Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Oh I see! thats confusing, for some reason the terms and conditions that Evri posted in that threads witness statement are slightly different than the t&cs on packlinks website. Their one says enter into a contract with the transport agency, but the website one says enter into a contract with paclink. via website: (c) Each User will enter into a contract with Packlink for the delivery of its Goods through the chosen Transport Agency. via evri witness statement in that thread: (c) Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency I read your post at #251, so I should use the second one (and changing the screenshot in the court bundle), since I am saying I have a contract with Evri? Is that correct EDIT: Oh I understand the rest of your conversation. you're saying if I was to do this i would have to fully adjust my ws to use the consumer rights act instead of rights of third parties. In that case should I just edit the terms and stick with the third parties plan?. And potentially if needed just bring up the CRA in the hearing, as you guys did in that thread  
    • First, those are the wrong terms,  read posts 240-250 of the thread ive linked to Second donough v stevenson should be more expanded. You should make refernece to the three fold duty of care test as well. Use below as guidance: The Defendant failed its duty of care to the Claimant. As found in Donoghue v Stevenson negligence is distinct and separate to any breach of contract. Furthermore, as held in the same case there need not be a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant for a duty to be established, which in the case of the Claimant on this occasion is the Defendant’s duty of care to the Claimant’s parcel whilst it is in their possession. By losing the Claimant’s parcel the Defendant has acted negligently and breached this duty of care. As such the Claimant avers that even if it is found that the Defendant not be liable in other ways, by means of breach of contract, should the court find there is no contract between Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant would still have rise to a claim on the grounds of the Defendant’s negligence and breach of duty of care to his parcel whilst it was in the Defendant’s possession, as there need not be a contract to give rise to a claim for breach of duty of care.  The court’s attention is further drawn to Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), 2 AC 605 in which a three fold test was used to determine if a duty of care existed. The test required that: (i) Harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct; (ii) A relationship of proximity must exist and (iii) It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.  
    • Thank you. here's the changes I made 1) removed indexed statement of truth 2) added donough v Stevenson in paragraph 40, just under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 paragraph about reasonable care and skill. i'm assuming this is a good place for it? 3) reworded paragraph 16 (now paragraph 12), and moved the t&cs paragraphs below it then. unless I understood you wrong it seems to fit well. or did you want me to remove the t&cs paragraphs entirely? attached is the updated draft, and thanks again for the help. WS and court bundle-1 fourth draft redacted.pdf
  • 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
      • 162 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

Horizon parking invoice Tesco Hexham ***Cancelled by Horizon***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 525 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

Combined.pdf1 Date of the infringement  18th Jan 2023

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 23rd Jan 2023

 

3 Date received 26th Jan 2023
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] No
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Nah, not yet...
 

7 Who is the parking company? Horizon Parking

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Tesco Hexham Extra
 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

BPA
 

A couple of issues, well arguments.

 

I do have a BB for starters, just failed to put it in the windscreen, when I remembered that I had failed to put it in, I went back and placed it in the windscreen, that's surely one line of defence?

 

Secondly, it seems they don't know who they are going to punish, the driver or the keeper? They clearly state in the final para that ''if after 28 daysthey have not received full payment they have the right (yawnnnn) to recover the parking charge from the 'driver''?

 

But they don't know who the driver is hence the NTK being sent......

 

My wife thinks I do this on purpose just so it gives me something to do.......of course I do.

 

Edited by Bazooka Boo
Pers info removed

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're going to think I'm off my trolley, but I suggest you appeal.

 

If you read this short thread all will become clear.

 

Obviously don't let on about the driver, just say one of the people in the car is a BB holder -

 

 

  • Thanks 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

The main appeal should be that the PVN is not compliant with PoFA. As you stated they did not say that the keeper was liable if the driver didn't pay. Also there is no parking period mentioned just the incident time. The times on the photographs are the entering and leaving times which included driving from the entrance to the parking spot and driving from the parking spot to the exit. So those times included driving periods and PoFA asks for the Parking Period.

 

You do not say you were not the driver, you say that you are not prepared to name the driver and as the PVN is not compliant for the reasons above you are asking for the PCN to be cancelled. Especially as there was a blue badge in the car a sit belonged  one of the occupants .

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Horizon Parking.

 

RE: Parking charge notice xxxxxx

 

I wish to appeal this invoice, whilst it was issued for ''Parking in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a valid disabled badge''.

The parking charge notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act, as you fail to say that the keeper will be liable if the driver does not pay.

 

One of the occupants had a blue badge in the vehicle at the time of parking, I will draw your attention to the following;

 

The government Code of Practice, set up under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, states in section F.3 Appeals:

 

"In considering appeals parking operators must recognise the following as mitigating circumstances warranting cancellation of a parking charge, subject to evidence being provided:

 

e) where a Blue Badge has not been displayed but the holder of the Blue Badge supplies a copy of the Blue Badge they hold that would have been valid at the time and in the circumstances identified in the notice of parking charge i.e. that the holder was in the vehicle whether or not as the driver)"

 

I would therefore request that you cancel this invoice.

 

I look forward to your timely response.

 

Regards.

 

 

 

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the term "appeal".

To me it seems to lend the whole "invoice" situation some sort of legitimacy.

 

You don't appeal against an unwarranted invoice, you reject it.

  • Thanks 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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously I agree with all your sentiments and normally would never use the word "appeal".

 

But the government CoP does talk about "considering appeals" so I think the word has to be used.

 

Remember the whole point is to tie the fleecers up in knots as, when they reject the appeal - and they will -. they will have defied all the best practice that the government insists on.  Which wouldn't look good in front of a judge.  The OP gets the last laugh!

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • I agree 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

Dear Horizon Parking,

 

Ref PCN xyz.

 

I will bring to your attention that this invoice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act, as you fail to state that the keeper will be liable if the driver does not pay. In fact you fail to mention the Protection of Freedoms Act anywhere in your invoice.

 

 

I will also draw your attention to the following;

The government Code of Practice, set up under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, states in section F.3 Appeals:

 

"In considering appeals parking operators must recognise the following as mitigating circumstances warranting cancellation of a parking charge, subject to evidence being provided:

 

e) where a Blue Badge has not been displayed but the holder of the Blue Badge supplies a copy of the Blue Badge they hold that would have been valid at the time and in the circumstances identified in the notice of parking charge i.e. that the holder was in the vehicle whether or not as the driver)"

 

One of the occupants of the vehicle was in possession of a blue badge when the vehicle was photographed.

 

I would therefore request that you cancel this invoice, and I look forward to your timely response.

 

Regards.

 

 

Any better? I mean, they've very graciously given me 28 days to pay......!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks good to me.  You have to include a photocopy of the BB though.

  • Thanks 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

Dear Horizon Parking,

 

Ref PCN xyz.

 

I will bring to your attention that this invoice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act, as you fail to state that the keeper will be liable if the driver does not pay. In fact you fail to mention the Protection of Freedoms Act anywhere in your invoice.

 

 

I will also draw your attention to the following;

The government Code of Practice, set up under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, states in section F.3 Appeals:

 

"In considering appeals parking operators must recognise the following as mitigating circumstances warranting cancellation of a parking charge, subject to evidence being provided:

 

e) where a Blue Badge has not been displayed but the holder of the Blue Badge supplies a copy of the Blue Badge they hold that would have been valid at the time and in the circumstances identified in the notice of parking charge i.e. that the holder was in the vehicle whether or not as the driver)"

 

One of the occupants of the vehicle was in possession of a blue badge when the vehicle was photographed. A copy of which has been enclosed.

 

I have no intention of informing you of the driver, nor is there any legal requirement for me to do so.

So as the registered keeper there is no reason to pursue me and I would suggest that you cancel this invoice.

 

I look forward to your timely response.

 

Regards.

 

I think this will be the final draft...

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well done on your victory!  👏

 

I only suggested to appeal to embarrass the fleecers and to tie them up in knots.  I never thought they would actually accept it!

 

I think this is the first time I have seen a PPC accept an appeal.

  • Thanks 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

  • FTMDave changed the title to Horizon parking invoice Tesco Hexham ***Cancelled by Horizon***
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...