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

Indigo Park Solutions PCN due to car reg error


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1981 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.

I had a problem with a PCN from Indigo a few years ago and received excellent advice from here to "sit tight". Was successful. Thanks. However, we now have another similar case and someone told me that recent case law has changed things, so I wanted to check that sitting tight is still the right course of action.

 

My wife parked at a Southern Railway station car park recently and used the automated phone response service to pay for a day's parking. Unfortunately, the regstration number used on the automated system was incorrect - one letter was accidently missed off. There was no windscreen ticket, so I assume control was by CCTV. We have now received a PCN from the PCN Admin Centre (29 days after the event) acting on behalf of Indigo requesting payment of £100. It's a "penalty notice by post notice to owner" quoting byelaw 14. In the time between the incident and receiving the notice she has parked there twice more, so I assume we will receive more notices in respect of these dates.

 

So, should we just sit tight? Would it be better to write to Indigo explaining what the mistake was? They could check their records and see that they did receive payment each time. Also, I don't think the registration number used actually exists.

 

Thanks for your help.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Read any byelaw 14 thread here

Use the search CAG box of the top red toolbar

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

Easy victory. You paid, they lost no money, end of.

 

Even if you had done something naughty (which you didn't) under the bye-laws you should be taken to the magistrates' court, not asked to pay money to some private company. I see the idiots even mention the bye-laws!!!

 

I would guess the experts will advise to ignore any drivel the send you, unless you get a letter before claim or court papers.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, FTMDave. Do you think i should wrte to let them know how the error occured? At the moment they don't know that we paid with the incorrect registration number, so it is reasonable for them to assume we did not pay.

 

dx100uk, Thanks for your rapid reply.

 

Does that mean that advice re Byelaw 14 has not changed since 2016?

 

As mentioned in my OP,

I was familiar with it a few years ago but had been told that case law had recently changed it.

 

Also,

is there any reason why we should not let Indigo know that we had actually paid the parking fee and identify the erroneous registration number so they can link it up themselves?

Edited by dx100uk
merge/tidy
Link to post
Share on other sites

there never has been any change regarding speculative invoices and byelaw 14..FTMD sums it up perfectly..

 

the fact their ANPR system is so crap it cant realise xx cars went in and paid and xx cars came out , one hadn't paid but a car reg was paid by someone that didnt even park there in their eyes ….is their problem not yours.

 

await the letter of/before claim.

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

However, we now have another similar case and someone told me that recent case law has changed things, so I wanted to check that sitting tight is still the right course of action.

 

 

As others have posted there hasn't been recent case law about Railway Byelaw 14. What your friend probably had in mind was the Parking Eye -v- Beavis decision in the Supreme Court in 2015. Very important when dealing with private parking companies generally but not directly relevant to Byelaw 14.

 

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/parkingeye-vs-beavis/

Link to post
Share on other sites

The beavis case has absolutely nothing to do with this case although it is a very interesting read.

 

The simple facts are that this is railway property and byelaw 14 controls what 'offences' are committed. There is a gulf of difference between what Indigo can think they are allowed to do and what they can actually do which is nothing. They cannot take court action. There is no leave for the motorist to appeal to an independent body so the only option is to ignore them.

 

They do not want you to be taken to court as they don't see the money; the Government does which is why they want you to pay them before any further action.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt bother telling them they are wrong, they only earn money by sendng out these demands so they arent going to suddenly start being honest and reasonable because you have twigged that the demand isnt actually lawful. let them waste their money sending out letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...