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

Horizon Parking PCNs on Rental Car - Gallagher Retail Park, Bradford Thornbury - Suggestions?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 185 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

This is how hirers should be dealt with by the rogues when they discover that their prey is in a rental car.

1] they write back to the rental company asking for the name and address of the hirer: the agreement with the hirer and and the signature of the hirer's statement of liability.

2] once they receive all that the rogues then send you a new PCN called a Notice to Hirer, along with a copy of the original PCN plus copies of your agreement with the hire company plus the statement of liability.

If all they sent you was a that piece of tat  they call a Notice to hirer  then you can relax as there is no way that they could ever win in Court.

You have to wonder at the mental ability of these companies. The protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is quite clear on dealing with hirers and Horizon have had 11 years practicing to get it right. And they have failed by a country mile.

In order to be able to lawfully demand money from you all they have to do is abide by the Law. Under PoFA they have to get the wording right to be able to pursue the hirer. So what does Horizon do? They are told by the hire company that the car is on hire to you and giving them your details. Horizon then send out a Notice to Hirer [so they know the car was hired} yet they  still ask if you were the hire company and if so send details of the hirer to them!

The PCN is not compliant also because they have given you 28 days to pay the charge rather than the 21 days which is the time required by PoFA.

Those details on their own mean that the hirer is not liable to pay them a penny.

On top of that if they have also failed to send you a copy of the original PCN , a copy of the hire agreement and your consent to be liable for debts arising during your hiring, then once again you are not required to pay them.

Here is the relevant legislation Schedule 4 Section 14 [1]

14(1)If—

(a)the creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and

(b)the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are met,

the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.

So the keeper has complied with 14.1 so is no longer liable as the charge has been transferred to the hirer. However

14.2 states  "

(2)The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; 

You are not liable for any of those PCNs so do not pay. In light of the number of tickets you have accumulated they will keep on harassing you to pay and they probably would go to court. I would be inclined to write to Horizon advising them that their PCNs are not compliant with PoFA and you are not liable for the charges.

Point out that as they now know the situation any further claims from them or there lowlife debt collectors and quasi solicitors would definitely be a breach of your GDPR .

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...