Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Today has been hectic so  have been unable to complete the whole thing. If you now understand it and want to go ahead with a complaint to the IPC, fine. If not then I won't need to finish it. But below is my response to your request  on post 64. No you don't seem stupid, the Protection of Freedoms Act isn't easy to get one 's head around at first. The part of the above Act referring to private parking is contained within Schedule 4 which you can find online under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Section 9 of SCH.4 relates to how the parking scrotes have to perform so that they can transfer their right to pursue the keeper from the driver when the PCN is still unpaid after a certain amount of time. In your case the PCN was posted to you the keeper and arrived within 14 days from when they claimed a breach occurred. That means they complied with first part of the Act. The driver at that time was still responsible to pay the charge demanded on the PCN and PCM now have to wait for 28 days to elapse before they can write and advise the keeper that as the charge has not been paid, that they now have the right to pursue the keeper. They claim they sent the first PCN on the 13th March, five days after the alleged breach and it arrived on Friday 15th March. So to comply with the Act they have to observe Section 8 subsection 2f   (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So the first PCN was deemed to arrive on the 15th March and for 28 days to have elapsed is when the time is right for them to write and say you are now liable as keeper. So they sent the next PCN on the 12th April which is too early as you could still have paid until midnight of the 12th. So the earliest their second PCN should have gone to you was  Saturday 13th April so more likely on Monday 15th April. The IPC Code of Conduct states "Operators must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses." So by issuing your demand a day early, they have broken the Act, the IPC Code of Conduct, the DVLA agreement  to abide by the law and the Code of Conduct not to mention a possible breach of your GDPR .   I asked the IPC  in the letter on an earlier to confirm that  CPMs Notice misrepresenting the law was a standard practice for all of PCMs Notices or just certain ones. Their distribution  may depend on when they were issued and whether they were issued in certain localities or for certain breaches. Whichever method used is a serious breach of the Law and could lead to PCM being black listed by the DVLA . One would expect that after that even if the IPC did not cancel your ticket, PCM could not risk going to Court with you nor even pursuing you any further.
    • thanks jk2054 - do you know any law i can quote (regarding timeframe) when sending the email as if i cant they'll probably just say no like the normal staff have done? thanks.
    • I lived there with her up until I gave notice. She took over the tenancy in her name. I had a letter from the council and a refund of the council tax for 1 month.    She took on the bills and tenancy and only paid the rent. No utility bills or council tax were paid once she took it over. She will continue to not pay bills in her new house which I'm now having to pay or will have to. I have looked online I believe the police and solicitors are going by the partner law to make me liable.   I have always paid my bills and ensured her half was paid then see how much free money is over.   She spends all her money on payday loans and rubbish then panics about the rent. I usually end up paying it or having to get her a loan.   Stupidly in my name but at the time it was because she was my partner. I even paid to move her and clean and decorate her old house so she got the deposit back. It cost me £3000 due to the mess she always leaves behind.
    • Paula Venomous refused to resign for 16 months and eventually did only because a doctor threatened to resign. Interesting snippets and insights in the article. Paula Vennells clung on to ‘plum’ NHS role after Horizon scandal ARCHIVE.PH archived 19 May 2024 21:49:07 UTC  
  • 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

NCP/BW ANPR PCN - Cambridge North Station


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 182 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

Point taken Essex.

Anyway, stick the boot in again on Monday!

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

Just a thought.

Presumably, if they fulfil my SAR they should in theory have to admit to receiving the original SAR letter which they denied receiving?

To not include this would surely be a breach of the DP laws in itself wouldn't it?

 should today's letter change the SAR deadline to be today's date rather than the original one of September 11?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, in theory they would send you the SAR letter, but in practice probably not as they claim to have lost it.

There are no dates to change.  You have proof you sent the SAR on 11 September.  They were in breach of their statutory duty on 12 October.  You are giving them a few extra days out of the goodness of your heart to get their act together, that's all.

On 20/10/2023 at 20:43, FTMDave said:

If you haven't replied to them yet, I suggest you keep the heat on them.  Write to them on Monday, and enclose
   - original SAR request
   - proof of posting
   - I.D.
and point out that they are already in breach of their statutory duty and you would be quite within your rights to sue them immediately for distress.  However, you are prepared to delay doing so, on the proviso that within ten days of your letter, i.e. 2 November, a complete reply to the SAR pops through your letter box. 

 

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 weeks later...
14 minutes ago, EssexChap said:

So what's next?

Have you been bluffing?... nothing... (That would give them a good indication of the sort of opponent you are).

Or are you ready to issue a claim?... do it... (That would also give them a good indication of the sort of opponent you are).

Your choice...

  • 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

You have the unpalatable choice between:

1.  doing nothing, and potentially later on having to prepare for a court claim with some of the vital evidence missing, or;

2.  going through with the threat to sue them.

Your choice - or rather the person you're representing's choice.

 

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

Or giving them a bit more time to provide the SAR stuff, which is my current inclination.

I don't know why they'd write saying 'send ID' etc if they were simply not intending to fulfil the request.

It would be better for them to simply ignore my reminder etc and then claim they didn't receive that either, surely? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Essex,

After everything to date on this thread and (hopefully) reading other threads, you still don't seem to have quite clicked to the sort of people you're dealing with here.

On 06/11/2023 at 23:08, FTMDave said:

You have the unpalatable choice between:

1.  doing nothing, and potentially later on having to prepare for a court claim with some of the vital evidence missing, or;

2.  going through with the threat to sue them.

 

On 07/11/2023 at 10:04, EssexChap said:

Or giving them a bit more time to provide the SAR stuff, which is my current inclination.

Which surely, is essentially Dave's number 1 choice?

  • 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

  • 2 weeks later...

I copied my letter to NCP threatening to sue them re the SAR to BW Legal as you guys suggested

have just received a reply from BW saying the 'matter has been put on hold' while they 'query this matter' with NCP.

Not sure if this is good news or bad?

Still haven't received the SAR stuff but am inclined to give theme a bit more time from when they said they'd start doing it.

No reason to think they'd say they were going to do it and then not deliver?

Why bother responding to my demand otherwise?

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

What matter is put on hold?

What matter are they querying?

🥱This is a bit like watching paint dry now...

Any chance of seeing the letter?

  • 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

We did say right from the start that threatening to sue NCP didn't mean actually having to sue NCP.

That said, continually giving them extra time is getting a bit silly now.

They had 30 days but breached their statutory duty.
They had another 14 days with the LoC.
When they finally showed their faces they were given another ten days.
The OP decided to wait another week.
The OP is now waiting another another week.

I don't understand why the person in dispute with NCP doesn't sue them now.  It's an open & shut case.  I know this person is young, so, good, the whole experience would give them confidence in using the legal system and be a damn good life lesson.

The whole reason the state has set up the civil legal system is so that parties can settle disputes easily & cheaply.  I don't get this not wanting to use the system that exists for this very purpose.

  • Like 1
  • 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 understand this is frustrating for you both, who quite understandably want to stick it to NCP et al at every possible opportunity,

my question is simply '

are they more likely to fulfil the SAR when we start suing them or will this just simply rattle their cage and antagonise them?' And make them less likely to comply. Which gets us nowhere in relation to the original PCN.

They have said they will comply with the SAR following my threats of action and I imagine they might argue their 30 day obligation started when they received the ID etc as they conveniently claimed not to have received the original request.

Proof of posting is not proof of delivery.

It's not like they're sitting there shaking in their boots that some kid might sue them for £200.

Or am I missing something?

Having said all that, can you send me the link to the page about the suing process and how to start it.

Thanks again for all your help. 

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

posts sorted.

simple answer is to stop hitting quote!

just type in a new msg box then it cant happen,

also please take the trouble to add blank lines and paragraphs too ....not type as a complete block of text.

as for postage, there is no requirement in law to prove delivery, just it was sent

free POP is there for that very reason.

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

STOP HITTING QUOTE JUST TYPE!!

  • Haha 1

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

Yes! They are more likely to respond to the SAR if you start a claim. It's happened before. 

However, it's too late to stop the claim then and the claim is still valid.  They have already failed in their statutory duty, it's a slamdunk case, so the claim goes on. Your claim fee is not wasted.

Sorry if we seem too aggressive in our actions. It's the way this forum works.

If you want to pussyfoot around and follow the PPC's own random made up rules, making appeals, following their deadlines, etc, you would possibly be better on another forum who deal with these things in a less confrontational manner.

CAG deal with and support a myriad of consumer victims, some of whom are being fleeced by various "companies", to the tune of thousands of pounds.

We also approach these cases aggressively, because it's needed.

Ps. You're right they won't be shaking in their boots... because they're too stupid to understand what you're doing, or they think you're bluffing. 

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

2 hours ago, EssexChap said:

are they more likely to fulfil the SAR when we start suing them

Yes, suing them would make them more likely to fulfil the SAR for the following reason.

You would be suing for distress caused by the non-fulfilment of the SAR.  That would be from 12 October to say today.

Should they continue to refuse to comply, say for another month, then you could sue for a second period of distress say from tomorrow until 19 December.  Then a third time from 20 December till 20 January.  And so on.  In Lorenz's case they have two judgements.  We had someone else who sued Virgin three times.  So eventually these companies wake up and act to stop the court papers arriving. 

Moaning Crusader's Particulars of Claim are here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/452147-loc-to-ncp-for-failure-to-supply-sar-paid-in-full/page/2/#comments  in post 46 and would only need the most minor of tweaking.

But of course it's up to the person who has this legal dispute with NCP.

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

Also, has the person you're representing complained to the ICO?

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

Let's look at it from a different perspective. 

You don't sue them and you lose your case. Cost to you around £250.

You do sue them and you lose your case. Break even.

You do sue them and you win the case. Around £200 win.

They have messed you about enough to make it certain that in any court case you would win. Depending on the Court you could get around £200 since you would be pushing to gat money from them , not just forcing them to send the result of your sar.

They know they have broken the Law and you would win in Court. They may decide rather than go to Court they would rather drop the case against you in return for you to drop your case.

It is a win/win for you.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...