Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • What the locals are reporting ... Ashfield Independents overtake Reform in Tory Wipe-out Telegraph poll A Savanta poll predicts a Labour win in Ashfield, and puts the Ashfield Independents in second place ahead of Reform’s incumbent Lee Anderson   General Election 2024 Archives - Ashfield Neighbour News ASHFIELD.NEIGHBOUR.NEWS    
    • Of course it is your decision whether or not to go down the "legal route" – but actually seeking advice from us is precisely what you would be doing except that you would be getting it for free. It's up to you if you want to find a solicitor who will ask you exactly the same questions as us except you will be paying £300 an hour or if you want to follow our advice free of charge. You do need to settle down and answer the questions that we put to you. If you get a solicitor you will be asked exactly the same questions but I suppose that because you are paying £300 an hour you will be happy to answer them or even volunteer the information in order to save time and therefore money. I suggest that you give us the information we are asking for and anything else that you think might be relevant. This way hopefully we can cut to the chase without wasting time. Do understand that by coming to us you haven't simply chanced upon a piece of social media here. This is not Facebook. We are very serious about what we are doing and we are taking you very seriously. We take everybody who comes to us very seriously.  
  • 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 CCTV PCN - Starbucks Closed - Southgate Park, Stansted Airport (346)


Recommended Posts

1 Date of the infringement 02nd February 2024

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 14th May 2024

PDF scan done Redacted and Attached

3 Date received 20th May 2024

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Not that I can see

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes? (Photo of my car entering at 23:34 on the PCN itself, and leaving at 23:57 only visible on the appeals site, but I don't see how parking for 23 minutes is against the rules anyway?)

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No
Have you had a response? [Y/N?] N/A

7 Who is the parking company? Met Parking Services

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

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

Any advice is greatly appreciated. Many thanks.

 

2024-05-14 MET NTK incident 2024-02-02.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, welcome to CAG.

Thank you for supplying information early on, that's really helpful.

People should be along to advise later but in the meantime, please don't appeal. You could end up outing the driver on the day - please don't tell us who it was - and make life more complicated.

Best, HB

  • Like 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to MET CCTV PCN - 23 min stay - Southgate Park, Stansted Airport (346)

eh? this doesn't make sense....

CCTV capture pic from 02 feb

NTK 14 may..

thats not within 14 days for an ANPR capture

and certain outside 29-56 if they'd ever issued a notice to drive on the windscreen.

met trying to mug you here

have you the pcn?

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

Hi,

Thanks for the reply.

The only correspondence I've had from them is attached to the post?

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, thank you for filling in the sticky so quickly - we wish everyone who comes here would do that!

You're in the clear.  MET don't know who the driver was.  They can use Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper if their bilge arrives within 14 days - they didn't send it out till 102 days after!!!

So sit on your hands.  MET will come out with threat after threat but ultimately will do nothing.

Have a read of other threads for this car park - we are having a tsunami of cases at the moment.

Be sure to come back here though if they ever send you a Letter of Claim.

 

  • 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

Also, just for possible future reference,  go and see what other "photographic evidence" they have, and download it.

 

  • Like 2

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

Yes, Nick is spot on.

Also, can you remember if Starbucks was closed when you were there?  I ask as I'm trying to work out what MET reckon you did wrong.

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

Dave,

You're probably thinking along the same lines as me.

The NTK says "The reason for issuing the charge notice is: Parking longer than allowed"

From memory, I think one of their stupid rules is that if 'Bucks is closed, you're not allowed to park at all.

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

That explains it then.

MET's fantasy is that it's a pay car park.  You're only let off paying if you are a Starbucks customer which you can't be when Starbucks is closed. 

'Cos otherwise lots of people would abuse the car park facilities on the far edge of the Stansted Airport area in the middle of nowhere to ... admire the bushes?  Look at the cloudy sky?

The important thing is that we have around 140 cases for this site, and MET have only tried court seven times.  Even then, they had no intention of getting as far as a hearing, they were attempting to intimidate the motorists into paying, when the Caggers defended the cases MET discontinued.

  • Like 2

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

looks like it now closed at 8pm everynight.

WWW.OPENINGTIMESIN.UK

Refer to this page for the specifics on Starbucks Stansted, including the hours of business, location info, product ranges and further significant...

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to MET CCTV PCN - Starbucks Closed - Southgate Park, Stansted Airport (346)

If that was the reason then that is good news.

The whole reason that being able to charge £100 for breaching private car park rules is because the law Lords decided in a celebrated case that the rogues had a legitimate interest in keeping their car park spaces available for all motorists . {parking Eye v Beavis].

However when the business is closed then there is no legitimate interest in keeping spaces free so to charge £100 is a penalty.

As such any Court would automatically throw out the case when the penalty charge is accepted.

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...