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

Parking tickets issued on private parking space


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1253 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

Out of curiosity, is it really possible to give such definite and certain answers to the OP on the basis of the bare information she has given?

 

For instance, she says her boyfriend purchased his flat and the parking space came with it, but is she in a position to be absolutely certain* of that?  Is that sufficient information to be 100% sure that "He owns the space, he can do what the hell he wants there as can anyone he gives permission to use the space"?

 

What I'm getting at (for my education as much as anything) is that the OP may sincerely believe that her boyfriend "owns" the flat and associated parking space, but as she's not her boyfriend she may not know or fully understand his relationship with the property.  Surely it's quite possible that he does not "own" the parking space and that his use of it may be subject to various T&Cs including, eg, displaying a permit.  (NB - I'm not suggesting that what the OP says cannot be believed - rather I'm suggesting that she could easily be mistaken as to what she thinks are the facts).

 

As I say, I'm interested to understand the legal position that allows such clear-cut and definitive responses to be given without caveat or without asking for further information from the OP for clarification.  I'm sure the OP would find that explanation useful too - rather than just being told "No - don't worry about it."

 

*I seem to be vaguely aware that occupiers and owners of flats can often be under misapprehensions about their rights to use parking spaces they thought they owned.  If they can be wrong at first hand, I'm sure others can be wrong third hand

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/11/2020 at 00:25, FTMDave said:

Firstly, the site is about encouraging & empowering people to fight back and not just accept they have to give in when hassled for money by puffed-up bullies.  Something I've seen you're superb at doing - although in areas of the law that I confess I know very little about!!!

 

 

I hope you mean I try to help people stand up to bullying - and not do the bullying!   I'll assume it's a compliment!

 

On 19/11/2020 at 00:25, FTMDave said:

...  The OP states "He has a private parking space in a multi storey car park which he acquired on purchasing his flat. (The car parking space came with the flat)".  That is what the OP has stated and therefore he can do what he wants on his own property (short of murdering someone 🤣). 

 

Well - that sort of demonstrates that you've not understood my point and (perhaps?) haven't actually read the OP?

 

My point is that it is not the boyfriend (the supposed "owner" of the car park) who is posting, but his girlfriend who believes that he "owns" his car parking space.  Yes - it usually makes sense to believe that what the OP is posting is the truth, but in this case there is every reason to believe that there is a possibility that the OP might be mistaken about her boyfriend's ownership of the parking space, because...  well, how would she know for sure whether he does or not?  He might be boasting or lying or simply mistaken.  (My understanding is that many people who "own" flats are often under the mistaken apprehension that they "own" a parking space when they don't.  All the more reason then that somebody else other than the "owner" might be even more mistaken).

 

I suppose what I'm getting at is that I was a bit surprised that both you and dx100uk were able to give such definite and certain answers to the OP without exploring her situation a bit more fully and ensuring that she fully and correctly understood her boyfriend's rights in respect of the parking space in question.  I was simply concerned that without getting more information from the OP, then the replies given to her might prove to be less than useful.  I wouldn't want her to leave thinking that there was absolutely nothing to worry about and then find out there was because she'd been misadvised because she didn't understand whether her BF "owned" the space or not.

 

Of course, it may be that my concern here makes absolutely no difference to the answer that needs to be given to the OP because it doesn't matter whether her boyfriend actually "owns" the parking space or not, which is fine.  But sometimes I think it would be helpful to the OP (and other readers like myself) if some of these legal niceties could be spelled out rather than left unexplained.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...