Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This must be part of the new tactic from Evri.  They know they are going to lose. They take it to the wire and then don't bother to turn up in order to save themselves costs and of course they don't give a damn about the cost to the British taxpayer and the extra court delays they cause. This is a nasty dishonest company – but rather in line with all of the parcel delivery industry which knows that their insurance requirements are unlawful. They know that their prohibited items are for the most part unfair terms. They know for the most part that a "safe place" is exactly what it means – are not left on somebody's doorstep in full view. They know that obtaining a signature means that they have to show the signature not simply claim that they received a signature. They are making huge profits especially from their unlawful and unenforceable insurance requirement. Although this is less valuable than the PPI scandal, in terms of the number of people who are affected nationwide, PPI pales into insignificance. I hope the paralegals working for Evri are proud of themselves and they tell their families what they have done during the day when they go home.
    • Your PCN does not comply with the Protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9[2][a] (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The only time on the PCN is 17.14. That is only  a time for there to be a period there would have to be a start and and end time mentioned. of course they do show the ANPR arrival and departures  times but that is not the parking period and their times are on the photographs not on the PCN. They also failed to comply with S.9[2][f] as they omitted to say that they could only pursue the keeper if they complied with the Act. That means that they can only pursue the driver as the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge. As they do not know who was driving and Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person they will struggle to win. Especially as so many people are able to legally drive your car and you haven't appealed giving them no indication therefore of who was driving. Small nitpicking point-the date of Infringement was 22/04/2024. They appear to be saying that they can charge an extra amount [up to £70 ] if they have to use a debt collector. You do not have a contract with a debt collector so they cannot add that cost. You paid for four hours so it can only be the 15 minutes they are complaining about. You are entitled to a ten minute minimum grace period at the end of the parking period which would be easier to explain if the car park had been bigger. However if you allow for two minutes to park and two minutes to leave that gives you one minute to account for. Things like being held on the way out by cars in front waiting to get on to Northgate or even your own car being held up trying to get on to Northgate at a busy time. then other considerations like having to stop to allow pedestrians to walk in front of you or being held up by another car doing a u turn in front of your car. you would have to check with the driver and see if they could account for an extra one minute things like a disabled passenger or having to strap in a child . I am not advocating lying since that could lead to serious problems [like jail time] but there can be an awful lot of minor things that can cause a hold up of a minute even the engine not starting straight away or another car being badly parked as examples. Sadly you cannot include the 5 minute Consideration period as both IPC and BPA fail to comply with the convention that you can include that time with the Grace period.  
    • Defence struck out not case struck out...you have judgment  Well done topic title updated Regard's Please consider making a donation if not already to support us to help others.   Andy.   .
    • Hi all, I wanted to update you and thank you all for your help. I am delighted announce that after the case was struck out due to no response from Evri, judgement was issued after I submitted the forms and I was just about to take it to warrant.  today I received an email from the claims department requesting my bank details to make payment for my full award. The process has been long since the initial proceedings  in January i must say your help and guidance has been greatly appreciated.  
    • Quote of the century "Farage pops up when the country’s at a low ebb; like a kind of political herpes" - Frankie Boyle Updates
  • 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

NPE Ltd PCN - Hire Car - Private Rd - Appealed - Longfield/Sevenoaks


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, urbanc100 said:

I feel that this thread is more complex than it needs to be.

Yes, it is, through it being a song & dance to get you to upload the two invoices you are disputing (redacted) and to fill in a one-page questionnaire.

Three people have taken the time to explain that what you have received are not fines but you still refer to them as fines three times in your last post so OK so be it.

1 hour ago, urbanc100 said:

I have tried to reach out to Thrifty, but I might get a response in a month or so!

I doubt there's any way to get the charges back from the two car hire companies as you will tell the two of them that they have passed on fines, they will say your contract with them allows to charge for passing on fines (which is true), so end of story.

Alternatively you can do what dx & I have already explained in posts 19, 21 & 22.

1 hour ago, urbanc100 said:

I am not willing to go to court and incur extra costs. If I need to pay the fines to get rid of them, then so be it. Lesson learned.

Which begs the question of why you didn't pay when they were demanding £60 instead of deciding to pay when they want £170.

Plus how will you know whether they will take you to court or not?  Do you mean you will pay if they send you a Letter of Claim?

Edited by FTMDave
Typo
  • 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

I am sorry if my post had anything to do with your decision to perhaps not fight your corner. I wrote very early the documents that you should receive before they could win in Court against you. You didn't say that you hadn't received that paperwork so I asked again.

Only recently have you said that much of the paperwork hasn't been received. If it hasn't been received then there is no need for you to pay them as they have failed to comply with the Act. 

Let's get back on track. At the moment you are on track to pay £140 plus £40 to Euro and probably a similar amount to Thrifty. By not paying and winning you save £360 as Euro said they would reimburse the £40 if you won your case. It shouldn't be a difficult decision. Pay the overinflated and unlawful price of £360 or walk away without paying a penny  but having to put up with the aggravation you are getting from us. Plus you have the satisfaction at the end of winning. Put that way it surely makes sense to march on and win

I do hope you will fight. I hate the idea that the rogues will get paid by you thus enriching them with money that is not owed-perhaps in two ways. Number one .is that cases against hirers is much harder for the vermin to win than the usual kind of PCN that they issue. And number two perhaps is your contention in your appeal that you have documents from your local council that you are not liable to pay to park on your street.  Obviously the parking rogues would no accept such an appeal since it would cost them money.  

Please get back to us and let us know your thoughts. We are on your side .

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was posting on Reapster's thread earlier, noticed that also Reapster is taking on NPE, so out of curiosity looked up how many court cases we have with NPE.  The answer is - none.  They have never taken a Cagger to court.  Now that's no guarantee as companies can easily change policy, but so far they haven't been very litigious.

Honeybee13 and dx100uk have 18 years' experience each on the forum (and no doubt other legal experience before that) dealing with 12,100 of these cases.  In their opinion what you have received are not fines, not penalty charge notices, do not concern road traffic offences and are not traffic violations - and that Thrifty and Europcar were wrong to change you - and that you can claim these charges back.

However, I see you disagree with their opinion and are adamant that you've been fined, meaning the two car hire companies were correct with their charges.

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

Hi ,

I agree with their opinion that it is not a fine and im sure they are experienced , hence would not be on here

 I am not adamant about anything, which is why I asked for advice. and what hey provided me with is helpful.

As I mentioned earlier, I will not pay the penalty that was sent to me.

However, in order to avoid receiving letters from these so-called companies, I will need to inform them in writing whenever I rent a car again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, my bad.

I thought your constant references to "fines" were indicating disagreements with HB and dx.  Anyway ...

1.  It will depend on the contract, but generally where council penalty charge notices are concerned car hire companies are allowed to charge administration fees and indeed deduct the amount of the penalty charge.  But the whole point is that what you have received is something completely different, an invoice from a private company.  Therefore get on to your bank and start two chargebacks.  I did this myself a year ago for the first time and it was easy.

2.  You say you will ignore NPE's two demands but that you're not prepared to go to court   There is a contradiction here.  How can you be sure court papers won't drop through your letter box tomorrow morning?

Generally these companies do obey the Pre-Action Protocol which means they have to send a formal Letter Before Claim/Letter Before Action before they start a county court claim.  If you look at Reapster's thread    https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/458760-npecis-cctv-pcn-lombard-place-london-e3-5fa-not-parked-in-a-marked-parking-bay/#comments  NPE keep getting to this stage, Reapster keeps replying with a snotty letter showing he/she would be big trouble for NPE in court, and NPE keep bottling it.  But there are no guarantees.  You "owe" them double the usual amount and they might get greedy and try court.  There is always that chance.

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

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

  • 1 month later...

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...