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

UKPS PCN - No stopping - Coventry ***UKPS gave in***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1538 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 wanted to report a success against UKPS that started in Dec 2018 and was concluded today. I did do a bit of reading through this site for guidance though so thanks for that!

 

 in Dec 2018 a family member reversed onto a private road in Coventry and waited about 1 minute or so to collect their partner. Meanwhile the owner was loitering and waiting to catch anyone on his land with photos. 2 photos were taken about 40 seconds apart.

 

With my help I disputed the charge stating that the driver had not "parked" but had only stopped momentarily to pick up a passenger. I did not state at any point who the driver was.

 

UKPS from Leamington Spa were trying to enforce this and insisted on the charge of £60 + £100 being paid. I sent a 2nd letter confirming the position of the 1st letter and that no further letters would be sent.

 

4 threatening letters were sent from Debt Recovery Plus and Zenith Collections and duly ignored.  The last kindly offered to settle for £136! 

 

Then a letter from Gladstones Sols threatening the same was also sent, and mentioned Beavis vs Parking Eye.  This was also duly ignored.

 

Finally a Letter Before Action was sent by email.  Aha!  Game on. 

They cited Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Nick Idle and Vehicle Control Services Limited v Damen Ward and that stopping for any time is a breach, and it was only the length of time stopped that may affect the value of the breach.

 

I said that signage said no PARKING, not no STOPPING and that appropriate case law was JOPSON v HOMEGUARD where the judge specifically said "Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it"

 

They then came back at me with an evidence bundle they were allegedly going to use at court against me,

stated the signage was clear,  and repeated their "no stopping" case

 

I came back at them with the same as before and added that, in their world, someone coming onto the land and wanting to read the signage would have precisely NO TIME AT ALL to so as, according to them, even stopping for mere seconds was a breach.  I also threatened that I would claim costs for my wasted time in dealing the case.

 

Today they emailed me as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

 

Good Morning,

 

Thank you for your correspondence. We apologise for the delay in our response, however as no further action has taken place we trust you agree no prejudice has been suffered.

 

Please note that our Client has cancelled our instruction on this matter and the matter is considered closed.

 

No further action is warranted.

Kind Regards

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

16 months on and UKPS gave in

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much indeed for this. It's very interesting and very helpful.

You will be great if you could possibly upload some of the documents you received – including the defence.

Keep on visiting the forum – and maybe help others with your experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • FTMDave changed the title to UKPS PCN - No stopping - Coventry ***UKPS gave in***

Well done for sticking to your guns. You realise that their letter was designed todeflect you fro relaising that as they have agreed there was no case for you to answer, they breached your GDPR that in Court could lead to them being forced to pay you up to £500 .They will be bricking it that you don't come back at them.  I wonder why they wrote to you when usually they just drop it and leave you in suspense.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the line saying "please note our client has cancelled our instruction" means a lot more than it appears to say.

 

Gladdys have been told in no uncertain terms to stop wasting their money on this fruitless venture. it is clear that the parking co had no real interest in the matter once you had responded to the lba and I doubt if anything after that point actually was instructed so Gladstones are now hoping you dont sue their client for the breach of the GDPR because you can bet that bad news travels faster than good news.

 

I have commented on this self ticketing wheeze on another post and the landowner who took the piccies may in in trouble as well as UKPCS for theprocessing of your personal data. Gladstones mkight have crossed the line regarding Champerty and Maintenance if they had tried to continue with this and they may even have done so for firing off the last communicatiosn without the authority of their sometime client.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...