Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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

Evri left parcel in full view on street

Recommended Posts

I have made substantial amendments in red. Please see if you can work through it all and put it together and then post the new version up for us to have a look at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it needed a substancial rewoking ...

Draft 2 


The claimant used the defendant's service to send a parcel via Evri who through their failure to exercise reasonable care and skill, left the parcel in a vulnerable position leaving it open to theft and in doing so breached breached the delivery contract.

Initially the defendant refused to reimburse the claimant as no extra insurance was taken out but the defendant's terms and conditions exclude or limit their Liability contrary to section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and their insurance requirement to extend liability is also contrary to section 57 as well as being a secondary contract within the meaning of section 72 of the Consumer Rights Act and therefore also unlawful

Additionally the defendants sale of enhanced protection is an unregulated insurance product without authorisation or exemption from the FCA as required by the financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and as such the defendants are committing an offence and their insurance product is unlawful in any event even were it contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015

Then the defendant offered to reimburse the claimant a One-Off full amount payment on the condition that the claimant agreed in the event of any future lost parcels the claims for losses would not be paid unless 'Extra Insurance' was taken out.

This onerous and unfair imposition of an unlawful contractual condition upon the claimant would also amount to the use of a secondary contract to exclude or limit liability and therefore also unlawful within the meaning of section 72 Consumer Act 2015

The claimant seeks £99.00 regarding the lost goods + £5.99 for postage costs plus interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984.


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Particulars of Claim arrived at P2g yesterday and I received this this morning.

They still offer the £100 and have refunded the postage but I also claimed £14 something for 2 recorded letters to them .

Last time the offer was only if I agreed I couldn't claim in

I would like to draw your attention to the intricacies of the logistical challenges faced by our courier network due to the substantial influx of parcels on a daily basis. The sheer volume of packages undergoing continuous processing and handling occasionally leads to delays or losses during transit. As previously highlighted, it is an aspect of our operational reality that we continuously strive to manage effectively.

As per our previous correspondence, having engaged in discussions with our claims team, I am pleased to inform you that, as a goodwill gesture and without any admission of liability, we are prepared to extend an offer to settle your claim for the full value of £100. This one-off offer is made in recognition of the inconvenience you have experienced and is not indicative of a precedent for future claims.

To facilitate the acceptance of this offer, kindly log into your online account. Once accepted, our meticulous accounts department will promptly initiate the claims process. Anticipate the completion of the claim payment within 7 working days. It is crucial to note that this offer is final, and any attempts to negotiate a higher settlement will regrettably be unsuccessful.

Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that our settlement does not cover any consequential losses incurred as a result of this claim. Additional costs related to the incident are beyond the scope of our compensation.

For future transactions, it is imperative to obtain full parcel protection to safeguard against potential loss or damage. As a third-party booking service, the sustainability of our operations depends on the responsible adherence to our policies, ensuring a fair and viable business model.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the acceptance of our terms and conditions was a prerequisite for booking our services initially. It is through this agreement that we establish a framework for our business relationship, setting forth the parameters that govern claims and compensation.

On a related note, I am pleased to inform you that a refund for the carriage fee has already been duly processed. Transaction reference #1777382 reflects a refund of £4.38, transferred on the 25th of January 2024.

Should you have any lingering queries or require further clarification, please do not hesitate to reach out to our dedicated customer service team. Your satisfaction is of the utmost importance to us, and we are committed to providing any necessary assistance.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.  """"

the future if no protection was taken out , I suppose this is the best I'm going to get


Good Morning Aary 2024.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please what are you monitor this thread for a reply later on.

However, does it offer take into account all of your losses. These postal costs that you have incurred, are they referred to in your claim form?

Does your claim form refer to interest and if so does their offer take into account the interest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have refunded the postage for the item back on the 25th Jan which I didn't notice.

They off the  £100 refund but and I quote

" Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that our settlement does not cover any consequential losses incurred as a result of this claim. Additional costs related to the incident are beyond the scope of our compensation. ""

So the £14 for 2 recorded Claims of letter and the Particulars of Claim letters seem to be not covered.

I've read another posts where people are adding "interest" at 8% but I thought I'd be happy just with the £100 and £14 for the 2 letter so I didn't add "the interest" 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ProperDribbly said:

So the £14 for 2 recorded Claims of letter and the Particulars of Claim letters seem to be not covered

you didnt need to do that thats why you cant reclaim it.

you can use free proof of posting and a 1st class stamps

in law you only need to prove a letter was sent.

  • 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

Yes, it seems that you might be best off accepting the offer. A shame that you didn't add interest. There was no reason to give your money away like that..

They haven't been generous with you. They have taken it to the wire. They have tried to scam you out of your money. They have held your money until you eventually were forced to incur costs taking court action along with the stress of it.
8% would have been the least you should have expected.

Anyway, well done. You got your money – but make sure that you don't withdraw any claims until the money is with you. Don't trust them. You need to see the money and then you can withdraw the claimant.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't add the interest because it was 4 or 5 weeks after untill I started the claim so I thought that would go against me ...

But anyway ,   Genuinely and Sincerely Thank You , if it wasn't for you all and the site I wouldn't of got the refund so I can't thank you enough.

I'll probably be back.

 Till next time , look after yourselves

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. Just doesn't matter of information, claiming interest would not go against you at all.

It is your right

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done and do please let us know when it's completely finalised, so we can update the thread title.

On 09/02/2024 at 20:54, ProperDribbly said:

I'll probably be back.

We are all volunteers here, but there are costs associated with running the website.

Please consider a donation to make sure we're still here if you need us again and do pass the word on about us.

All the best.

We could do with some help from you.



 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Yes Ive accepted their refund which can take 3-5 days .

I have donated and received a Email from Fodder.

Without this site and the excellent help and advice I wouldn't of got my refund so Thank You .

Edited by ProperDribbly
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...