Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Claiming For A Breach Of Contract Where You Are Not A Direct Contracting Partner The contract is private to the contracting parties – “Privity” The general rule is that only the direct parties to a contract are allowed to claim if there is a breach. This is a very old rule and it is called “privity of contract” which means that a contract is private to the contracting partners. “Privity”can cause injustice This has caused some difficulties and even some injustice where a third party expecting to benefit from the contract might be expecting to receive something, if one of the parties to the main contract doesn’t fulfil their side of the bargain, you, the third party beneficiary can’t do anything about it - and the contracting party who did keep their promise is the only person who can sue and maybe they simply don’t want to. This could be even more unjust if you are the third party who funded the entire arrangement between the parcel broker and the delivery agent. The parcel was lost. Both the parcel broker and the delivery agent are not out of pocket – only you are out of pocket– but under the “Privity of Contract” rule you are not allowed to make a claim against the delivery company which lost or damaged your parcel. The Law Commission Report on Privity Of Contract And Third Party Rights In 1996 there was a report from the Law commission which recommended that in some circumstances third parties should be able to sue under contract even though they were part of the contract. In particular, the Law commission highlighted this injustice:   [The Person Who Has Suffered the Loss Cannot Sue, While the Person Who Has Suffered No Loss Can Sue]: In a standard situation, the third-party [privity] rule produces the perverse, and unjust, result that the person who has suffered the loss … cannot sue, while the person who has suffered no loss can sue.   As a result, Parliament passed a law called the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 This gives a third party in some circumstances the right to sue for a breach of contract even though they were not a direct contracting party. As a third party, are replacing one of the main parties When the third party uses this third party right, then they have to sue as if they were one of the direct parties to the contract and this means that they are bound by the same terms and conditions of that contract. This means that if it was a consumer contract then they can sue as the consumer with consumer rights. If it was a commercial contract, for instance between a broker and a delivery company, then you have to rely on your commercial rights. Most parcel delivery brokers are in the UK so you can sue the broker directly and this is always the best thing to do. However, there are one or two which are not in the UK. They are outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts and so if you arrange your parcel delivery through a one of those brokers and if your parcel is lost or damaged and if they refuse to reimburse you, suing the broker can be a difficult business and probably impossible. The only thing you can do is to sue the delivery company which lost the parcel but as you didn’t contract directly with them, you will have to rely on your “third party rights”. What the delivery company will say If the delivery company tries to defend the claim, they will probably say that although they did lose the parcel, you don’t have a right to sue them. They will say that you must sue the parcel broker because you made your contract directly with them – but of course we know that that is impossible because your parcel broker isn’t in the UK. You will have to state in your claim form and also explain to the judge that you are entitled under the 1999 Act because it was clear to the broker and to the delivery company that the delivery contract was made specifically for your benefit as the sender of the parcel and also for the benefit of the addressee – who is also a third party – and that it was even you who paid for the delivery anyway. What rights will you use? In a contract where you organised with Packlink, for example, to send a parcel using Evri, Packlink are based in Spain, you would have to sue Evri using the same commercial rights as enjoyed by Packlink. So in a commercial contract instead of relying on the Consumer Rights Act 2015, you would rely on the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 which also requires that a company selling a service must exercise reasonable care and skill and if they don’t then they are in breach. Also, in a commercial contract you would rely on the unfair terms provisions in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and which includes as an unfair term any attempt to restrict or limit liability without any good reason. If you are using your third party rights to sue on a consumer contract then you would be able to rely on the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Making a small claim as a third party is pretty straightforward The the process for bring a small claim as an entitled third-party is the same as any other small claim and pretty straightforward. The arguments are slightly different – but that’s all             Some examples of people who might be excluded by the “Privity” rule but are saved by their third party rights ·        Your friend takes you on holiday. They organise it and pay for it. Your friend’s holiday is great but your room is damp and rat infested. Your friend doesn’t want to claim against the holiday company. You took time off work for this holiday which you won’t get back but you didn’t have a contract with the holiday company.             You would sue the holiday company as third party consumer and rely on your consumer rights.   ·       Your friend uses a parcel broker based abroad to send you a mobile phone with £500. And the parcel arrives, it contains shoes. Your friend has moved to Australia permanently.           You don’t have a contract with the parcel broker so you would sue them as a third party to a consumer contract and                 rely on your consumer rights   ·        You get taken out for an expensive meal. Your host the table and pays for the meal but you get food poisoning. Your host had a great time and hasn’t actually lost anything.              They have no loss to claim but you don’t have a contract with the restaurant.You would sue as a third party to a                         consumer contract and rely on your consumer rights.   ·        You sell a mobile telephone on eBay and send it to your purchaser using an overseas parcel broker to organise the delivery through a UK delivery company. When the parcel arrives the purchaser finds that it contains some books.                 You sue the parcel delivery company as a third party to a commercial contract and rely on your commercial rights  
    • new subheading under paragraph 25 – The defendant is fully aware of third party beneficiaries new paragraph 26 Any denial by the defendant that they are unaware of the existence of third party beneficiaries to their contract with Packlink would be quite untrue. The defendant routinely sends out notifications to parcel recipients informing them the parcel which they are carrying on behalf of the broker is about to be delivered. Please find examples at – bundle X X X, X X X 26. 1) In the absence of any explanation the defendant’s denial should be disregarded.  but in any event,   If you have a look at the pinned thread at the top of this sub- forum relating to third-party rights, you will find several examples of notifications which have been sent by EVRi to the recipients of parcels warning them that their parcel which is being carried on behalf of QVC, Packlink – et cetera is due to be delivered. I suggest that you use a couple of these as examples of how EVRi is completely aware that there are third-party beneficiaries involved. If EVRi tried to say – "yes, we knew that there was a recipient that we had no idea that there was a sender…" Well, could they really be that stupid? I suggest you incorporate that, make the tweaks which have been suggested by @jk2054 and that's it. That would probably be the final version. You've worked hard on it – but hopefully the constant repetition will mean that you are absolutely fluent if it actually goes to court. EVRi are watching this of course and I don't really expect they are looking forward to having a judgement on this against them so I can imagine that they might reach out to you before the trial and make an offer. Have you paid the hearing fee yet? I don't think you have. I can imagine that they are waiting to see if you pay the hearing fee so they know that you are serious. Of course is not guaranteed but I would expect that they will try to prevent this going to trial. You should hold out for every penny. And if they want to make an offer to you under conditions of confidentiality then you should refuse. Confidentiality is not part of the claim. That something extra. If they try to impose a condition of confidentiality then you should tell them that this would cost them extra. I would say thousand pounds is probably cheap for the trouble that a judgement against them will cause them. Keep us updated of any approaches by EVRi – either on the forum – or by email if you prefer to admin email address. Let's see your final version
    • Hello I’m also going through the same at the moment for £300. Icon went quiet for a month or so but just received another text this morning to say “Notice of likely CCJ/Enforcement due to non-payment”. I’m still ignoring as per all of the threads on this but every time I get a text I still like to have a read up just to check advice hasn’t changed so good to read this thread! Thanks
    • They have now closed the account.
  • 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

CEL ANPR PCN - 16mins stay - 237-259 Greenwich High Road Shopping Centre


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 212 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

Hi, 

I have received a PCN from the above at 237-259 Greenwich High Road Shopping Centre, for pulling over in a car park for apprx 16 minute for buying water and checking on a delivery at Argos Sainsburys.

This is my first time visiting the area unaware of the conditions for parking inside the shopping centre.

I will upload a copy of notice to keeper but before I do do you have any advice on appealing this?

Thank you

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to CEL ANPR PCN - 16mins stay - 237-259 Greenwich High Road Shopping Centre

.............................

 

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]

(must be received within 14 days from the Incident)

 

Please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement 30/07/2023

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 04/08/2023
 

[scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'s

 

3 Date received 08/08/2023
 

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 Give answer here
 

7 Who is the parking company? Civil Enforcement Private Company

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Car Park at 237-259 Greenwich High Road, London, SE 10 8NB
 

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

BPA
 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

 Notice to Keeper Only.

Copy the windscreen or ANPR section to your thread and answer the questions...

……....

In either case scan up both sides of any letters/tickets in or appeals made out to ONE MULTIPAGE PDF ONLY

 

PCN.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting the info.

So can you work out what the charlatans reckon you did wrong?  Is it a pay car park and you didn't pay?

That seems to be the case from  https://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/carpark/greenwich_high_road/se10/london/?arriving=202308082200&leaving=202308090000

EDIT  From Google Maps reviews, and Google Maps images, it's clear that it is a pay car park - with pathetic signage.

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

It is indeed.

To be honest I didn't know it was a pay car park.

To the contrary I would have paid for my time that I sought to check on my delivery at Sainsburys.

I've always thought that customers can park for up to 2 hours free of charge at any Sainsbury's store.

Can I perhaps go back to the same Sainsburys store and ask them to cancel the ticket on the grounds that I was a customer on the day and that this was simply an oversight on my part?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it, as the car park is shared by various stores.

Don't worry, the fleecers are highly unlikely to do court further down the line, but if they did the pathetic entrapping signage would scupper them in front of a judge.

 

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 find you inspiring. I really appriaciate the input. Do you think I' got a much better chance of killing this?

I do feel that I was charged for something that was not clear to me  but I have no way of proving it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

worth a try to sainsburys if you have the receipt of shopping or paid by a debit card and have bank statement??

 

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

The PCN does not comply with he Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. So the keeper is not liable to pay the charge only the driver can now be pursued. As you haven't appealed they do not know who was driving as anyone who has a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, zafor said:

thanks FTMDave. I find you inspiring. I really appriaciate the input. Do you think I' got a much better chance of killing this?

As dx100uk says, you might as well contact Sainsbury's  https://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-9117  but I wouldn't hold out much hope as it seems to be a little shopping centre rather than a Sainsbury's car park.  Also Google Maps and Parkopedia reviews are full of people saying they've been scammed, including several who paid and broke no rules yet received the demands for money in any case.  Still, it's only an e-mail so why not try?

You talk about "killing" this but there is a problem.  CEL are well known to us, they are one of the most crooked of the private parking companies.  From Google you can see that they have put just one sign at the entrance that they hope the motorist misses, and inside the car park no signage whatsoever, because the whole thing is a scam to catch motorists out.  It's obvious they won't accept any appeal and then the "independent" appeals level which was once half decent has got worse over the years and likely would find against you too.

So you either pay or are in it for the long haul.

We obviously hope you choose the latter and will be glad to help.  We generally say to ignore their bilge but when they formally threaten court to tell them you know their case is pants and taking you to court would leave a large hole in their wallet.  They then generally crawl back under their stone.  Although of course there are no guarantees.

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

land registry time.

 

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 take it you went to the store today.  Did you get photos of the fleecers' rubbish signage?

I thought you were only going to e-mail the CEO.  If I'd known you were going to visit the site I would have suggested to take the photos.

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 contemplating to just pay now and my best plan of action would be to pay the smaller fee rather than hundreds of pounds later on. I see that the notice states "payment was not made in accordance with notified terms", which I believe ia a common reason for it being issued.

I also notice that the letter doesn't specify a grace period if there is any???

Link to post
Share on other sites

You evidently haven't been reading other threads. They are never going to give you any clues in their letters about grace periods, or anything else.

You certainly wouldn't be in a minority, if you just throw the towel in and contribute to the millionaire lifestyles of the owners of these "businesses".

It can take some staying power to go the whole hog.

Here at CAG, we've got an 85% success rate helping victims to win in court.

Your call.

 

.

  • Like 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

These cases depend on contract law.

If there are a lot of clear signs, with conditions easily legible, and you don't respect the conditions, then you broke a contract and are bang to rights.

If there is just one sign which the fleecers hope you will miss, in breach of all the industry guidelines, as in this case, then no contract was ever formed, and you're in the right and owe £0.00. 

So you can pay £60.00 you don't owe and the matter will go away.

Or you can stick two fingers up to the charlatans, which will result in deforestation as they send you "scary" letters, make threats of court, and in rare cases even a start a court case - which you would win.

As NB says - your call.

Edited by FTMDave
Extra info added

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

2 hours ago, zafor said:

I am contemplating to just pay now and my best plan of action would be to pay the smaller fee rather than hundreds of pounds later on.

The amount will only become "hundreds of pounds" - in reality about £260 - if the fleecers take you to court and convince an unbiased judge that one paltry sign was sufficient signage and that on top of that they have proved you were the driver or complied with POFA 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper. 

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 month later...

And in some recent cases on this forum, they have waited 5 years plus, before they issued proceedings!

They hope you've moved without informing DVLA of your new address and get an easy back door CCJ.

Or, that you can't remember anything and blindly pay up in panic.

Among many others, these are the sort of tactics they use...

'Nuff said...

On 13/09/2023 at 11:09, zafor said:

Perhaphs buying time and ignoring them for now may pay off at the end.

Used to work years ago, unfortunately the advent of POFA 2012 has emboldened them.

 

 

.

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

1 hour ago, Nicky Boy said:

They hope you've moved without informing DVLA of your new address and get an easy back door CCJ.

they do not and cannot re request to the DVLA.

you must write to the PPC if you move within 6yrs, same as yes you should separately write to the DVLA regarding updating the address for each Driving Licence and each Car V5C's.

likewise for any consumer debts on your credit file or which you last paid/used within 6yrs.

dx

 

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 appreciate the pointers so far guys.

I can see now that it is Hardly worth appealing the charge as it most likely to be refused even if I was in time.

Does any one know if CE will now most likely pass the debt to a collection agency and if so shall I just wait their next move before hand?

Do these collection firms have any powers at all and will this end up in court eventually?

I prefer to plan ahead but it now seems I'll have to take life as it comes.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't do ANYTHING now until/unless you ever get a letter of claim.

a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF

and have 

ZERO powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT it's type.

only the PPC can ever do court. you IGNORE any DCA letters 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...