Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
Well done. In the cold light of day for various reasons I'm beginning to think the manager was probably telling the truth. However, let's see what comes back from your mails today. -
OK, you made a bad mistake by outing yourself as the driver. But that's not fatal. It's a case of one argument unfortunately down, but lots of other arguments still standing. Chiefly that this is a scam site with an invisible line separating two car parks in order to entrap motorists. 1. As LFI says, send a SAR to MET so you can get your hands on their original invoice. Invest in a 2nd class stamp and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office. 2. About six months ago, when the tsunami of cases at this site started, lots of Caggers contacted the CEO of Starbucks https://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-82463&c=Starbucks UK-General Manager Starbucks then contacted EuroGarages which seems to be another company in their group, and which runs the Stansted branch, and which got the invoice withdrawn. However, after one, two, 10, 20 of these cases Starbucks seemed to get fed up. However, it's only an e-mail, and surely worth a shot. Lay it on thick about being a regular Starbucks customer but on this occasion you found the branch closed, and it is completely unfair to be charged £100 for briefly stopping in a car park while trying to use Starbucks. The main point here though is that MET are very, very wary of starting court cases for this site. If they don't do court there's no reason to pay them.
-
By MoltoModerato · Posted
Thanks jk2054, you were indeed correct. I've received the court order requesting documents and the witness statement etc. which I will read through and begin to compile shortly. -
Find out what these WhatsApp scams are and what to do if you receive a message from a scammerView the full article -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
You need to send Met an SAR and they will send you the original PCN .. However all their PCNs appear to be the same and as the car parks are on airport land the keeper is not liable for the debt. Only the driver is responsible. But there are other considerations which can be enough for you to win. Poorly lit signage; scam site, it's a penalty; as well as problems with the contract. So you have a lot of things going for you as well as Met are not keen to take well defended cases to Court.
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.- 1 reply
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 1852 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts