Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is the letter headed Letter of Claim/before Claim or similar? If not, it sounds like more of the threatogram chain. If you're not sure, post up an anonymised copy of the letter and we'll check. HB
    • So guess what, we have received a final demand letter for £100. It states if payment is not made by 11/06 they will have no option but to forward the case to their litigation dept with a view to commence County Court Proceedings. So just wondering if anyone has any advice. Do we ignore this? or do we need to take action? Thanks 
    • hi dx, thanks for helping just re-reading everything this morning and I must have missed this one from uncle in his thread "What you should not do, is not contact the Banks and simply default on payments. "  are you in disagreement with this based on your last sentence?
    • Thanks for the reply and clarification, that might just explain why in my case contact has pretty much ceased. Though with such companies it doesn't mean they won't ever threaten to return to court as a tool to force one's hand if they feel they are not self informed on their chances etc.  But concerning how last year they tried to use the CCJ to get a charging order and the court granted an intirum order on our mortgage using the CCJ that would have been a good 2-3 months beyond the 6 years, should the court not have checked the age of the CCJ in the first case or would they always grant an interim order simply off the back of a CCJ being produced without even checking the age of it?.  Had I not defended that action at the time they may well have got a default using a CCJ older than 6 years which could be a concern going forwards. At the time when I contacted the court to question the paperwork for a final order application the clerk suggested people don't get informed when companies apply for interim charging orders, they are automatic if a claimant has a CCJ and people only get contacted once a date for a final order application goes through. kind of begs the question if such companies can continue a seemingly backdoor method to attempt default action if un-defended if the initial application doesn't need to check the age of a CCJ?.
    • Hello!  Wondering if someone can help with this.  I suspect not but worth a go.  I appreciate the "contract is with the seller" line, which is what Evri has fed me but wanted to see if someone with experience in these things could suggest anything else I could do here.  I appreciate there are many topics about lost parcels - My parcels weren't lost, until the driver walked up to my door with them and then decided to make them lost/stolen... I'll summarise what has happened.  Wednesday of last week - Evri delivery driver stole / walked off with 3 of my parcels.  -  Arrived outside my properly, took photos (3 separate photos as its 3 separate deliveries) of the tops of the parcels (pointlessly zoomed in on just the labels, couldn't see anything else, other than a small piece of the pavement and a little weed, which doubly confirms it was outside my door as I can see the same plant), marked the order as delivered and walked off with them.  He's marked on the Evri GPS marked that he was outside.   -  3 different deliveries, from the same company (same boxes etc.), but 3 separate tracking numbers. -  Went through the Evri bot which opened a case on each tracking number.  I then phoned them and left a voicemail explaining what had happened. -  24 hours later had a canned response asking me if the packages had turned up and to check around etc..  I responded explaining again what happened and that they've definitely been taken. -  4 days later,  this morning, I get a response telling me to ask the merchant to refund me. I've responded to this message with a long email, repeating what I said, that I believe the driver has stolen these packages and that he took those suspicious top down shots of the packages, marked them as delivered without ringing or knocking etc.  I've said that I expect them to investigate further, but I gather they won't. In my several messages to them initially and later, I told them I don't care about a refund and wanted the parcels.  They contain some sentimental stuff, nothing of high monetary value, hence me going to this trouble.  I only paid £25 for the contents. I did contact the merchant when this first happened and they asked me to wait a few days.  They ended up refunding me despite me asking them not to and that I wanted them to escalate it with Evri because this appears to be a case of theft.  They didn't seem bothered - Refunded me and told me to go back to Evri and escalate it with them? So - Is there any way to compel Evri to conduct a proper investigation with this driver?  Search for my parcels? I have quite a lot of deliveries handled by Evri (not out of choice) - They used to have a fantastic chap and I rarely had any issues.  He has been replaced by a new guy and I believe the route is handled by this same guy who I believe has taken my packages.  Naturally, I fear this is going to happen again in the future if no investigation occurs. Appreciate any assistance - Thanks for reading. Al.  
  • 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

Parking Eye ANPR LOC - Teanlowe - Booths Poulton Le Fylde


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 440 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 ignore

 

 

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

  • 1 year later...

But, but, but, weren't they going to take her to court if she didn't pay?  Instead they are making her ...

 

... open an envelope!

 

Have a good laugh at them and ignore.

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

at the bottom it says:

This case is not subject to High court or bailiff action

 

so they are acting as a powerless DCA.

 

 

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

I was a bit surprised when you sent in your first post as I thought the first try was the right one rather than crossoing it out. 

 

No doubt you would have stuck to your original effort with what you know now.

 

"  My wife has just received Parking Charge Notice from those lovely scumbags people at Parking Eye.  " There is a well known phrase "Birds of a feather......". Well Parking Eye have certainly come up with another ****** in DCBL

 

I think they both know they are on dodgy ground since while you may have been in the car park for that length of time [though we haven't had proof that their cameras were properly calibrated on that day ] you certainly were not parked for that time.

 

First there is driving round the car park for a plaxc to park, manoeuvring into a space and getting out and locking the car.

 

Then returning to the car loading it up with goods bought perhaps taking the trolley back before getting into the car, putting on seat belts, starting the engine then driving to the exit.

 

That of course does not include extra time if there were children to put into child seats or elderly or disabled people wo need more time to get into a vehicle etc etc.

 

So that could take up 15 minutes on its own especially on a busy day. And those scumbags are quibbling about one minute.

 

One minute. Are other customers not going to wait to park for a minute when they can see another motorist getting in to their car? of course not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My wife has just received Parking Charge Notice from those lovely people at Parking Eye.

The car park is a free to use car park with a 3 hour limit. She managed to stay for 3 hours and 11 minutes.

 

1 Date of the infringement
31/07/2021
 
 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]
04/08/2021
 
3 Date received
09/08/2021
 
4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]
Yes
 
5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?
Yes
 
6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]
No
 
Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up
N/A
 
7 Who is the parking company?
Parking Eye
 
8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]
Teanlowe – Booths, Poulton Le Fylde
 
For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.
BPA
 

 

Parking eye 001.pdf 3.67 MB · 20 downloads

 

The site is a multiple store site that is used for all the shops in the surrounding area with Booths in control of the car park ( It was a council controlled site until the Booths store was built and the car park revamped.)

Tomorrow's job is to get photo's of all the signage.

 

Booths have planning permission for the cameras and signs not Parking Lies, I don't know if that makes any difference.

Edited by FTMDave
Forum software gone mad
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I just  looked again at their original PCN. PE are usually pretty good at complying with the Protection of Freedoms Act but not this time. They have missed one important sentence off the PCN. They have not given you the option of paying the PCN- Schedule 4 S9 [2][e]. So they cannot transfer the liability for the charge to you the keeper. Only the driver is liable and as so many people are able to drive cars that they do not own they are going to have their work cut out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...