Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hitler showing off  Won't here a thing Dx
    • Yes it was all car parks if you look at the PDF you can see where I went in. IMG_0230.pdf
    • little hitler. can't do anything. no entry sign was probably in a carpark did you get his name. reg. badge.  number? dx
    • Hello today I mistakenly went through a no entry sign on Silverlink Retail Park by Pizza Hut/Five Guys, there was no near miss and no other vehicles were affected. Unlucky for me I was spoken to by an off duty police officer who showed me his ID, he said he was going to report me for it and was a bit shirty! I said to him it’s private land and I didn’t realise. He didn’t take my name and he didnt ask for it, he was with his wife and young child at the time. IMG_0228.pdfHe took photos of my car and tried to take a picture of me, I covered my face. I took a picture of the sign as you enter the estate and it clearly says the roads within the retail park are not part of the public highway. Anyone think anything will come of it?   IMG_0228.pdf
  • 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
      • 162 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

MET/DCBL ANPR PCN Claimform - no other paperwork i moved! - overstay - (346) Southgate Park, Stansted. CM24 IPY ***Claim Discontinued***


Recommended Posts

On 22/12/2023 at 21:48, FTMDave said:

If you read this short thread you will see all the stage of the court procedure and will be able to see what comes next  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/406892-highview-parking-anpr-pcn-claimform-urban-exchange-manchester-claim-dismissed/#comments

 

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

  • 1 month later...

Good evening everyone,

 

I got the deadline to send back N180, it's 19.02.2024.

 

Quick question - do I check section D - the Suitability for determination without hearing? And do I put anything special in section E, or only 1 witness as myself there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't want a determination without a hearing, we don't recommend that. The PPC could say any old stuff and you wouldn't be there to question it.

Section E you want to name the court nearest to you, so it's easy for you to get to.

Only 1 witness unless you have an expert you've instructed. If you have, there's a box to tell them that.

And the days when you aren't available.

Is that OK?

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HB is spot on.

Having a hearing also increases their expenses.  MET are far, far too stupid to deal with a court hearing themselves so will go scurrying to find a solicitor who lives near your court to argue their hopeless case.

This all costs, and it's not impossible at all that they will drop the case rather than cough up, we've seen it several times.

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

its all in the thread dave posted and on other PCN claimform threads here

you should not be disappearing for a month and not reading a good few (20+) threads a week

we are self help.

dx

 

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

Thank you,

 

I am a bit overwhelmed as I am occupied by my divorce and custody proceedings, which is getting more and more complex, work change on top of it, I didn't even notice January ending, sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in as much as it does not state that the liability to pay the PCN is transferred to the Keeper should the charge not be paid within 28 days. This is normal for airport land which is covered by Byelaws of its own  that supersede PoFA rules.

As they can now only pursue the driver it would be worth seriously thinking who could have driven your car on that day.

Perhaps a bank payment on that day to Starbucks might jog your memory or that of one of your relatives or friends.

If you can find that it definitely was not you driving you have a perfect response to them. You weren't the driver and you have no wish to divulge the driver's name. you could prove it by showing a bank statement but redacting  some of the name and address to show it wasn't you.

In any event it is too late for Met to pursue the driver if it wasn't you.

The contract is difficult to read as it is blurry in places even by increasing the font size though I found nothing in it that stated that MET could take legal action against those who breached their T&Cs.

I noticed that their contract allows them to immobilise cars and tow them away.

This was banned back in 2012 when PoFA came into force so perhaps the contract was begun pre 2012 or if 2014 was the actual date of signing I would have thought that the contract may be unenforceable because of that illegality.

Others who know that part of contract law may be able to comment.

If true it would put the cat among the pigeons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a read of Help099's thread - there have been important developments.

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

Thanks Dave,

 

I gave

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/464351-met-pcn-awaiting-for-starbucks-to-open-20-minute-stay-southgate-park-stansted/#comments 

a thorough read and seems that accidently PDFs with contracts I left earlier in this thread helped get some new angle at MET & site 246 with their extortion procedures.

I don't have a date for my court hearing yet but there are so many points that invalidate the claim I feel like a child in the candy store with a day pass all I can carry in my hand.

I also asked my housemate who was likely the driver on that day if he has probably used the card on that day which would prove beyond any doubt I was not the driver and combined with non-enforceability for just the keeper and invalidation over the charge not being handled by the state as per airport bylaws it looks absolutely incredible.

I will try emailing them, but since on my PCN they state it was Overstay and it's from 2020 I guess Eurogarages or Starbucks won't do anything and also if they do would it impact the Claim that is already on Small Claims Track?

**Also a question - the N180 they used is outdated one and is missing one section - is this still valid correspondence to the Court that way?

I know it's early but I'd like to thank all of the admin team and fellow Caggers for this joint resolution producing effort.

I also learned a lot as I was reading through it, which is even more valuable.

I will wait to see if the claim itself will be dropped before going to a hearing if not I will draw statement for the courtroom and put it here so it isn't too naive or doesn't have any other errors.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen wisniawy's thread?

MET bottled it and discontinued the claim today 😀

  • 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

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/02/2024 at 06:30, lookinforinfo said:

I noticed that their contract allows them to immobilise cars and tow them away.

erm.. i seem to remember it was decreed when POFA2012 was introduced that all existing parking contracts were now deemed void and new contracts must be drawn up and must be signed by both parties??

and ofcourse even if this did happen, what proof is there xxxx yrs later the contract is still valid..? 

ive got a sneaky feeling theres no valid contract in existence today some 14yrs later between the land owner and MET.  if true, every pcn is invalid......

 

just musing...

 

dx

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

Just checked wisniawy thread and to be fair I am roughly on the same ground, different debt recover company, but all the same arguments. I'll wait, maybe my next postcard will be of similar contents.

Also dx got an interesting point, especially since when you go over the contract I attached that I got from them it has full wording from 2009, page with names and such dates 2013 and is signed in 2014...

Also another question - there are CCTV photos of the car entering and leaving but it's pitch black - since Claimant carries the burden of proof - shouldn't that be enough to dismiss the claim as it could have been any of thousands drivers possible? Or since it cannot even be estabilished wheter or not that was in fact the car I was registered keepr of - could have been a different vehicle, cloned plates - would that put the requirement of proof on claimant there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though it's dark the cameras can still pick out your car registration, as you found out when they  sent the PCN. As for your car being cloned, you would surely know if you were in the car park and  it wouldn't be advisable to lie about it if you were thinking of going down that route.

The way to win is to beat them with their failure to observe the Law and they are good at  that failing and make money hand over fist as a result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16/02/2024 at 19:22, Worazz said:

I will try emailing them, but since on my PCN they state it was Overstay and it's from 2020 I guess Eurogarages or Starbucks won't do anything and also if they do would it impact the Claim that is already on Small Claims Track?

**Also a question - the N180 they used is outdated one and is missing one section - is this still valid correspondence to the Court that way?

I doubt these are starters really, the court accepted the DQ and it's too late to get Starbucks/Eurogarages to call off their dogs.

You and LFI have underlined a million reasons why their claim is utter pants.

It's quite possible they will discontinue, if not you destroy them in your Witness Statement later on.

  • 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

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

LFI 

what I meant it was 100% not me, that I am sure, and is not a strategy to try and lie about it, I was barely alive from new years party flying in on last flight to Luton on the night of the 1st, no chance I would drive myself to Stansted at 4 AM on 2nd,

might have been my former housemate in my car, as I mentioned before and possibly it was him after the brief conversation we have had (but yeah, could still be cloned plate).

It was absolutley, definitely not me, so yeah, I definitely know it was not me in that car park, not that night, not ever, I simply don't use Stansted at all nor have I travelled that way. And the thing is the picture has ONLY the plate and rough shape of car lights,

where one could argue whether or not that is model/make of the same car I was the registered keeper of and that is why I am talking to my former housemate whether it was him and maybe he used his card while being there I could show receipt with a different name to confirm I had nothing to do with my car being there, should that actually be my car and not cloned plate one.

Interestingly the contract handed down in the mail I got from MET representation is a contract between them and Tabacon, not Aurora, Aurora Group has been created in 2018 and deals in energy and Aurora (just Aurora) has been created in 2010 and dissolved in June 2023 dealing in non-financial management, unless it's a yet different Aurora. See below.

This below is what I got from Stansted Enquiries:

"Good morning,


Thank you for contacting Stansted Airport. By way of introduction, my name is Camara and I am the case manager for your feedback submission. Should you wish to respond to this email, please ensure that you respond directly, maintaining the subject line.

Our Byelaws do not cover this land as it falls outside of MAG ownership. 
 
This area is owned and managed by the company Aurora. Regrettably, we do not have any contact information for the owner of this land.

Apologies we cannot be of further assistance on this occasion.


Kind regards,


Camara


Customer Feedback Team
3rd Floor, B Block
Enterprise House, Bassingbourn Road
London Stansted Airport
CM24 1QWservlet.ImageServer?oid=00D0Y000000shjG&esid=018Sh000003THa3&from=ext

"

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Worazz said:

Our Byelaws do not cover this land as it falls outside of MAG ownership. 

interesting 

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 mag might not own the land so thats not 'proof' its void of byelaws... strange logic....

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

  • 3 months later...

Just to add that in rocky_sharma's case MET discontinued today.

That's three out of the last three now.  When it has come to Witness Statement stage MET have bottled it.

Of course there is no guarantee at all that that will happen in your case.  But there is a good chance.  Hang in there.

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

Thanks Dave,

 

I have had no contact from either the Court, MET, or the debt company so nothing to do but wait.

Should I get the letter of discontinuation I will post here. Or should the action be chased further, but yeah, had absolutely no communication since Feb.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All righty, seems I know why it was so quiet, the case was in transfer.

I just got a letter from my local county court stating that they will be now taking over from Nots (dated 28 May 2024, wow)

But no other correspondence so far.

Will keep you posted :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

No date yet, just notice of transfer? 

Dx

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...