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.    
    • Owners of older vehicles tell the BBC of their anger that their cars' apps will stop working.View the full article
  • 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 
        • 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

Parkingeye ANPR PCN - no return in 2hrs - received after 16 days - Leisure West Complex, Feltham


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, 

Just received another one of these and to be honest I don't remember going there twice in 2 hours, but here it is.

As title says, I received it after 16 days.

This time Protection of Freedom Act 2012 is mentioned. 

Details:

1 Date of the infringement 21/11/2023

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 31/11/2023 (this is the date issued, but infringement is 21/11/2023) see scanned file

 

3 Date received 06/12/2023
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Yes
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes, very grainy 
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No. Is the advice still to ignore unless they send a letter of claim?
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A
 

7 Who is the parking company? Parkingeye

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Leisure West Complex, Feltham 
 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

Popla 

 

This is it really.

Last time I ignored their 3 begging letters and they stopped contacting me. 

Do I do the same or is it different because they mentioned PoFA?

Thank you!

 

2013-11-30 PCN for incident 2023-11-21.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, this has to be one of the most stupid invoices issued for the most petty of reasons that we've seen here.

What was the reason for your two visits?

I ask as there may be the chance of getting the leisure complex to intervene.

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

dx should be along shortly but I believe the advise is not to appeal from what I can remember. 

 

However in the meantime if you were a customer in whereever you were parked, and had a genuine reason for being there then you should contact them as FTM advised.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lorenz said:

Is the advice still to ignore unless they send a letter of claim?

:rockon:

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

I don't remember why there are 2 visits.

Could've been one by me, one by husband or any other combination. 

Forget about a valid reason.

Last time we couldn't find the landowner. 

It would appear that the land belongs to a university and there are a few retails on there.

Burger king, pizza hut, bingo, ten pin and cinema.

We all use that car park to pick up/drop off kids from the 3 schools around there.

Although schools tell you to park there, they have no agreement with the landowner; explored this avenue last time.

So, what's the difference now that they've mentioned PoFA?

Also, if my calculation is correct, the letter is one day late past the 14 days, correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

The PCN does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012  as the PCN  does not ask the keeper to pay the charge. That means that you as keeper are not liable to pay the PCN. Only the driver is liable. 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Section 8 (2) (b)

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, it's just clicked with me that this is the second ticket you've got for this site.

All the great work you've put in with photos of the signage, etc., will obviously come in handy here too.

 

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

@Nicky Boy Hi, I don't understand why it doesn't comply.

 

Section 8(2)(b) says:

inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

That's what it says on page 2 of the invoice under "Protection of Freedom Act"

Am I having a blonde moment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake,

It's 9(2)(b) as per LFI's post, but it says the same thing.

I believe he is referring to "and that the parking charges have not been paid in full", which they haven't stated.

LFI is always very specific, almost pedantic, but strictly speaking, he is correct.

PPC's are supposed to follow the legislation to the letter.

Legislation is very detailed and specific. It's supposed to leave no room for misunderstanding or debate... which is what solicitors and barristers are always doing... arguing over the details.

I'm pretty sure that LFI could come up with many such points if he put his mind to it. (He has in the past).

 

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear: it's free to park for 4 hours, no way to pay after this period.

You either leave or use an ipad in one of the shops to extend the staying. 

They have a no return within 2 hours policy.

Never mind if one parks a car for 10 minutes and then another 10 minutes within 2 hours, they want money.

But if one leaves the car for 4 hours they're ok.

Where's their loss?

Car park is always almost empty.

@Nicky Boy The invoice says that the driver is required to pay the parking charge in full.

I read that the "de minimis" principle apply in cases where a minor breach doesn't affect the end result.

From what they say it's clear that the driver hasn't paid the charge in full.

Please enlighten me. 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Lorenz,

You are getting paranoid about details. there are so many! The team will come up with arguments if it's ever needed.

Quick one is that their trade assosiation rules (which they MUST follow) allows for a 5 minute "consideration" period, to decide whether you want to park there... also a 10 minute "grace" period to actually leave the car park... So, 15 minutes.

Your first "stay" was only 13 minutes, so does that count as your first parking period? I would say not.

But this is all time wasted on explaining / pointing out stuff when it may never be needed.

Just let it run it's course and see if the idiots try court.

Relax and enjoy Christmas...

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I missed your earlier posts about the PCN not being compliant.

It relates to Schedule 4 S9[2][e]  

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges

they missed out asking the KEEPER to pay the PCN. They did get  the next part right but the damage was done by not advising the keeper to pay .

At the start of Section 9 [2] it says "The Notice [ie the PCN] MUST......." then gives a list of what conditions the PCN must carry out to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. From a legal standpoint if the word "must" is used then whatever is asked has to has to be done. Using the word in capitals makes it even more vital that the wording is correct.

It follows that if a section is missed off all together  the PCN can not be described as complying with the Act and so Parking Eye cannot transfer the onus to pay the PCN on to the keeper.

I suspect that what was intended by the non return to the car park for a certain time was to prevent shoppers from staying for three hours then leaving and coming back later for another three hours.

It does seem unfair the people who drop off someone to go shopping then return later to pick them up thus not spending so much time in the car park are penalised when they are actually helping to reduce the time spent in the car park.

I would have thought that if you appealed to the Land owner of the complex by stating that your actions kept their car park clearer without mentioning which one of you went shopping and which one was driving would probably get the PCN quashed.. For example, the driver drove a member of the family to go shopping and  ninety minutes later returned to collect the shopper  would show up the unreasonableness [if there is such a word] of being issued a PCN.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

unreasonableness [if there is such a word]

Yes LFI... It is a word!

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/unreasonableness

You should use it a lot more...😉

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 The National Consumer Service

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...