Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • Owners of older vehicles tell the BBC of their anger that their cars' apps will stop working.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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

PCNs Not Seen Till After 28 days & Baillifs


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 452 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

Hi All. Please I need your help....

 

I was away from home for a few months, following a bereavement, and came back to find PCNs for which the 28 days period to make a representation had lapsed.

 

The PCNs were dated in February this year and I sent representations for each PCN with same reason in April.

 

The reason I gave in the representation was that the car was hired out to a third party who had come in from abroad and that I was unwell with Covid and away from the address the PCNs were sent to. Which was why I replied the representation late.

 

A copy of the agreement was sent with the representation but the representation was rejected.

 

Details:

The driver had signed an agreement of liability of company vehicle use. The agreement he signed was in the name of my limited company  although I own the vehicle personally.

 

The 3rd party was the first customer of my new car hiring business. I hadn't gotten round to selling the car to the business when I started the business.

 

Needless to say, he was my first and last customer!

 

The reason for the rejection was that the vehicle was registered to an individual and I have failed to provide sufficient evidence that I was involved in the hiring of vehicles. 

 

What evidence was I supposed to send them aside from the agreement with the hirer of the vehicle which had a clause that he'd be responsible and liable for any offence committed within the said period of him being in possession of the vehicle including parking, speeding, etc?'  

 

No special licenses were required. A copy of their letter is attached.Letter PCN.pdf

 

To cut a long story short, I had bailiffs visit my home who are chasing the debt of over £2,000.

 

I was told to submit TE7 and TE9 forms to the TEC, however, this was rejected as they were the incorrect forms and I've now been asked to submit PE2 and PE3 forms.

 

On the PE2 and PE3 forms though, I'm not 100% sure what should be filled in based on the above situation.

 

On the PE2, I have the reason for filling the Statutory Declaration out of time as

 

'THE PCN WAS NOT RECEIVED. I WAS ALSO AWAY FROM THIS ADDRESS DURING THE PERIOD WHEN IT WAS SAID TO HAVE BEEN SENT DUE TO ILL HEALTH.'

 

The field says 'Do not give your reasons for appeal against the original penalty charge on this form'.

 

1) Am I correct in saying the PCN was not received as I didn't see it to attend to it till April? If not, what wording should go in this field please? Is the 2nd sentence OK to leave in?

 

For the PE3, the options are:

 

a) I did not receive the: Notice to Owner (Parking contravention) or Enforcement Notice (Bus lane contravention) or Penalty Charge Notice (Moving Traffic contravention or Congestion Charging contravention)

 

b) I made representations about the penalty charge to the local/charging authority concerned within 28 days of the service of the Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice/Penalty Charge Notice, but did not receive a rejection notice.

 

c) I appealed to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator against the local/charging authority’s decision to reject my representation, within 28 days of service of the rejection notice, but have had no response to my appeal.

 

2) Do I select Option

a) to indicate I didn't receive the PCN as I wasn't at the address to attend to them? I made representations but it was after 28 days, so I don't think option b) is applicable.

 

3) Please what do I write in the field that says 'My reasons are - give full reasons'?

 

Thanks for your help in advance.

Letter PCN.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would make things simple and just state you were away from the registered address from xx date to xx date due to a COVID infection and subsequent government isolation and travel rules that were enforced at the time ??

 

 

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 Thanks for your feedback. Your suggestion is for the PE2, correct?

 

How about the option to select on the PE3? Do I select option a)  and  what do I write in the field that says 'My reasons are - give full reasons'?

 

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

can we just check WHAT the pcn's were issue for please?

 

and if you go here:

 

 

 

there are posts that explain things.

 

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: The PCNs are ULEZ related so it's the PE2 and PE3 I require. So it's the field that says

 'My reasons are - give full reasons' that I was asking about. Do I just leave that blank?

 

Edited by SlowButSteady
Link to post
Share on other sites

read the guidance notes here

 

 

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

Lol! Ofcourse I have the guidance notes.....It's OK if you can't help any further. 

It would have been good to hear from others who might be knowledgeable about completing these forms, and who also have an insight about car hiring as there is no other proof to provide them to this effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...