Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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/DCBL ANPR PCN - appealed PAPLOC Now Claimform - Mcdonalds Bristol Patchway, 562 BS34 5TQ ***Claim Discontinued***


Recommended Posts

I've had a look at their PCN and it is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Schedule 4 S9[2][a] states  (2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

There is no period of parking mentioned on the PCN at all. What it does show  is when you arrived and when you left. That is not the period of parking since you have to drive from the entrance to the parking spot and later, leaving the parking space and driving to the exit which cannot be described as parking.  But by using the arrival and leaving times as the parking criteria it makes it look as if you stayed  longer than you should because of the driving involved.  Because It also ignores the five  minute consideration period and the ten minute grace period  the extra driving time inclusion makes the over age time look worse than it is. 

And around Christmas shopping times there is often much more traffic than usual which could have added to your time. And that does not take into consideration what the individual circumstances of each motorist actually involve. Were there any children with you  possibly requiring them to have been strapped in chairs. Or perhaps there was a disabled person that required a wheel chair to be set up . All these delays would have been included in the parking period so would not have impinged on the time allowed in the car park. So you may have to think what happened on that day to further stretch out the actual parking period.

The second reason for the non compliance is under Schedule 4 S9 [2][f]  

he 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;

UKPC have not included he words within the brackets  and they have not met the applicable conditions since they got the parking period wrong.

There is one other matter on their PCN. They state that they can charge extra if the charge is not paid within a certain time. This is something  not mentioned in  PoFA at all. Indeed the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the signage so it may well be that the inclusion of an extra charge renders the PCN unlawful..

All this means that the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is responsible for the charge and every person with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car. How can they know who was driving if the keeper does not tell them and the Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to UKPC/DCBL ANPR PCN - appealed PAPLOC Now Claimform - Mcdonalds Bristol Patchway, 562 BS34 5TQ
  • 6 months later...

G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson - The court office at the County Court at Bradford, Civil And Family - Studocu

 

Please copy, read and understand the case from 20020 and include it in your WS.

the Judge had decided that Excel had won the argument, their rules were breached. However by adding on the £60 the Judge threw out the whole case.

you should add to your claim that as this double recovery has been going on so long that it is time for the Courts to continue to take drastic action and throw out the whole case.

It is  believed to be repayment of the debt collectors who work on a "No Win , No Fee " basis.

As the case is being heard in court, obviously the debt collector did not win. In any event motorists do not have a contract with these debt collectors so there is no legal reason for this cost to be added.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks to DX for producing the  Excel case. Cardiff Devil I would print out the whole case so that your judge sees the original Judge's thought processes and how he arrived at dismissing the  whole case even though the defendant was guilty.

It is worth reading and understanding it yourself. However your Judge may still ignore the case and come to his own decision.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Mystic I am trying to get the elusive Excel case for you.

You may have to double click it and/or copy the url into your computer to see the whole case.


G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf

You could add that you wonder why parking company's solicitors add the unlawful extra charge and then swear that they have told the truth.

Must be getting on for tantamount to perjury and it is time it was stopped regardless of it being in the Code of conduct of both ATAs. Which just confirms my opinion of them both.

  • Like 1
  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Mystic I did miss it.

My wife went into hospital around that time so while I read your WS I missed the Excel case and never had the time to respond to your WS.

Fortunately Dave has done pretty much what I would have done though I would have added the point I made on post 117 . It's partly to embarrass UKPC in the hope that they withdraw the case and if they don't perhaps the Judge might query their truthful declaration.

And I would still use the fact that being broken down is not parking as well as creating a frustration of contract. The Judge in Jopson v Homeguard spells out quite clearly what parking is and is not. He didn't use car breakdown as one of his examples but had he done so it would have been appropriate. It's just another argument to disincline UKPC from continuing.

I know it's a bit of a hassle to alter your WS again but if it changes UKPC from pursuing you , it would be worthwhile.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The Court s pretty informal. The Judge [who you call "Judge" rather than Sir or madam] will not be wearing a wig and gown just a suit and it is advisable that you do the same and a tie.

Other than that the Judge will do most of the talking .If they haven't received a WS from the scrotes either the case will probably be thrown out straight away.

Usually the Judge will ask their lawyer a number of questions then ask for your take on things and then the case will be decided.  UKPC 0 Mystic Bertie 5. Then ask for your expenses time off work [if not being paid by your company while in Court, travelling and parking costs and occasionally they will allow something like 5 hours research at I think £8 per hour.

Later celebrate and post us the result and how much fun it was.

You will wonder  why you worried about it so much. Next time will be much easier.🙂

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • FTMDave changed the title to UKPC/DCBL ANPR PCN - appealed PAPLOC Now Claimform - Mcdonalds Bristol Patchway, 562 BS34 5TQ ***Claim Discontinued***

You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day.

Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}.

I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂

  • Like 1
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...