Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Calm Down please.... there is only one way to deal with this and that is - PROPERLY. Being surrounded by 'lawyers' who deal with 'disputes', just like going to the likes of CAB, in this instance has, most probably, to date,  sadly not helping you here. Such people always project an Aura of confidence, when the truth is they don't actually have the vast successful experience of the members here in dealing with the likes BMW. there are over 350 threads here . as far i gather this is the situation, In April, a car was purchased by your son from BMW. Finance taken out to purchase it has since been paid in full, as well as full payment for an annual Insurance policy. within 6 weeks, it was discovered and confirmed in writing, via a report from a local garage, that the car indeed had numerous performance modifications undertaken. Namely being remapped and with modifications to the exhaust system. having contacted his ins co, they require a further £5k to uprate his policy, without it renders the existing insurance policy invalid, thus the car is not being driven.  again within this 6 weeks, you wrote to BMW rejecting the car (we need to see this letter please. scan it up to PDF, please read our UPLOAD guide). at first BMW were onboard, even sending their own inspector, confirming the mods etc. but in the last 9 days since said inspection, comms have now gone dead. .................. you have 2 options - 1 - allow BMW to sort the car FOC and without hassle to him, but probably within their own snails pace timeframe. 2- EVENTUALLY bring legal action - this would most probably be under contract law, not a claim under the consumer rights act . (as financially you would lose out big time) to do 2. which is not easy and rather complex to calculate the financial sum involved...... we need all the info @BankFodder has requested. of many, but one good reason for this is say for this new mot, show the old one was suspect, good bargaining chip against 2500mls usage deductions... your call but you need to do this properly or not at all...............    
    • Hi, I've been reading through many of the stories in the sub-forum and I understand the process to be to send a Letter of Claim to the EVRi - in the post and to their customer support email and to sign up for MCOL.  I have looked at the various Letters of Claim and the MCOL claim forms - particulars of claim and I have gone through all of the screens on MCOL website to put in the final details so it is ready to go after the 14 days from when I send the Letter of Claim (of course assuming that EVRi dismisses my Letter of Claim to pay me in full!).  I also see the advise is to decline any mediation particularly because I have specified the parcel contents and value to EVRi when shipping it. I have put both the Letter of Claim and the forms from the MCOL particulars of claim into a single PDF for review.  The stories in the sub-forum often indicate people shipping with EVRi but some purchase through or have involved such companies as Parcel2Go and so I wasn't sure about the statement I made in the Letter of Claim if it was totally accurate to say "I am applying my third party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999"? I just wanted to confirm the correct wording.  In my case the parcel shipment was paid for on the EVRi website and sent at the Tesco EVRi Parcelshop.  On the MCOL claim form I have referenced Section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in response to EVRi customer service hiding behind their lack of ability to insure delivery of laptops and their bogus non-compensated and prohibited items as a means to avoid any responsibility for them losing such items. Thank you for taking a look to see if there are any inaccuracies or amendments to the Letter of Claim - when it is looking good I will send via email and post it to EVRi.  Having drafted the particulars of the claim on MCOL, I shall be ready to submit the claim on the MCOL site when the 14 day period has elapsed and proceed from there.   Thanks for everyone's help! Letter of claim and MCOL Particulars of Claim.pdf
    • Wow quite surprised by your response in all honesty as I can’t see where you have requested details of the car. The car is insured and that was budgeted for and paid in full, the increase of £5k is because of the modifications, which no we didn’t budget for as we didn’t plan to buy a modified car, so no that doesn’t form any part of wanting to return the car, perhaps you don’t understand the impact modifications have on insurance premiums? Thanks for your help so far but feel going the legal route probably suits us better.
    • new thread created for the court claims. please complete this twice and i'll make another thread from the 2nd PDL Claimform we need to keep them sep.  
    • Most banks do not have any customer service staff available to support those opening a new current or savings account, according to research for Investec Bank.View the full article
  • 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

UKPC ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - vehicle on site during restricted no parking period - Rom Valley Retail Park, Romford *** Claim Dismissed with Costs awarded***


Recommended Posts

It's difficult to advise what to do because there are so many ifs and buts.

In the majority of cases where a PPC start a court claim they go all the way to the final hearing.

However, in a minority of cases, and by no means a tiny minority, they have no real intention of going all the way to a final hearing. They know their case is rubbish and they know it will cost them a hefty wad to send a solicitor to court (remember solicitors' costs are capped at £50 at small claims).  They pretend they are going all the way to court to intimidate the motorist into giving in.  Yes, the pretence often includes paying the hearing fee.  Yes, UKPC often do this.  And no, they haven't produced a WS (so far).

I suppose it depends on how much you have spent on flights (and accommodation?) and if this is refundable v the approx £250 at stake if you lose the case.

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

I am sorry about getting your status mixed up. 

I have noticed one thing in your excellent WS. On their claim they are only pursuing you as the keeper-I think it is  in their Point C that  states along the lines of -the driver did not pay , so the keeper is liable.

So on your No keeper Liability section 

You may prefer  to alter 13 to 

  . It is trite Law that the driver and the keeper cannot be regarded  as the same person and the claimant has failed to offer any proof who was driving.  BY  only pursuing the keeper  when the PCN does not comply with PoFA must mean that their claim fails.

See what the Site team thinks as it should  stop the Judge from looking at who was driving as your statement preempts them from even thinking about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With LFI's change your WS is good to go.

E-mail the court theirs.  In the subject field put the claim number, the names of the parties, the hearing date and "Witness Statement".  Click on Return Receipt.

Send UKPC theirs by 2nd class post - all they are worth - and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

  • 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

Don't do anything hasty re the travel plans.  I'm at work now but have a break in an hour and a half's time so will scribble then.

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

1 hour ago, wv600 said:

If PPC decide not to go to the final hearing, will I only find out on the day?

We can never be 100% certain, as we're outguessing the other side, but it's highly likely that over the next couple of days something will pop through your letter box.  Either -

1.  their Witness Statement, and you'll know you'll be in court on 16 May, or

2.  their Notice of Discontinuance.

If you able to I would hang on a couple of days before changing your travel plans.

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

Thanks FTMDave, I'll hang on for now and post any updates.  

WS has been posted to UKPC, 2nd class with certificate of posting.  

Will email the court now.  Do I also need to post a copy to the court?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry about getting your status mixed up. 

I have noticed one thing. On their claim they are only pursuing you as the keeper-I think it is  on their Point C that the driver did not pay , so the keeper is liable.

So on your No keeper Liability section 

You may need to add 8a after 8.

 8a  . It is trite Law that the driver and the keeper cannot be regarded  as the same person and the claimant has failed to offer any proof who was driving.  BY  pursuing the keeper . when the PCN does not comply with PoFA must mean that their claim fails.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, just an update...

Received the WS pack from UKPC in the post on Friday, so looks like I'm going to court on 16 May.   I shall scan and attached the documents a bit later

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please see below for the Witness Statement from UKPC received in the post on Friday, 3 May.  The letter is dated 1 May 2024.

I am also including Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.   The remaining exhibits relate to the PCN's and other correspondence already posted on this thread.

The most glaring mistake for me is in Exhibit 2 (UKPC's OWN copy of their signage), NOT SHOWING that parking is not allowed between 22:00 and 08:00.  Note that this restriction IS showing on the draft sign approved in the contract between UKPC and their client.

Also, the site plan in Exhibit 1 shows signs against the wall of the building (depicted by a "W"); whereas the picture in my witness statement clearly shows no signs visible on that particular wall.

I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback on this!

 

 

Claimants WS.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, wv600 said:

The most glaring mistake for me is in Exhibit 2 (UKPC's OWN copy of their signage), NOT SHOWING that parking is not allowed between 22:00 and 08:00. 

That would be the sign for Rom Valley Reatil Park :-)

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

Bethany seems a new kid on the block, I hadn't read her stuff before.

I will applaud her for keeping her WS mercifully brief.  Generally we have to plough through pages & pages of waffle.

It all seems quite simple.  She says there were signs (para 7) yet your WS shows these signs were not there. 

Then her para 8 mentions your "offence" which is absent on the signs she produces.  One of these signs limits your stay to two hours, the other one to three hours, and you obeyed these regulations.

BTW, what have you decided about court attendance?

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, I have decided to go to court....was hoping I wouldn't have to but haven't come all this way to give up now....

The flights are costing a fortune to change, so holding off on that for now in the hope that UKPC may still withdraw.   Not holding my breath though....

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wv600 said:

The most glaring mistake for me is in Exhibit 2 (UKPC's OWN copy of their signage), NOT SHOWING that parking is not allowed between 22:00 and 08:00.  Note that this restriction IS showing on the draft sign approved in the contract between UKPC and their client.

"Draft" is spot on. They didn't actually manufacture that sign.

The pics of actual signage you posted from Google spyview earlier are exactly the same as their exhibit 2.

 

Depending on the OP's stamina and hate level, I can see a good GDPR claim looming.😆

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

54 minutes ago, wv600 said:

The flights are costing a fortune to change, so holding off on that for now in the hope that UKPC may still withdraw.   Not holding my breath though....

I forgot about this.^^^

Guys, I know it goes against the grain, but is it worth a letter to UKPC pointing out their lack of signage as a gentle nudge to discontinue?

It could save the OP some grief and expense...

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

Just thinking out loud.

You could e-mail a Supplemental Witness Statement to the court and to UKPC specifically ridiculing the signage and adding that you will request an unreasonable costs order including your preparation time at £19 for five hours.  In the hope they might throw in the towel.

Normally we would never advise such a thing as you would be playing your cards far too early.

But then, thinking about your flights ...

Just an idea.

 

  • 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

I think playing cards early in this case is not a problem Dave.

The idiots have referred in their WS to a sign that does not have the out of hours restricion on it.

AND that signage is actually in place.

There is no way they can refute that evidence.

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

Another part is para 13 where they try to go behind Beavis as the £100 was judged to be inclusive of debt recovery and the extra £70 is a Penalty in all but name, but as stated by other's the signage is pants.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you all for your replies.

I am really interested in getting this claim thrown out due to my travel plans, so have drawn up the following supplementary WS in word format (personal details removed) for easy editing.

I would appreciate any advise/guidance on if/how it can be improved.

many thanks in advance

 

Supplementary WS.pdf

Edited by FTMDave
Personal details removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...