Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please also take photos of the sign at the entrance as well as any signs inside the car park especially any that are different. Please take them from a distance where we can read them and if there is a payment machine, the sign on the machine or very close to it that explains their T&Cs for the machine.
    • Thanks for getting the signage posted up so quickly. The sign on entry should explain their T&Cs. As they don't it means that  what they have given you is  an offer to treat, not a contract. For there to be a contract they would have had to put their offer at the entrance.  You cannot put a notice saying that their T&Cs are inside the car park and expect motorists to be subject to those T&Cs when they are unaware what the terms are.. They have to be able to read them and understand them before they can accept them. My feeling is that the sign that includes the charge of £100 is too small to be acceptable On top of that the sign at the entrance is for Parking Control Solutions while the signs inside are from HX Management-a completely different animal. To strengthen your case for not paying them is the fact that their PCN is not compliant.  Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there are certain wordings in  the NTK  that by Law must comply with the Act. They don't  have to quote that part of the Act in their PCN but the relevant wording has to be included. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9 [2]   the notice must  [f]   warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;   Your  NTK does not include  [if all the applicable conditions  under the Schedule have been met ]thus rendering the NTK non compliant.  
    • I agree its about time but why has it taken for the National Crime Agency to flag this up for then to take action and not Ofcom.   Yet again a Government Agency that is meant to deal with this hasn't Ofcom but flagged by another Agency NCA.   If the telephone companies have this facility in place already to do this then why hasn't Ofcom been pushing them to stop all these scam calls and giving them massive fines for not doing so.    
    • Hi   Send this to them:   Dear Sir/Madam   Formal Complaint   Reference:            (insert their complaint reference number here)   Thank you for your response letter dated XX/XX/2021 which I received by email on XX/XX/2021 that contained your Original Email sent that showed due to your Maladministration that you had sent the Original Email containing my Personal Data to an incorrect email address due to spelling errors in the email address.   a)      Due to this Maladministration of this email being sent to the incorrect email address this email contained my Personal Data which is a Data Protection Breach therefore I require clarification from yourselves that this Breach has been reported to your Data Protection Officer and what action is being taken to ensure that my Personal Data contained in that Original Email has not been read by the recipient that you sent that email to with the incorrect email address.   As the email was sent by yourselves to my correct email address containing the original email showing the incorrect email address was due to spelling errors (maladministration) your IT Department will be able to obtain those emails sent.   If I do not get a satisfactory response that this has been dealt with by your Data Protection Officer, I will report this Data Breach to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/   b)      Due to this Maladministration I failed to receive your Stage 1 complaint response within the allocated time limit for a Stage 1 response therefore this complaint should be dealt with as a Stage 2 Complaint and if you refuse to treat this as a Stage 2 Complaint, I require Full Clarification for your refusal.   I was placed in this Tenancy via the Rough Sleepers Initiative and I find your response about damaged/destroyed items that you would not be able to look into this as this happened 2 years ago but all tenants regardless of private or social housing are responsible for arranging their own contents insurance totally unacceptable as again, I was never notified nor informed of this requirement on taking up this tenancy.   I require clarification from yourself that when a New Tenant takes up a Tenancy Agreement with yourselves why are the not informed of this requirement of Contents Insurance which you should be duty bound to inform all tenants on taking up a tenancy agreement if such a requirement and it should also be noted within that tenants Housing File which you have full access to as dealing with complaint so I require clarification as well if this is noted in my Housing File.   You state multiple properties throughout the area were affected by sewage flood on the same day and the issue will have stemmed from the mains which is not your responsibility.   a)      You have failed to take into that the above statement from yourself blaming the Mains is without any actual evidence from yourselves to back up this claim therefore I require clarification as to what actual evidence you have and to be provided with copies.   b)      You also failed to take into account that in my initial complaint letter that on 12th July 2021 basement flats 1 & 2 were flooded by sewage exacerbated by blockage in the property’s drainage. The blockage has been confirmed by two contractors after the flooding including CCR who were subcontracted by Pyramid Plus that it was the properties drainage that was blocked. Also, while I was decanted from this property, I was contacted by CCR who confirmed that the drain was blocked but they could not access manhole as it was inaccessible as it is located in a utility cupboard underneath carpet, floorboards so how could this be the Main and not your responsibility when it is within the properties boundaries.   Your response about how complaints have been made by residents in relation to this issue is that your system does not allow you to find that information is completely unacceptable as your Housing Association should be able to produce these as part of ongoing repairs and maintenance/procurement processes to present these to your Board for there yearly Budget meeting if not why not.   Then you state you are under no obligation to share that information; therefore, your organisation is not being Open and Accountable to your Service Users and under which Article of the General Data Protection Act (GDPR) are you using for this refusal.   You have also failed to mention that I can make that above request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and what is your process for such a request again not being Open and Accountable.   I await your response.
    • RE: EC261 Compensation   It's normal they won't have asked you to contact them . Your initial rescheduling was obviously done by a bot - and there was no human to notice the mistake, as far as the bot knew your scheduling was perfectly normal so there was no need to ask you to contact them.   As long as that was done 2 weeks in advance the carrier's liability to notify you is fulfilled.   (You could have contacted them there and pointed out that the new schedule was impossible. Unfortunately you didn't. Claiming you didn't notice is not likely to work in your favor)   The bot who sent you the 24h confirmation didn't notice the mistake either, obviously.   At some point a human or another bot finally identified the problem and that's when they called you. As far as they are concerned neither you nor them had noticed the scheduling mistake and they took it on them to notify you so you don't have a bad surprise when you try and check in.   However as far as I know, neither flight was delayed or cancelled. You could have taken both flights, if you had the power to be in two places at the same time.   So I don't think there is any scope to claim for EC261. But claim forms are free so feel free to try.     Then, you can certainly make an old fashioned claim (directly to BA)   What could perhaps play in your favor:   It's the carrier's responsibility to ensure that they don't sell you a ticket where the flyer cannot meet the minimum connection time or MCT.   This situation mostly applies to situations where the flyer doesn't know and gets caught. For example say you connect at LHR and you are given 35 minutes to connect. This may look just fine to an unsuspecting tourist, but in reality there is practically zero chance to make the connection, therefore the airline is liable here for selling you this ticket resulting in you missing your connection   In your case though it could be argued that even an unsuspecting tourist should be able to tell that it is not possible for them to depart 5 minutes prior to disembarking and therefore that you should have checked your notification more carefully.   The fact that the bot allowed such a glaring mistake to happen is certainly an argument in your favour shall you decide to make a complaint.     What doesn't play in your favor:   The airline obviously did their best to get you to your destination as soon as they noticed their mistake. They offered you more than one alternative (the first alternative would have got you in time at your destination, but you declined) and you then accepted another alternative, and fully travelled the ticket. That is a very strong position for them.     What did you lose and what do you intend to claim for?   You took the overnight connection so obviously you had to stay at an airport hotel. Is that correct? Did you keep the receipt for your hotel and meals?   You certainly should have asked them on the phone when negotiating your re-route that they provide a hotel. Within 20hrs of the flight it's something they would most probably not have denied to you (but airlines will generally avoid offering off the bat. Why lose money when a customer is just going to roll with it and pay for their own stay anyway, right?). After the fact it's going to be a lot more difficult to claim.   I do certainly think it would be reasonable to try and write them a polite but firm letter to claim for that. Not 700 euros, not damages and hardship and all that jazz, just the extra expense you incurred following a scheduling mistake that they made (that should have never happened) and that they didn't notice until way too late in the day , with your categorical inability to leave 3 hours earlier (you had very important business meetings or something critical, it certainly wasn't just convenience) and the extra costs incurred, and asking that they kindly provide compensation for the hotel and meals, which you feel it was their duty to offer you and you are politely disappointed that they didn't, and thafully you happen to have kept all the receipts. Put Alex Cruz on copy for good measure.   No guarantee but I feel it has a fair chance of success. Most probably you will be offered a heap of Avios instead of cash. It's then up for you to decide whether you want to accept that. Personally I wouldn't bother going further, but that's just me. See if anyone here disagrees, and do let us know what you decide and keep in touch with how it went.            
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

@Inchcapeuk Burton Upon Trent avoiding their consumer obligations


GoldenGoose
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 405 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

Be careful, too many contributors to this post are happy to propose court at the first hint of trouble.

 

Too many people are jumping to conclusions without evidence.

 

I will always remember the Jaguar Guy, got his car damaged at a Jaguar Dealer by a faulty pressure washer. egged on by all and sundry to go to court. Lost. Nearly lost his house.

 

The Tyreweld bit is just an illustration of why you need to be 110% of your facts and try not to make your story, fit the facts.

 

H

42 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I appreciate that, I’m more concerned with getting nearly £1400 of costs I incurred due to works I feel they should have carried out before providing me the vehicle, now they are not even responding or answering my questions regarding there own inspection report. It has been going on too long now

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BankFodder,

 

Would you mind passing you opinion on this before I send it off?

 

I have not received satisfactory resolution to my original email dated 25/01/2020 and subsequent emails regarding the faults on the vehicle which I bought from you on 24/01/2020.

Please see the summary of my requests from numerous emails once again,

Westover 4x4 £154.80 - Initial inspection fee to identify faults (Inchcape agree to pay)

Brake discs and pads £170.88 - The vehicle should not have been released to me with faulty brakes, due to Covid 19 lockdown and garages being closed I purchased the parts and changed the brakes myself to ensure the car was safe, vibration reported to Inchcape resolved.(Inchcape do not agree to pay as considered wear and tear)

Near side anti roll bar link worn quoted £165 Inchcape agreed to pay this (I have had the works complete for £76.35 included on Hypermotive bill attached)

Full service including timing belt change £845.69 (Quoted £1112.95) - Whilst I have been told by Gary at Inchcape that this service will not be reimbursed I would like to remind you that I paid for the extended warranty with Inchcape as attached and page 13 clearly states that vehicles with timing belts must be checked and changed in line with the manufacturers recommendations or warranty will not be covered. I therefore have to question why Inchcape sold me a vehicle and warranty knowing the timing belt was not changed and this would invalidate my warranty?

I am once again requesting a full refund of £1,247.72 on the grounds that the goods were not fit for purpose under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I would like a reply as soon as possible so that I know you have received this letter. If you don't agree to the refund, could you please then send me a detailed response saying why you don't agree.

As you are aware, I have tried to resolve this with Toyota finance and yourselves and communication stopped from on your behalf.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the county court without further notice. This may increase your liability for costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now received an email from Toyota finance saying Inchcape are offering to pay for the brakes, Anti roll bar link and inspection fee but not the major service.

 

Still feel the correct service should have been carried out prior to handing the car to me?

 

Any thoughts on the above???

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the value of the service?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the value of the offer they have made you?

I haven't paid close attention to this thread but by large I understand that you paid £17,000 for a motorcar which had defects.

You believe that for £17,000 you should have received a car without these defects and which had been properly serviced in advance – partly on the basis that the service would have revealed the defects.

Are you confident that there are no other defects?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Total Value of offer now is £481.

 

Yes paid £17,760 for vehicle and reported faults upon returning home with vehicle back in January.

 

I believe all defects found from 2 independent garages which has cost me £1247.72 to rectify should be fully compensated.

 

The shock absorbers are now being replaced under my warranty but no other defects reported.

 

Should I just take the £481 or send the letter of claim and see if that gets the service paid for, court application will cost £106?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you had a rigorous independent survey done now of the vehicle?

Have you had an MOT done?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it’s up to the dealers to do a oil change when the vehicle is due a major service which will not satisfy the warranty they sold me then I will take the £481.

If they are required to sell me a vehicle that complies with the warranty they sold them I will send letter of claim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you know what the warranty says – and we don't. So you will be best placed to make that decision. Certainly 800 quid is a lot of money.

If I knew I would get another MOT done anyway. you may have a current one but you never know what another inspection might throw up.

Also I would have another independent inspection done. You might as well reveal all the defects you can while you are involved in this dispute

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes warranty says the vehicle must have the correct service at time or mileage for warranty to be valid!

To be honest I agree £800 is a lot of money but I am currently working 14-16 hours a day and don’t want to spend extra time on something that doesn’t have good chance of getting a positive result, morally I know I’m right but legally I’m not sure 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it seems to me very straightforward. when you bought the vehicle was it due a service or had a service being carried out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this based on the mileage at the time? Is this absolutely provable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And is it completely confirmed that note service had been carried out ?

please reply and then please monitor this for a response tomorrow

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...