Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
Block and bounce back all emails. Block any text messages Ignore any letters unless it's: - a Statutory Demand - a Letter Of Claim - a Court Claimform via Northants bulk. -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
Dave if I run you by a different analogy. Imagine you are doing 45 mph down Park Lane and a police car has clocked you doing that. When you get the Notice of Intended Prosecution they claim you were speeding in Piccadilly. So although you were speeding you weren't speeding in Piccadilly. Result -case would be thrown out. Same thing here. The contract refers to an area in Ruislip with a postcode of HA4 OFY. On every pcn they have put the car in HA4 OEY. I admit that they have the correct postcode on the claimform but the car cannot be in two places at once. By pursuing Rocky on the wrong postcode means they had no reasonable cause to ask the DVLA for his details.Met does not have a contract to issue PCNs in that postcode. It is not desperation though it would be embarrassing for Met in Court and the case should be thrown out. The NTD can say whatever it wants but the NTK fails to specify the parking period and fails to ask the driver to pay S9[2][b] so that PCN does not comply with the Act so only the driver liable. And times on the photographs on the PCN are just that. Times on a photograph not on the PCN as stated in the Act. Your strongest point is the PCN [the NTK ] is not compliant and as you were not the driver you are not liable so should go first. Not only is it not compliant but the postcode on the NTK is different from the one on the Claim form. If the one on the NTK was wrong then Met have breached Rocky's GDPR since they had no reasonable cause to contact the DVLA as they did not have a contract that covered that postcode and so misled the DVLA. That should be sufficient to win. With regards to their WS sometimes the rogues leave it till the last moment to send to prevent Defendants being able to respond to what has been said. So don't send your WS until the last day. If theirs hasn't arrived by then add to your WS that their WS not received and ask that it be ignored.If it does arrive in time, then you can still amend your WS to answer any of their spurious points. As a lay person you will be granted a days latitude at least. PS do not foret to include S9[2][b] in your WS -
Quote of the day “Head in hands and reviewing how useful my contact book will be in five weeks' time.” a Tory lobbyist, who’s not doing so good - Marie Le Conte -
By Johnny1 leg · Posted
Another email ( they are coming thick and fast now) - slightly more threatening, telling me how great they are for trying to help me find a solution and how bad i am for ignoring them. -
.thumb.jpg.bf2f59e5260173230834ce3ad8015900.jpg)
I also started getting OTPs to a mobile number that I since have had to change after 10 years in case it was compromised. The only card that I had provided to Lyca was a virtual card that they had stored for payment processing. TLDR - Lyca are claiming no breach, there is definitely a breach. ICO are useless and havent heard from Lyca.
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
MET/DR+ CCTV PCN - Occupants left Car Park - Southgate park stansted
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now