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

MET Southgate Park, Stansted Parking Charge


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1639 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

I recieved this charge from MET at the "Southgate Park" car park.

 

I have read up on this as I see many others have fallen prey to this [problem].

 

The car park in question is linked to the mc donalds "free" car park via 1 entrance and exit to the site, no gates or boundaries to show theyre seperate sites.

 

The driver was parked in the starbucks park where the sign says you have 1 free hour anything after costs via paybyphone.

 

However they claim that because the driver went to Mc Donalds and "left" the "southgate park" site (which youd assume to be the whole lot) therefor they have charged.

 

My question is that the images they have provided on the site shows the driver walking from the vehicle and back. Standing to read the sign etc.

 

As long as I dont suggest who the driver was, could they use the "unblocked" images against the driver?

 

From the previous advice on here it seems best to ignore them as they didnt supply the notice within 14 days and no penalty notice was fitted to the car.

 

Im asking if this is all still valid and if not what do people recommend.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Date of Infringement: 20 Sept 2019

2. Date on NTK: 01 Nov 2019 (6 weeks after infringement)

3. Recieved on 06 Nov 2019

4. No mention of Schedule 4 Protections of Freedoms Act (as far as im aware)

5. Yes there is photo evidence

6. No i have not appealed

7. Parking company is MET Parking Services

8. Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY

 

They work under BPA

Parking Notice 01-11-19.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...