Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "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; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • @dx100uk no, haven’t received any correspondence as of yet. Still waiting on a court date but seems to be taking forever. Have noticed an increase in unhappy customers on here
  • 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
      • 160 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

Forecourt eye problem


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 137 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

I have had a letter from forecourt eye, a company presumably debt collection to pay for unpaid fuel taken.

I did notice this thread here and oddly its the same garage

 

Anyhow i have lots of photos of evidence etc but will try to explain here. I pull up in my van at 11.09 and fill 3 fuel cans up £29 and the garage, Shell at Southam, warwickshire, takes a photo of me/van/cans, i go in and i pay £29 on card and have evidence...i then leave.

The `evidence` theyve sent is that at 11.33 there is a photo of me and my van and cans (obviously the 11.09 transaction) (which has not time or date on it) and that £55 of diesel was unpaid. Nothing else.

I have appealed and stated that at 11.33 i would have been 7 miles away back in Leamington Spa, and i fill up 3 times a week and i am not even going to guess at what i was doing but go on their evidence so if they could please show me time date stamped at 11.33 then it would be me, if not , it would be someone else. Not me.

Any advice going forward?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FIND.SHELL.COM

SHELL BUDGENS SOUTHAM is a service station with EV charging located in SOUTHAM area. This station includes a Shop, a Car Wash and a Toilet.

 

are these the ones?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the other thread, the difficulty have have been solved very sensibly by a single telephone call.

Although it's a nuisance – and of course they shouldn't put you in this position – I suggest that you begin by making that phone call and see if you can resolve it.

If there is any difficulty then come back here and we can give you some further advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who should i be calling?

The garage have passed it on to forecourt eye as a drive off.

Forecourt eye are now asking for the payment, plus admin charge, stating its civil, ive said no its criminal, as it wasnt at 11.09 when i was there so a drive off my someone else, or i did it and didnt intend to pay.....i am trying to force their hand into calling the police as id rather stand up in court with my evidence (and their lack of) then leave it to a company who will just hound me.

The call has already been made to forecourt eye, no good callling the garage they cant understand you even when youre stood in front of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you pay?

 

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

by card, i have the transaction on my account, i dont know the time of the photo as it wasnt given......BUT what they are saying is i havent paid the diesel £55 at 11.33 BUT ive challenged them stating it isnt me, they said well the photo is just to show i was there taking fuel, i said i know that was me at 11.09 filling cans, oh but that could be you at 11.33 i said what £55 of fuel in cans !

It appears theyve had zero evidence. But i think they will just ignore my appeal and say well the garage said it was you so thats that and they have pretty much said so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends really how long you want to drag this on for?

Can easily be dealt with by a phone call can it not?

Make the call, then see where you're at after that.

  • I agree 1

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Telephone forecourt Eye.

Stay polite – non-conflictual – but if they won't do anything then tell them that they can begin their own action against you and it will be defended.

After that, ignore them until you receive something official through the post.

Keep us updated

Link to post
Share on other sites

im still trying to work out who im supposed to be calling. Ive called forecourteye, as stated above, ive also said no point ringing the garage as they cant understand/speak English.

forecourt eye said the garage wont have the footage anymore....just tryong to work out why and who im supposed to call.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you still have the receipt

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks bankfodder,

yes i agree with you,

i have made that call, a lengthy call to a helpful forecourteye employee, he made it clear the garage have provided forecourteye with the evidence and that they only send it if they have evidence,

he said is that you i said yes,

is that your van i said yes, i said that was 11.09 or whatever it was filling my cans and i paid £29 and have evidence,

you have ZERO in relation to £55 of diesel,

just a drive off and THEY have given you MY photo at 11.09 of a lawful transaction, and i invited them to contact the police.

The receipt is on my phone on my banking, £29 (3 cans) which i had in my hands, at 11.09...

.i can provide photos if it helps,

i hope im explaining it clearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay well make sure you keep everything.

Send them one letter and tell them that they are wrong and that they know where you are if they want to begin a claim. And that you won't be responding to any further correspondence unless it's a claim form.

After that, ignore them

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, if the garage has washed their hands of it, (and you have a name of the individual saying so)

And this forecourt eye outfit are being as much use as indicators on a submarine, then just ignore everyone and see what, if anything they do.

 

Keep all of your evidence/receipts safe for any future missives.

The garage must know their systems are wrong?

Unless this is some sort of profiteering?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly contact Shell forecourts and let them know of the problem. 

Pitty transaction are not time stamped. A physical receipt would be. 

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of it is worth the hassle of taking more time over it.

One letter – ignore – that's it

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

as this has not been pointed out.

can i just make it perfectly clear that forecourteye have ZERO legal powers

they are NOT BAILIFFS and can do stuff and all

only the garage franchise owner could ever do anything, and that would be a civil matter in a county court.

sounds like they need to rewind their tape a little further back to the last user of the pump before you..:pound:

one letter then simply ignore everyone.

dx

 

  • Like 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...