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

EPC UK Debt Collector - Unpaid Toll Fees in Portugal


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 150 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

2 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

The point I'm trying to get opinion on, is the legality of using the DVLA to obtain keeper information in relation to incidents in a foreign country.

We have other caggers who have received demands from EPC for their own cars.

I saw something recently Nicky that said that a group of people who had been chased  by EPC were taking legal action against them on precisely these grounds, that EPC had no legal right to obtain RK information from DVLA in respect of a non-payment of a foreign charge. Unfortunately I was travelling at the time and didn't take note of where I saw it and now can't find it again.  I'll keep an eye open for it, I'm not sure whether any real action was being taken or whether it was all a bit speculative.

I suspect any legal action would not be straightforward as neither the relevant legislation [here]  nor DVLA guidance [here] make any specific reference to whether "reasonable cause" is restricted to events occurring in the UK.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe these alleged debts are direct from the Portuguese government or the car hire company, but from one of the private companies that manage Portuguese toll motorways on behalf of the Portuguese government, in your case VIALIVRE SA A22. Your details will have been given to VIALIVRE by the car hire company. I don't know about Portuguese law but typically car hire companies are not liable for unpaid tolls etc if they identify who the hirer was at the time.

EPC post this document on their website as their authority to act for VIALIVRE SA.  According to it EPC aren't the debt owner but have power of attorney from VIALIVRE to bring court claims in VIALIVRE's name. I'm not aware of any cases where EPC have actually done so but that doesn't mean there haven't been any.

1823408.pdf (epcplc.com)

You are correct that EPC [Euro Parking Collection PLC] is a British company  registered at Companies House and based in London. According to the CH entry it is a subsidiary of a US company so the information about British/Portuguese ownership appears to be incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WenDeeDoll said:

As VIALIVRE SA has given POW to EPC, does this in theory equate to EPC being the owner of the debt and as such gives EPC the power to take court action against UK citizens in the UK in VIALIVRE's name?

 

It doesn't give EPC the power to bring a court claim in their own name because they don't own the debt, the debt is still owned by VIALIVRE.  But it does authorise them to bring a court claim in VIALIVRE's name, as VIALIVRE's agent if you like.

[EDIT] Meant to add, EPC also face the difficulty that as far as I can see no-one has ever asked you to pay these 2018 fees prior to EPC's letters in 2023.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...