a contract imo

2. Time is undoubtedly of essence in minicab service, especially to the airport. No need to state it formally at time of booking

3. They didn't keep their part of the contract and you sustained a loss

4. You mitigated your losses and been reasonable in deducting the £60

5. The court fee will be minimal, so very little risk to you

 

Keep in mind that the decision to sue is yours.

If you want to have a chance to recover your losses you need to go ahead and sue them, otherwise you'll have to accept being out of pocket.

Lastly but not less important, there's always a chance to lose in court and waste more money, although I think you would win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...