Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • UK citizens will be subject to the same rules as other Third Country Nationals. Keir Starmer to warn of 'major disruption' risk ahead of new UK-EU border checks | ITV News WWW.ITV.COM Ministers will announce measures to try to blunt the impact of the changes, writes ITV News Deputy Political Editor Anushka Asthana. | ITV National...  
    • 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

NCP PCN - Wrong reg - Gatwick drop off


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 343 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

Can anyone give me a template or a pointer for referencing legislation/code of practice for a NTK that was outside the 14 days, please.  Or do I simply appeal on the basis it "was issued outside the 14 days" without the need for legal reference. I don't want to make a daft mistake on an open goal.

It was Gatwick airport drop off.

'Incident' was late June and NTK issued early August.  I'm being deliberately vague.

Driver had actually paid but used the wrong reg (2 vehicles available). They have offered a £15 goodwill gesture - but we're not paying twice.  If the appeal was based on the wrong reg being used, I anticipate being told it was driver error and the PCN stands.

 

Thank you

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gatwick drop off is well known to us.

NCP - because it will be NCP - can issue their invoices after 4 days, 14 days, 24 days, 34 days or 1,444 days like any private company.  That is not a ground of appeal.  It's perfectly lawful.

What they cannot do if they haven't respected the 14 days is use Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper .

Courts consider inputting the wrong registration, when payment has been made, as "de minimis" AKA "the law does not deal with trivialities".

All this puts you in a great position legally.  But don't think for a minute that there is a magic way to make the ticket go away, you'll have to be in it for the long haul.

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

That is up to yourself, they can be seen off but as DX says be prepared for a long haul, it depends how you personally feel about HCP and its fleecing ways. Its up to you whether you want to pay.

  • 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

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

Depends on your principles.

As Dave has already hinted, IF the fleecers tried court, you are in a very good position legally to bat them away.

However,  it'll take some time to get there and you'll have half of the amazon forest landing on your front doormat in the form of "scary" letters.

Pay, and it will go away,  or ignore and hope they aren't stupid enough to do court... your choice.

Did you out yourself as the driver when you appealed and got the £15 offer?

  • 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

Thank you, all.

No, Nicky. I didn't.  I haven't been in touch with them so far.  The NTK arrived yesterday.

I'm going to pay it and then argue the toss about the fiver that I did pay in June.  If they won't agree to refund it, I'll get a chargeback from my bank.  That makes it a net loss of a tenner.  Annoying but it's only a tenner and to save all the aggro, I'll just put it to bed.

I'm down to one vehicle now so there won't be a repeat performance.

Thanks again.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You likrly will get nowhere with that once you pay they aren't interested and have already moved on top a fresh victim.  But if you feel lucky its up to you.

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to NCP PCN - Wrong reg - Gatwick drop off

please complete this:

 

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 questionnaire might enlighten us regarding any appeal. please complete it.

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

On Moaning Crusader's thread they mention "the £15 reduced charge".

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

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

My point is, depending how the goodwill gesture was worded, it may well be an out and out admission that the original fee was paid.

If so, that's a slamdunk in any action the fleecers might contemplate

And because the OP wants a quick resolution, it may be worth an early snotty letter pointing it out?

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

Yes they might have found the transaction but are too greedy to cancel completely  agree Nicky Boy with a early snotty letter.

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

Nicky, the goodwill gesture was because "it was the first time I had failed to pay" - or similar. 

They had no idea the fee was paid for another vehicle, so as much as I'd like to think it was an act of greed, there is no connection to me via that vehicle beyond insurance.

 

Edited by GreenBadge
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, have you paid it, or do you want to fight it? You originally asked if we had a template letter, or pointing at rules on the 14 day limit to issue a NTK.

Protection of Freedom 2012 act is the legislation. The fleecers own ATA code of practice also mention it.

However, as already mentioned, appealing is invariably a waste of time and you could inadvertantly also throw away your POFA 2012 protection. (It isn't a simple 14 day "time limit").

If you want help to fight the charge, fill in the sticky that dx pointed to in post number 8.

I will say that if the team are to help, you'll have to be far more engaged with the thread than you have been so far.

There's no magic button to just make it all go away... except just caving and coughing up the cash.

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

Apologies for my absence.  Tough week.

I have paid the £15.  It boils my blood but I just can't be dragged down by this. I've got too much else going on.  If it was more than £15, I might have made a fight of it.  I do appreciate everybody's help.  Thank you, all.

That said, I have done the questionnaire.

I'm very careful where I park and how I drive to avoid PCNs and MTVs.  I'm annoyed with myself that I used the wrong reg.

I haven't scanned the PCN as it's paid and done. 

The wording for the bit about the 15 quid reads "As this is the first contravention which this vehicle has incurred at Gatwick Airport (which is correct) in the drop off zone ... as a gesture of goodwill Gatwick Airport have discounted the parking charge to £15 if paid within 14 days"

I haven't had a PCN for a long, long time but I do keep on top of the rules and tricks these dogs pull to snare to people.  I thought this would be a simple appeal based on being 'out of time' and wanted to get it right.  Appears to be more complicated and I can't justify the aggro for £15.

Anyway, thanks again everybody.

 

1 Date of the infringement      26.6.23

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 4.8.23
 

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

 

3 Date received 11th August, I think
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] N
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? very close photos of reg no. Nothing that shows the vehicle at the scene.
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] N
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up n/a
 

7 Who is the parking company? NCP

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Gatwick N terminal drop off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally understandable.

Good luck for the future and don't forget to refer others here if they have similar problems.

  • 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

BTW,

hope you did a chargeback on your card. After all, the vehicle you paid for didn't actually use the car 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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...