Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 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

One Parking Solutions Windscreen PCN - private flat bays, share of freehold . - Durrington, West Sussex.


Recommended Posts

The NTK is pretty good at complying with the Act  as is the Notice to Driver so no help there. I seem to remember OPS getting hammered by a Judge [in brighton I think] so they seem to have tightened po their act since.

The organ grinder is the MA and the monkey is OPS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on them for following the rules. They still haven't proven that I'm the driver though right?

I also checked the council's website and there's no planning permission for the signs.

No luck with the organ grinder. I think I'll need to take this to court and win to prove my point to the other freeholders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.  It's them that will have to take you to court if they ever want to see any money.  They know full well how difficult it is for the private parking companies to win residential cases,. 

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 guys, that's reassuring.

Let's say hypothetically, I went to court and I beat them. What would be the potential consequences of that for them? Would they be forced to leave the residence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no.

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

Posted (edited)

Sadly - no.

They would have sued you because they reckoned you owed them the money they have invoiced you for.

The judge would have considered the matter and conluded you didn't owe the money.

That's all.

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

I see... so, I'll still need to find a way to get rid of OPS.

One more question, would beating them at court ensure future PCNs are invalid/unlawful??

Link to post
Share on other sites

no.

county court judgements dont set a precedence, though quoting it before any others got to court stage might make them think twice about trying court again.

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

Have you seen dbuk2000's result?

Absolutely thrashed a PPC in a residential parking case today.

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 both, so I just read the thread. It looks promising but the OP in that case had one key trump card, primacy of lease. Not sure if that will properly apply in my case.

What do you think?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have the supremacy of contract as it allows you to park in designated areas.

I would argue that there being parking enforcement there clearly means its to be used as parking and as such you can use it under your lease.

Only need to worry if they ever follow through with a letter of claim and a claimform though

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 OTHER

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

An update: I just got another PCN. I get the feeling that someone in the residence is calling OPS, as it's dated for a few mins after I parked. I won't appeal of course.

Interestingly, our cleaner was also parked but didn't get a PCN. I asked them why and apparently they're whitelisted. I did ask the MA if they could whitelist me and they said they couldn't. Clearly they decided not to tell the truth.

Surely, this would resolve all of the issues entirely i.e. we'd keep non-residents from parking, whilst allowing for residents to park without issue?

Also, could OPS now take me to court for both PCNs separately, or could it be one case?

 

 

Edited by iamgnome
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, iamgnome said:

Also, could OPS now take me to court for both PCNs separately, or could it be one case?

It'd be up to them.  They could decide to combine the two tickets or deal with each separately.

Of course they could whitelist you, but then they wouldn't make any money.  Their job is not sensible management of a car park.  There job is to make up idiotic rules that motorists break so they can write their PCNs.

It sticks in my throat to say this, but maybe if at all possible for a bit respect their stupid rules and avoid PCNs.  If there are one or two tickets then OPS will be wary of doing court as they know how difficult it is to win well-defended residential parking cases.  If it gets to four or five then they are likely to be blinded by greed and to go for court.

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, that all sounds clear to me.

In terms of avoiding PCNs, I'm not sure if I can. I need to be able to park in that spot, especially as I've got kids to lug forth and back for the school run.

Likewise it's not always possible to use the MA's permit system either, as I've not always got them to hand.

So, if I'm actively avoiding PCNs, then it could mean I've given in to their idiotic rules. But, I do get what you're saying, as I imagine the risks go up if they claim there are multiple PCNs to be paid at court.

Not sure what to do with this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole  point of white listing is so that those who are entitled to park there don't get ticketed -like cleaners for example.

And the residents too of course if the system is designed to prevent non residents from misusing the area which is the usual excuse for bringing in the parking scrotes. that they are also targeting the residents would imply that you are fair game and your MAs are quite happy to make make money out of you all. Nice guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks - completely agreed.

Is it common that MAs also profit from PCNs?

I've decided that I am going to fight this. It's clearly unjust, and I need to try my best to get these scammers out of my residence, even if I risk losing at court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my time I've never seen a payout/commission from a PPC to a landlord/MA.

Normally the installation of all the cameras/payment of warden patrols etc is free but PPCs keep 100% of the ticket revenue.

Not saying it doesn't happen mind.

I've done some more digging on this:

Remember, what your lease doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. If your lease doesn't mention a parking scheme/employment of a PPC/Paying PCNs etc you're under no legal obligation to play along to the PPC's or the MA's "Terms and conditions". I highly doubt your lease had a variation in place to bring in this permit system.

Your lease will likely have a "quiet enjoyment" clause for your demised space and the common areas and having to fight a PPC/MA just to park would breach that.

Your lease has supremacy of contract, but I do agree it's worth keeping cool and not parking there (and hence getting PCNs) for a couple months just so that the PPC doesn't get blinded by greed and go nuclear on you if you have 4 or 5 PCNs outstanding.

At your next AGM, bring it up that the parking controls need to be removed and mention the legal reasons why. One reason is that under S37(5b) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987,  more than 75% of leaseholders and/or the landlord would have needed to agree, and less than 10% opposed, for the variation to take place.
I highly doubt a ballot even happened before the PPC was bought in so OPS even being there is unlawful, breaching the terms of your lease. In this legal sense,  the communal vote of the "directors" of the freehold company would have counted for ONE vote of however many flats there are (leases/tenants) + 1 (landlord).

It's going to be interesting to see where this goes.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 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 OTHER

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks that's an extremely helpful post.

There is no mention of a permit scheme in the lease and likewise, no variation was made to bring this system in.

I recall seeing something like a quiet enjoyment clause, but will need to re-read it and confirm.

VERY interesting point on the 1987 Act. There hasn't been an AGM in years and I've tried to get one to start to no avail. However, I'll aim to find out more about how the PPC was brought in and revert.

Can I test with you and others on the logic of not parking for a few months?

I'm ready to fight OPS, so if they go nuclear on me then surely it doesn't matter? I assume that I will keep getting PCNs as long as I live here, so it doesn't make sense for me to change the way that I park? 

Unless... You are suggesting that having 5 or so outstanding PCNs, will negatively affect any court case e.g. through bad optics? Or are we trying to force their hand to go to court with only 2 outstanding PCNs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a whitelist and few intruders there only seems the residents to make money from. It would leave wondering what the incentive was for the MAs if there was nothing in it for them except the obvious complaints from the residents. Not that I am saying that they are getting a backhander but there seems little other reasons unless they are trying to show how well run the place is managed-not.

If they ran it properly there would be no need for OPs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to verify whether there is any financial reward for the management is seeing the agreement. That would be required during disclosure IF court proceedings went ahead... Unless you could bring pressure to bear and get a copy?

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

Thanks i sent across the agreement earlier in this thread.

No mention of financial reward to the MA.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done on the sly. As I said earlier, the owner of OPS is a convicted criminal, with a very shady reputation around these parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I expressed myself badly.

Most people who come here are willing to go to court, but would prefer not to if at all possible.

We have a tiny minority who are terrified of court, even though we point out that a civil court hearing is no more intimidating that a job interview.

I was just pointing out that the more PCNs you get, the more money is in ir for the PPC, so the greater the chances of them doing court - which of course is damn obvious!

However, what we tend to see in residential parking cases is that the PPCs are reluctant to start court claims because they know about Supremacy of Contract and they know their case is weak.  But then when someone collects, say, five tickets, greed takes over and they rush off to court.  So i just wanted to point out that that was likely to happen.

Point taken that it is very hard to avoid getting their tickets.

If you do end up in court in the end - which is probable - then the number of tickets will not affect the judge's decision.  Either you have Supremacy of Contract or you don't.

  • Like 3

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 that's appreciated and clear. I understand where you're coming from now.

I'm set on going to court, once I get the LBC. Reading up on the case law, it seems like I've got a good chance to win.

So, I will really need to get my argument firmed up on the supremacy of contract point.

I've been reading this guide on the Parking Prankster's site:

PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM

There are many residential situations where some form of parking management is desired, but instead of...

It seems like I need to follow the arguments made in Pace v Mr N and Link Parking v Ms P.

Thoughts?

  • Like 1
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...