Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for the replies DX 100uk and London1971. As I mentioned before, I honestly do intend to pay the outstanding CT, but the figure I was initially quoted on 3rd April is obviously wrong, so I want to get that corrected first. As soon as I get an accurate figure I will arrange payment. I will call my local councillor tomorrow sometime and ask him to give the relevant officer a nudge, then if I don't hear anything from them by this coming Wednesday (21 days after my initial enquiry) , I will issue a SAR. I'll update again when I have anything to tell.....
    • Read post 10 here regarding contacting Starbucks  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/466381-met-cctv-pcn-occupants-left-carpark-appealed-starbucks-closed-346-southgate-park-stansted-cm24-1py/  
    • Still ignoring pressure to restart a regular repayment plan with the 5th and current owner of the debt.   However, a new issue has arisen.  We have to remortgage.  We are speaking to a new mortgage provider but their solicitor is insisting that the Charge be removed from the Title Deeds before we can proceed. We have tried to explain that it is not a Charge on the property but is in fact a Restriction K. Even though we now have a better understanding of the difference between a Charge  and a Rest.K we don’t actually know if anyone will be able to give us a remortgage without the Rest.K first being removed. And if it does have to be removed that obviously means having to pay the debt which we just cannot afford.   Have tried so many times to research online about this but not much and not very clear information out there. Would very much appreciate some guidance please and thank you.  
    • The PCN does not comply with the protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. because it is within the airport boundary and subject to Bye Laws. Therefore the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge so only the driver is now liable. As they do not know who was driving they are going to  struggle. so do not help them by appealing. Also as Starbucks was closed by charging £100 that is a penalty since Met has no legitimate interest in pursuing the charge.. As it is a penalty the case would be thrown out should it get as far as Court.  Met make a fortune from those who blindly pay so there is no need to risk Court.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...