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
      • 160 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 Eye PCN Letter of claim - Wrong Reg - Lost Appeals - Blockbusters carpark, Grange Road, Darlington. **WON - snotty letter worked**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 729 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

Don't worry!  As the others have said, PE are highly unlikely to take you to court because if they did they know they would lose.

 

But that's only if you fight back confidently.  They are on the look-out for drivers who know nowt about the law.  Have a look at post 14 at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/435008-smartcst-anpr-pcn-paploc-wrong-reg-hardwick-road-stockton-on-tees/#comment-5111577

 

This is a superb snotty letter that was put together by the regulars (most of the work done by forum regular Lookinforinfo) specifically for a wrong reg case.  It shows the PPC that you know the law and they could only expect a thrashing in court.  Do not tone down the insults, as PE know full well they are not entitled to claim this money but are trying to con you.  Instead tweak the bits that don't apply to you and post up a draft of what you're intending to send.

 

I've just twigged "Grange Road, Darlington".  Are you from Darlo then?  That's where I was born and spent the first 18 years of my life!

Edited by FTMDave
Usual typo!

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

Your letter is fine in the snotty snakes, but includes bits from different cases where the PPC had inflated the original £100, which amazingly PE have not done.  I would suggest -

 

Dear Parking Eye,

 

cheers for your Letter Before Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the idea you actually expected me to take such tripe seriously and cough up.

 

You were paid the correct parking charge.  You suffered no loss.  In fact the driver left early, so you were paid extra!  Typing part of a registration number wrong is clearly "de minimis".  Every time a greedy private parking company has taken such cases to court they have received a hell of a kicking from the judge.  Getting the registration number wrong is not a reason for pursuing motorists.  That was established  when Baroness Walmsley v TFL [2005] EWHC 896 in the High Court of Justice won her case.

 

I would also point out that the new Government Parking Code of Practice due out shortly of which Parking Eye will be only too well aware since it will severely hamper your money grabbing antics, includes the miscuing of registration numbers.

 

I have of course kept the parking payment receipt. 

 

Should this case go to court despite having pointed out the futility of doing so, I will be asking the Court not only for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g), but I will also later sue for breach of GDPR as you knew full well your case was totally flawed but still carried on.  The standard for breaches of GDPR is now around £750. 

 

I look forward to your deafening silence.

  • 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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Parking Eye PCN Letter of claim - Wrong Reg - Lost Appeals - Blockbusters carpark, Grange Road, Darlington. **WON - snotty letter worked**
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...