Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

TALK TALK advertises to everyboy that I have not paid my bill!


Joa
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6027 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

Yep. I'd skip the ombudsmen for the reasons pointed out by other posters and go straight for the jugular - take them to court. There are only two thinga that make big companies do the right thing - court action and bad publicity on a big scale, both of which affect their wallets.

 

I hope you have enough money to take them to court. It could be very costly. Otelo worked for me. If enough people go Ofcom they will have to do something about TalkTalk. They have the power to fine them very large amounts. A letter campaign to them might help. The pronlem is that Ofcom will do nothing unless you have been through every other channel, I know, I've been there.

 

Most people will give up once they have their MAC as Ofcom are a pain to deal with, and once you have your MAC what more do you want? Me, I would like to see TalkTalk fined so heavily that they close down. It's a shame but that's not going to happen.

 

So you just have to keep sending letters to Ofcom and the papers, your MP, Trading Standards and so on. You never know one day someone might just open them and read them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Luddite, TalkTalk were never able to give me BB even though I gave them the MAC code twice and agreed to close the account and revert me back to BT if they failed to give me BB after I gave the MAC second time. If they had gracefully closed the account I was prepared to condone all the trouble they gave me. When I rang BT they wanted to take revenge and required a hefty reconnection charge. Therefore, i went to Cable and changed my Telephone number after nearly 30 years; just think of the hassle and inconvenience! I am an old man almost on borrowed time and have no time to get political reform by appealing to Ofcom and Otello. That's why I started the court action. This is the first time this sort of thing has happened to me, I am only slightly infirm and slightly breathless, so I am going to fight till the end. So far it hasn't cost me much money (initially £30 or so). Cheers

maunj

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time this sort of thing has happened to me, I am only slightly infirm and slightly breathless, so I am going to fight till the end. So far it hasn't cost me much money (initially £30 or so). Cheers

 

Hi Kamadhenu

 

I think that you will have the support of 99% of the subscribers of CSA Group in your fight against CPW Talk Talk.

 

I wish you good luck and please keep us informed of how you progress. I am sure that should you need any advice there will always be someone on here to help you.

 

Just don't let the buggers get you down.

 

Again good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Cattolica for your support. The BBC Money Programme on 26-10-2007 was all about 'The Great Phone Swindle' i have recorded it on DVD and will be happy to send a copy to anyone wishing to get one.

maunj

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like you, and many others, I watched the prog with great interest. But all it told us is how we are getting well and truly screwed, not that we didn't know that. There was no mention of anything that was to be done, so it seems we are still on our own. As I have found out to my cost, the people that are suppose to be there to protect us, just don't care. So we fight on.

 

Just a thought have you contacted Trading Standards or Citizens Advice for assistance, or even talking to your local newspaper?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cattolica, you're so right! They were so complacent and still wanted to wait with a voluntary code even though literally thousands upon thousands were being intimidated and fleeced by these companies who have contributed not one iota to the telecoms infrastructure of this country. They should not have been given the right to impose any longterm contracts at all or charge spurious admin and line rental/service charges. For getting the extraordinary privilege of poaching BT customers by false assurances they should have been required in law to reward and not punish their customers. Most people are more vulnerable than I and merely pay up due to intimidation. Initially I also felt intimidated and not being a litigeous person would not have sued them if they had gracefully closed my account as was agreed on the phone. Anyway thanks for everybody for the moral support I'm getting;m it makes it quite a bit less stressful.

maunj

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Joa, just a few hundred pounds is just another little overhead for them (I saw Storyville programme by the prestigious BBC 4 that some hawkers on the Bombay Railway were fined regularly by the RPF and some of them had several scores of convictions and regarded it as just another overhead!

maunj

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...