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

MET Windscreen PCN - parked outside of Bay


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 278 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'm the registered keeper of a vehicle that got issued a windscreen PCN by MET yesterday for parking 'Out of  Bay'.

 

I see picture of the vehicle that the driver provided me and both offside tyres are across the white lines, but not into another bay (they are into a white hatched area). Said driver had to park like this because an SUV in the adjacent bay was right up against the white lines meaning doors of neither car would open unless my vehicles was parked over  i.e outside of bay. 

 

As registered keeper i took it up with Asda (one of the businesses serviced by the car park and where the driver was shopping - ASDA claim they are no the ones affiliated with MET so claimed no ability to gt involved. 

 

Any thoughts on whether a challenge to parking 'out of bay' is warranted based on

a ) next vehicle parking irresponsibly,

b) not preventing other bays form being used and therefore shoppers from using the retail facilities and

c) not obstructing traffic / pedestrians ? 

 

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

no do not appeal!

 

please complete this:

 

 

and scan up the NTK bothsides to one PDF

read upload carefully

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to MET Windscreen PCN - parked outside of Bay

Got it will read instructions and upload one i get home this evening. 

Not had NTK yet - only PCN for driver left on windscreen 

 

No intention to appeal yet - only complained to the retailer fist - hasn't got anywhere but will be putting in a written complaint to asda 

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

All these parking crooks use any slight deviation from their Terms Conditions as a means of making money out of motorists. But hopefully their days are numbered with new legislation coming in to force soon. In the meantime we all have to treat them with contempt and thwart their chances to make money whenever possible.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

attaching details here - 

 

1 The date of infringement?

16/10/21
 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?]

No
 

If you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it,

suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

Has there been a response?

NA
 

Please AS A PDFFILE  ONLY ..post it up as well, suitably redacted. - follow the upload guide]

 

If you haven't appealed yet - .........DONT ! seek advice on your topic first.

 

Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days]

No
 

What date is on it?

NA
 

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence?

NA

[scan up BOTHSIDES to ONE PDF of the PCN and your NTK - follow the upload guide]

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?]

NA
 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances]

NA
 

5 Who is the parking company?

MET
 

6. Where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park?

 (840),  Arla old Dairy, Ruislip 

 

pcn161021.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

await the ntk

 

we know this place well

 

clickme^^^^^^

 

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

as i said in post 2 you do not appeal

stop reading other forums

read the threads here i pointed you too

 

await the ntk.

 

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

Just made another visit to this car park - no signs on entering the car park about the T&C's but various signs dotted around the car park itself. 

I note from another forum that the POPLA case officer (on appeal) found the signage to be adequate and confirmant to BPA guidelines. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course POPLA did, it was set up by the parking companies.  What is important is the law in England & Wales.

 

This forum is full of threads where the PPC "won" with POPLA or the IAS, but when the case got in front of a judge the judge sided with the motorist.

  • Like 1

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

  • 1 year later...

Any update here?

I ask as we have someone new who is being taken to court by MET.  It's the first MET court case thread we have.  So it would be useful to know if there have been developments in other cases.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...