Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @tobyjugg2 If you go back through this thread, there was speculation towards end of April that Sunak was looking at GE for end of June or early July. And that the GE would be announced after end of May Bank Holiday. I think many connected  to Tory party will have known about possible plans for a July election. My local Tory party had election leaflets through doors a few days after the PM's announcement. So this indicates that they were ready. There were articles in newspapers including The Guardian saying they had heard about July election. And you linked to a online article months ago saying Tories would lose to a Labour landslide where polls at the time were quite simular to current polls. So the polling has not changed as the mood of the country has not changed.  Some think Sunak will be first PM to lose their own seat.
    • More great news although that Boris the crooked liar can still garner that many votes does give even putin apologist frightened farage some hope in a seat somewhere, anywhere across the country - even if he never intends to be there eh?  
    • As I say thanks for your responses so far but this forum is not for me. Please delete the thread
    • Incidentally, don't imagine that your reasoning above will make an iota of difference to Evri. In fact they are probably not even capable of understanding it. However, you must understand the reasoning. This is essential because you will be bringing your case. It is highly likely that it will go to trial and you will have to have sufficient control over the law and the logic to be able to put it to the judge in a persuasive manner and also to answer the judge's questions in a competent fashion. You will have to issue a legal action so once you have sent the letter, start preparing your particulars of claim. Let's do one thing at a time.
    • Firstly, please will you note that when you post solid blocks of text, it makes it very difficult for people to read – especially on a small screen such as a telephone. The first post you made has already been restructured with paragraph spacing by the site team. Everything we do is free – and would be pleased not to have to do this kind of thing again. I'm restructuring your most recent post is well. I've looked at the four-page document you have posted above. I only want to deal with the letter of claim so far. We know that laptops are on the non-compensation list – and as you have referred to that, you may as well then go on to make your legal points and explain why the non-compensation list is irrelevant. Of course Evri are monitoring the thread so they will know about it anyway. But the whole point is that not only would the insurance requirement – had it been available – have been contrary to section 57 and that it would have been an attempt to exclude or limit liability, also trying to include a huge list of items for which they say they will not compensate you if the fail in their duty to exercise reasonable skill and care is also a breach of section 57. Particularly, as you declared that it was a laptop. They then effectively alerted you that it was on the non-compensation list. This was the equivalent of alerting you that you should be careful because even if the breach the delivery contract and failed to exercise reasonable skill and care, because it is a laptop, they will exclude liability and even though that is contrary to section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act and therefore unenforceable. So in effect they are committing two breaches of contract. First of all they have failed to exercise reasonable skill and care – breach number one. They then have attempted to exclude liability for their breach number one – and that then becomes breach number two. In fact the bar is raised even more because they have the option to refuse to take the laptop because you declared it. They still were prepared to carry it. Not only that, if they consider that there is some additional risk in carrying a laptop then being alerted they should have taken extra reasonable skill and care. In other words, being aware of what they were carrying impose on them a greater duty of skill and care than they would be required to exercise, say, delivering a hairbrush. And then to top it all, – in case we need extra help – not only is their non-compensation list and their agreement to carry your laptop without any liability a breach of section 57, the use of a non-compensation list where they knowingly accept to carry those items and yet disclaim liability for their own failings is an unfair term contrary to the unfair terms provisions of the 2015 Act. Therefore I suggest   have a look at what I have suggested above. Ask questions. Make sure that you agree with everything. Everything is true and correct. Let us know if you think that there should be anything else or if anything should be left out
  • 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

MET ANPR PCN - occupants left - Southgate Park (346) Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 185 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

Hi all,

This is my first post. Please find details below. 

1 Date of the infringement 15 October 2023

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 13 December 2023

3 Date received 20 December 2023

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Does not seem like it

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes available on their website after punching in my info

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No

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

7 Who is the parking company? MET Parking Services Limited

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] (346) Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY

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

Has BPA Logo at the bottom of the front page but refers to POPLA for the appeals
 

I have used this car park complex many times whilst picking up relatives from the airport.

I decided to park in this particular spot opposite Starbucks and walked over to McDonalds to grab some breakfast.

I was blatantly unaware that I had parked spot that had a sign that said Starbucks only.

I mean in this carpark there are so many signs I've just realised that one is specifically for McDonalds, one does not matter and the other for Starbucks and so on.

It has been 66 days since 15th October.

Do I have any grounds to appeal this?

I have read various other posts for this site whereby the keepers have sent emails to Starbucks and Eurogarges etc.

Please advice as I really would rather not want to pay a £60/100 parking charge.

Thanks in advance

 

Parking Charge Notice 15-10-23.pdf

Edited by Nicky Boy
Extra Redaction on pdf
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to MET ANPR PCN - occupants left - Southgate Park (346) Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY

use our enhanced google searchbox not the one in the top red banner 

Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY

100's of threads here

there is no such thing as reverse trespass...

no harm in trying to appeal to starbucks cant hurt you.

but never the PPC!!

 

 

  • 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

Welcome to the Forum.

This is a well known scam site where Met is so easy to park in the wrong car park. Therefore it follows that the signage is not good enough. As it has been going on for a long time, it also follows that there is no inclination on behalf of those involved to amend the situation.

And why should they.  So many visitors there will just pay up to avoid either paying more once they pass the 14 day discount period and they want to avoid going to Court. So Met collects all their money and shares it out with Starbucks and Macdonalds

It is a disgusting situation. So many people are handing over money needlessly. it is unlikely that Met will take anyone to Court because the ripoff may spur the Courts to financially punish them. So yes they will threaten court action so that some more people will pay up but why risk having their scam being broadcast when they are doing very well financially without taking anyone to Court.

As far as the lateness of the PCN is concerned, because the land is covered by airport Byelaws they do not have to send out their PCNs within 14 days as the keeper can never be liable for an airport PCN. Only the driver is liable.

Expect to get loads of rubbish from Met, low life debt collectors and a bunch of rent-a-mug solicitors which can all be ignored. All you have to watch out for is a possible letter of Claim. Come back to us for a snotty reply to them. They should then crawl back into the slime where they belong.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done for filling in the forum sticky and doing research about contacting Starbucks/Euro Garages.  We wish everyone who comes here would do the same!

You've seen how to get the invoice cancelled by Starbucks/Euro Garages - copy what the others who have success stories did.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...