Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕
    • Though it would be Highview you would  pursue. DCBL are nonentities-on their best day,
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

NOT accepting offer - hearing date 17 Jan


Guest bong
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6319 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

probably going to get my wrists slapped for posting a link to my thread here but here goes anyway. I'm not accepting Barclaycards offer of settlement before the hearing set for 17 Jan, because I want to try for a judgement on the unlawfulness etc. (I know I'm risking it) and I wondered if I could have people's thoughts on the letter I am about to send them in response to their no admission of liability offer here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/30300-bong-barclaycard-6.html#post465111

 

sorry for breaking the posting rules but I hope it will benefit others

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bong!

I can understand the sentiment behind this - we would all like our day in court (and I have no doubt that the courts would as well!). But if the bank makes a reasonable offer to you, and whilst you may not be obliged to accept, a judge may not look too kindly on you if you don't and you would land up with nothing.

The phrase "cut your nose off to spite your face" comes to mind - as unfair as it may seem.

SG ;)

:rolleyes:
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for sharing your opinion sg

 

at the moment I feel like the only person in the forum who believes that this is not just about getting our money back. Why does everyone think that the judge isn't there to consider the lawfulness of the contract aswell?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may feel like that but you are wide of the mark - the vast majority feel like this and it's not a case of getting our money back. We are trying to get our cases heard in court but are being continually frustrated by the Banks' behaviour. We want to have our day in court even though some of us really need our money.

You are not alone in anyway shape or form regarding this and that is the beauty of this site.

SG x:)

:rolleyes:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

I think you could risk having two minutes in court, just about time for the judge to say you are wasting his time as settlement has been offered. I have seen the idea muted before and same things said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

Bong the reason for this is because you claimed a monetary amount and it was offered, the court cannot make any precedent setting judgement and the issue is on money as that is what you have claimed. I just caught a few responses to your other thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I don't think I am being unreasonable. I have a contract for my credit card which does not comply with the law so what do I do about it - why is it unreasonable to ask the court to decide whether it's unlawful?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you claimed a monetary amount and it was offered, the court cannot make any precedent setting judgement and the issue is on money as that is what you have claimed.

 

hi natty, In addition to claiming my money back I also claimed that the charges were penalties etc. why do you say the court can't pass judgement on that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

You sued for a monetary amount, the offer was a full monetary amount. That is why there would be no case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bong - The small claims track is used to deal with the less difficult cases (this is a simlification but bear with me).It may seem unfair, but when you are given a reasonable offer then essentially your case has been dealt with insofar as you have got back the money that you were making the claim for. Only if it got to court, would you be able to argue your case and it never gets that far (as of yet) because the banks pay up.

If a case is allocated to the fast track (as I hope mine will be) then the bank must comply with a disclosure order but again it's difficult in getting it to go that far.Also, greater costs are involved if you loose.

SG :)

:rolleyes:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
I also sued to get a court's decision on the penalty issue.

 

Bong the only way to get a decesion against the banks would be to go through the judicial process county court, Court of Appeal , Law lords in order to get a presedent set.Now if its against unfair charges there is no way you will get the banks going through that process. Anyway im pleased you've got a result

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...