Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The return under the consumer rights act of the item bought would have to be at the expense of the retailer. If the dealer themselves has arranged for an MOT at their own preferred garage – then frankly I would be prepared to cough up another 50 quid and go get another MOT at a garage of your choice. I think this would be a good move before you try anything. It's still very early days and say you are well within your 30 days. Find yourself an MOT station with a good reputation and tell them that you want them to be particularly exigent because there are questions over the condition of the vehicle. If you get MOT which fails I would point out some serious defects, then this is grist to your mill. This may seem to be a nuisance – but given that so far you have cut corners to save time and money, I think that you will have to treat this as payback time. Just because nobody took the trouble to be careful when buying the car, doesn't mean that some care and preparation shouldn't be taken when preparing to challenge the dealer and maybe to return it. If you don't want to tell your partner that you told him so, then bring him here so that he can see that we think that he's acted quite irresponsibly in the way that he has chucked his money around. Now there is a price to pay in terms of time, money, stress, uncertainty. Your partner now wants to try and cut more corners by compromising but you don't really know what you are compromising over. Get the MOT and the check-over which I've suggested so that you understand exactly what you've bought and then you could understand what sort of compromises you might be prepared to make. If the vehicle fails us MOT for some reason rather then I would be looking to recover not only the cost the vehicle, but the cost of the MOT failure, the cost of travelling to Bristol to purchase it and the cost of driving back with it. In other words, if the vehicle is worth rejecting then there is no reason why you should be out of pocket at all.  
    • Thank you for the advice.   She is just waiting to get the green light on the move and rang and spoke to them to get some details.
    • Bargain Cars Bristol (also trades as Southwest Vans and Commercials). They're around 55 miles away; Bristol is the nearest place to us which has a decent amount of car dealerships.   My partner has (and had previously), yes. He's the very opposite of me - doesn't research endlessly, doesn't always err on the side of caution. I'm not in a financial position to buy a car, but need one for a new job, so the deal was that he paid for it but I wasn't to interfere with my 'over-cautiousness'. Yes, he's regretting that now! (I have so far managed to refrain from saying 'I told you so'). If it was up to me, I'd spend 3 months researching the history of car, dealership, MOT testing garage etc before buying, which is why he usually ends up taking over.   Apologies, the dealer themselves didn't carry out the MOT, but they booked it in at a garage of their choice (which appears to be a couple of miles away from their business). Personally, I don't trust any MOT carried out by the dealer's garage of choice as there were no advisories on the car that had a blow-out either (I did report that garage after the blow-out, so hopefully it was assessed and action was taken).   The ad doesn't explicitly state that, but the dealer stated it verbally (which obviously I can't prove now). Their own website's ad is still visible here, but the one on eBay (which is the one we saw) has been deleted, and I foolishly don't seem to have stored a copy of it.   So, within the first 30 days I have the right to reject without having to accept a repair option, from day 31 up to 6 months I have to allow one repair attempt before having the right to reject? Is that correct? My OH wants to 'compromise' with the dealer and say that if they process a refund immediately, we'll return the vehicle today at our own cost, but if they are unable to refund today then they will have to collect the vehicle from us instead (in line with our statutory rights). However, this section of the CRA confuses me - doesn't this mean that we have to return it as stated on our receipt?    
    • I know this but a few COVID related problems have knocked us for six. So i'll see what the judge says tomorrow. Regarding the letter it seems they are dragging up stuff already covered and cleverly wording it and there are some points that are incorrect.
    • You absolutely can (have a negative lateral flow test, and a positive PCR).   This can also happen when someone is symptomatic, and actually has Covid (the scenario most people would consider first, and what I think you are asking about). There is a fallacy to that scenario, though : if symptomatic, they shouldn't be using the lateral flow test (which is for SCREENING of the ASYMPTOMATIC), but those people should be going for the higher sensitivity PCR as the initial test.   If used 'correctly', (both in terms of 'both samples taken correctly', and 'used for the asymptomatic'!) then it is possible for someone asymptomatic to test negative by lateral flow, and positive by PCR. There is again an inherent issue to this scenario, though : the testing (for someone asymptomatic, for most situations!) should stop when they have the negative lateral flow test, and they wouldn't need the PCR - so why would they then know the PCR result?   An exception here would be e.g. someone traveling internationally, who might get a (self taken) lateral flow test (which comes back negative, with a result within 30 mins), and then a PCR taken at the same time, which takes longer to come back, but then comes back positive ........ presumed then to be the PCR being the more sensitive test, and the 'true picture' (rather than the PCR being a 'false positive'!). In the academic scenario (or if you were a leading politician, or a titan of business willing to pay for a clearer answer ..... or an answer you prefer if it meant you could travel / not self-isolate!): one could then re-test by a different PCR that uses a different target ... which then gives the suggestion of which is the 'false' test (false negative 'insensitive' lateral flow vs. false +ve PCR!).   Where does one stop, though?. All tests have false negative rates and false positive rates, so I can create the possible (but unlikely!) scenario where there is a true negative lateral flow, with one or MORE false positive PCR's. One would tend to 'believe' the PCR's (especially if more than one!), but it would be POSSIBLE (if unlikely!) that the PCR's could all be false positive. As you get more and more positive PCR's using different targets, the likelihood diminishes, though (although this wouldn't affect other sources of error such as sample crossover [what if they tested a sample which was someone else's sample, and was in fact +ve, but it had been labelled as the first person's sample??). Again, where do you stop? cell culture? (the 'gold standard' by which the PCR and lateral flow test sensitivity and specificity should be measured, but not widely available).   None of these are new issue, or specific to COVID, though. The National Blood Transfusion Service has dealt with screening tests (albeit it, not for COVID, but for other infectious diseases) for many years. Blood samples from donations may test HIV +ve (on screening!), and then there is a whole protocol (different tests on the original sample, repeat testing by the original test methodology whilst going back to the primary sample tube, and getting a completly new sample [to ensure different people's samples haven't been inadvertently 'switched'!] if there are still concerns!) to ensure that : a) the donor isn't told "you have HIV", when they HAVEN'T but at the same time b) If the donor does have undiagnosed HIV infection, they get followed up, retested, (and then told!).   All this relies on an understanding of test specificity and sensitivity (and of what can go wrong at any point in the testing : pre-analytical, analytical, or post-analytical !), while appreciating that most people just want a test result and would consider  the report as 'gospel' : "positive means you have it, negative means you don't".........
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

DEL ANPR PCN - BB's no longer accepted for free parking - Burnham Beeches Lord Mayor's Drive Slough Berks


Recommended Posts

Hi,

A friend with disabled parking permit visited Burnham Beeches March 2021.

She parked in a disabled bay, as is her custom, displaying her blue badge.

 

She was astonished to receive the attached Parking Charge Notice to Keeper as a first communication in the post (no ticket on car so must be a camera) and ignored it as assumed it was usual pirate private parking company behaviour.

 

Now she has received a notice of impending court action (attached) stating that legal proceedings will commence without further notice if money not paid by 13/5/21.

 

Looking into this it seems that many have been caught out by recent rule changes for disabled badge holders in BB that don't seem to be clear - if they had been she would have seen them and made the necessary phone call to register her car.

 

Advice gratefully received.

 

 

BB parking notice to keeper (2).pdf BB notice of court action (2).pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]

(must be received within 14 days from the Incident)

 

Please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement

19 March 2021
 

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]

31 March 2021

 

 

3 Date received

According to the NTK contents it was deemed to be given  on the second working day after the date on the letter  - that would be 3 April 21(if Saturday is deemed a working day) as 2 and 4 April were bank holidays (Good Friday and Easter Monday) so this might already be out of time?

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]

No
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

No
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]

No
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up

N/A
 

7 Who is the parking company?

District Enforcement Ltd

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

Burnham Beeches Lord Mayor's Drive Slough Berks
 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

IAS
 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

Notice of Impending Court Action dated 29/4/21 received 4 May 2021 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to DEL ANPR PCN - BB's no longer accepted for free parking - Burnham Beeches Lord Mayor's Drive Slough Berks

in all truth BB's actual mean nothing on private land.

as for the NTK timing... its calendar days. so they are well in time 

 

not many threads here on DEL 

 

and that letter doesn't appear to be a compliant Letter of claim under the pre action protocol that they must abide by before issuing a court claim.

 

though i do notice there is one DEL courtclaim thread here for the same site but after help the OP never bothered to return..

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re NTK timing, 14 calendar days from 19/3/21 would be 2/4/21 and they wouldn't deem the letter to have arrived before the 3/4/21 according to their own assumption of 2 working days after the date on the letter (31/3/21) as there would have been no post on Good Friday (2/4/21).

 

If the Letter is not compliant, what action should be taken?

 

Understandably the recipient is quite worried about the latest letter and speed of escalation but she has not received any photos of her car in or leaving the car park

 

I noticed a number of people on Trip Advisor have noted that they have been caught out with their disabled permits recently at this carpark. Sadly they seem to have paid....

Link to post
Share on other sites

well whichever way it goes or doesn't there is never any reason to blindly pay a speculative invoice

have you gotten photos of aLL the signs and their small print and where they are positioned?

 

cause if the T&C's are not obvious that at the bays re:the need to pay has changed.... then no dice DEL.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite right ajjm the PCN failed to to arrive within the specified time of fourteen days. What that means is that the keeper cannot be held responsible for paying the PCN-only the driver is liable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so don't ever appeal!

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ajjm said:

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

No

you say on the NTK there are NO photo's not even of the reg number cropped nor any in/out times stated?

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No photos at all.

So is she ok to ignore the letter re court action or should she write to them to say the Ntk was out of time ?

 

The only mention is of the time the car left (not photos though) and it says she is liable for parking for the period of parking immediately before that! For all they know she just drove through the carpark!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a similar tiff with another clown outfit ajjm re BB and payment.

 

Although I'm looking forward to my little scrap because I know I'll win, is this car park ANPR then?

 

They do like to make assumptions regarding parking, there is always a minimum of ten minutes grace.

 

If the NTK is out of time then there c an be no keeper liability.

 

As for appealing, the consensus is NOT to appeal! Do as I say not as I do springs to mind......

 

I've had a quick look on google maps and the CP's I can see appear to be hardcore in laybys with one paypoint?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i suspect this is not an anpr camera controlled carpark?

hence the NTK is well BEFORE time not out of time?(29-56 days?)

(see our stickyyou filled out).

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no ticket on the car and no photographic evidence on the NTK so I’m not sure what sort of carpark this is and how they have the info.  Not sure what the other options are. Nonetheless we’d like to know what (if any) response to make to the notice is intended court action

Link to post
Share on other sites

with the letter that says will court, was there also a reply pack wanting financial details?
 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No there wasn’t. The first letter had a form asking for disclosure of the driver’s details. The second one was just threatening court action. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really would like some tips as to whether the court action letter requires a response at this stage! Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/05/2021 at 18:52, dx100uk said:

well whichever way it goes or doesn't there is never any reason to blindly pay a speculative invoice

have you gotten photos of aLL the signs and their small print and where they are positioned?

 

cause if the T&C's are not obvious that at the bays re:the need to pay has changed.... then no dice DEL.

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry for delay but my friend has only just had a chance to return to take pictures of the signage which I am trying to get in a format to attach here.

 

In the meantime,  it does seem that the conditions are there to say that disabled badge holders have to register their car via email or telephone - which begs the question as to how you could do this if you did not have a phone on you. 

 

It would be helpful to know what is wrong with the letter before claim and I'm also unsure on whether the ntk was out of time or not.

Thanks

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that there's anything wrong with the letter - but it's just a letter.  It's not entitled Letter of Claim as it should be if they really were about to start court action - see the following, especially paragraph 3

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

 

You're right, they make up absurd rules so that drivers will break them, thus they can send out their demands for money.  I doubt a judge would be very impressed however.

 

dx in post 4 answered about the invoice being out of time.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

BB photos.pdfThanks, we were a bit confused re whether the NTK was out of time as post #4 from Dx says it was in time but post #7 by lookforinfo says it is out of time.  I attach the relevant photos of the machine in the carpark

BB photos.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

ANPR cameras are entry/exit only and cannot detect where someone parks...so must be a bod with a camera (probably a local that dubs people in for a backhander ) ...so the NTK must arrive 29 - 56 days from incident.

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the ntk was in time - odd that my friend hasn’t been sent any photos though 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh?

 

DX

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the letters sent included any photographic evidence of her car being parked

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...