Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Done! Thanks again. Will update the thread accordingly.
    • Thank you for your message.  I'm concerned that by complaining to the IPC, and escalating the situation, PCM would be even more inclined to cause problems for me and take action to the fullest extent just to make an example of me.  I can still take the above action as a backup plan if PCM decides to go ahead.
    • Mr BankFodder you are a top man.   I just received email below and finally they accepted fully refund   Good Afternoon,   Thank you for your recent email.   We are sorry to hear of your recent troubles, we would be happy to accept rejection of the vehicle.   The amount of the refund to yourself will be £7,099, this alongside settlement of the finance agreement will be paid in full and final settlement.    By accepting this refund you are confirming that no further claims shall be brought against Big Motoring World or any of its associates in respect of this matter.   In order to proceed with the refund we require the following from yourself:   - Your bank details (Account holders name – this must match the invoice name, sort code and account number)   The bank details can be provided via email.   The refund will be processed within 14 days.  
    • How do I transfer my number plate V750? Transfer by post Check the expiry date on your V750 or V778 to make sure it is still valid. Ensure that the registered keeper for the receiving vehicle matches the Grantee or Nominee name on the certificate. Complete relevant sections of your V750 or V778 document and sign it where instructed. https://www.gov.uk/personalised-vehicle-registration-numbers/renew-private-number-certificate  
    • i know...the anpr camera mustve triggered the computer to send out a parking charge as it probably detected no parking ticket paid. disgusting way of trying to extort money
  • 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

NPC/DCB(L) Vanishing Windscreen PCN Claimform - Taxi - Appealed - No Parking Or Waiting At Anytime - St Thomas Hospital, London, Se1 7eh.

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...

Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of  the original  PCN that they sent to the Hirer  along with your hire agreement documents.

Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include  all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer. 

Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference.

Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper.  You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Ok so everything they sent in response to my CPR request was part of that attached PDF, there were no other documents. I'll re-upload the original PCN from their response pack and leave dates and times in this time. 


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thank you

Is there anything else I need to do on this at this time,

they've responded to my CPR 31.14 that I've uploaded here,

logged into the bulk court website with the intention to defend all,

so what happens next?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting an unredacted copy of the NTH. I guess that it wasn't you who redacted the contract though both look similarly redacted. The contract has not been issued correctly since the signatories have been redacted and it doesn't appear to name them or give their positions in their respective companies. Nor have their signatures been countersigned by independent witnesses.

And No Stopping/No Waiting cannot offer a contract so no breach has occurred. You only stayed for a minute according to them?


I assume they with the sar you also received the copy of  original PCN sne to Arval. So could you please post that one up too.



Link to post
Share on other sites

No they must've redacted the contract, that was like that when I received it.

Yes correct I was there for 90 seconds! 

Yes I uploaded the whole contents of their response to my CPR31.14, which included the original PCN 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll dig through their documentation see if I can find it, if needs be could I request a copy from the PPC since they seem to want to take it to court?

Actually looking at the original post of mine in this thread it appears that I didn't retain any of their original NTK docs etc as I thought they'd dropped the charge since I hadn't heard anything on this in over a year.


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, northmonk said:

Yes correct I was there for 90 seconds! 

There is supposed to be a 5-minute consideration period.

We could do with some help from you.


 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

Right would that be grounds for a dismissal right there then, 90 seconds?!

Lookingforinfo - you're getting crossed wires buddy, we're in the hospital thread here, the ICO complaint was my other appeal the Locton estate one



Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it would.

Especially as they are supposed to put up extra signs to show that parking restrictions have changed, which of course they won't have done.

We could do with some help from you.


 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

The fact remains that the original PCNs and NTHs contain details that, if wrong, can help your case especially when you are the hirer. You can be completely absolved from any claim by the parking scrotes. Yet you appear to throw them away despite having been told about their value from the first PCN you wrote to us about. 

We are doing our best to help you and you appear to be doing your best to thwart yourself every step of the way. 🤨

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I only contacted you on this hospital charge at the claim form stage, I'd discarded the NTK months ago thinking they'd dropped it. In future I'll hold onto any NTK for much longer, although a year is a fair while, until it's obvious it's been dropped

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to NPC/DCB(L) Vanishing Windscreen PCN Claimform - Taxi - Appealed - No Parking Or Waiting At Anytime - St Thomas Hospital, London, Se1 7eh.

what defence did you file by the 19th april please?


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

Oh shoot i didn't!

I've not been through this process before and had completely forgotten the 19 days rule etc from the forum sticky,

what happens now then? 

Link to post
Share on other sites


I've done my defence and printed it out ready to post first thing tomorrow to the court,

see attached pdf for my generic defence copied from sticky

obviously with my reg not left in on the defence form.

This defence is relevant in my case since I was there 90 seconds so couldn't possibly have entered into a contract right?


1. Defence
1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxxxx
2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.
3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC),
any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide
car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own
account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that
the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.
4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.
5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.
6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief
claimed or any relief at all.


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...