Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Mad and welcome to CAG, Shame you didn't come here before appeal. However, don't sweat that you've outed yourself as the driver. They don't have a leg to stand on. By their own Codes of practice, these clowns are supposed to allow 5 minutes for "consideration" (reading and understanding the signage). There is also a "grace" period of 10 minutes to exit the car park (in case it's busy). You can work out the timing implications yourself.😆 Anyway, the advice is to ignore everything UNLESS you get a "letter of claim", then come back here for help with drafting a "snotty letter". If you're in doubt about anything they send, just post it up here for advice. In the meantime educate yourself a little on what's involved. Try our "successes" forum... https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347084-ppc-successes-no-questions-please/page/18/#comment-5265126 Concentrate on recent ones, because advice and tactics do change over time.
    • That I get, but still confused about some of the advice above. On the one hand, I'm told that IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE no longer applies (in most cases?). And on the other, I'm advised that I might have shot myself in the foot by filling in their appeal form. Both cannot be correct.
    • Hi, hope that you can help with the PCN detailed below, unfortunately I have entered into correspondence (appeal) and identified the driver, hope that this doesn't have too much of an impact! On 26/05/2024 the driver entered the ANPR controlled car park to park but was unable to find suitable parking due to the car park being very busy. This took 11 minutes according to Wise ANPR details, this was due to other vehicles looking for parking and impeding the driver's progress. This has been appealed to both Wise Parking and IAS and the appeal has been rejected by both; unfortunately, the driver has been identified on the appeal. Note: the appeal response from Wise was not received until 04/07/2024, wise state (after me chasing) that it was sent by email on 17/05/2024 but this was not received and not in junk mail. I have completed the form below and attached correspondence (post and email) as a single pdf Please let me know if you need anything else.   1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 29/05/2024   3 Date received Around 04/06/2024   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  Y   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Y   6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Y Unable to find /access details of my appeal to Wise, however I will have revealed the identity of the driver My appeal to IAS: You completed the appeal on 06/07/2024 23:38:42. The car was not parked on this land. The reason for this was that there were no available parking spaces. I drove the car around the car park a few times searching for a space but was unable to obtain a space due to it being busy. I then left the car park without parking, I therefor did not make use of their facility or have the opportunity to check their terms and conditions as I did not leave the car. The appellant made their response on 08/07/2024 09:52:52. As I did not park due to lack of opportunity a "parking" charge is not appropriate. As can be seen from the ticket, I was only onsite for a few minutes which backs up my assertion that I did not park. No evidence has been provided that I did park, only that I entered and left 11 minutes later.   Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Y   7 Who is the parking company? Wise Parking   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Chapel Point, Chapel St Leonards   For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IAS   If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here I have received a response from both Wise and IAS rejecting my appeal     Wise Parking PCN - 26-05-2024.pdf
    • You mean the mediation Service. It's not from the court  Offering a date and time?  Dx   
  • 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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 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
×
×
  • Create New...