Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • as you mention the bpa sounds like its a scummy private car park lot blue badges mean nothing on private land anyway.............. so a failure to display something that is meaningless on private land anyway is a money grabbing scam moved to the private parking forum dx dx
    • who is it from  a council or a private parking company?
    • As per the heading, received a parking charge for failure to display a blue badge in a disabled bay on a retail park.  I am a blue badge holder, disabled/wheelchair user with a Motability vehicle. I received the charge as 'notice to keeper' I was not the driver. I don't have a valid driving license so use a carer. The notice arrived a week after the alleged incident. It states that as the 'driver' failed to pay the charge in full  hence, it is now the keepers responsibility ( the notice was dated 2 days after the alleged infringement and as no notice to driver was on the vehicle, I don't know how they expect the driver to be able to either pay or dispute the charge if they are not aware of it) Anyway, really looking for help how to reply. I cannot remember if the badge was correctly displayed or not. Photos taken of car miss a bit where I store my badge if not displayed so it would be possible to see a badge even if not 'correctly displayed" . It was a bit of a sh**ty day weather wise, gusty and raining  (as seen on the photos which reminded me of the actual day) so it is possible that badge blew to the floor as the driver was helping me out of the car into wheelchair. There is no windscreen photo showing that a PCN to "Driver" was stuck on the window either. The car park is free. There are no Parking Signs at all near the disabled bays that one could read to adhere to any terms and conditions. The whole row of disabled bays - of which are there many only state badge holders ( does not stipulate Blue Badge Holders) The notice states that the parking company is a member of the BPA and Operating in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. The BPA, section 19.1 State that at least one parking sign should be near the disabled bays, in a position that can be easily  read by by a disabled person without leaving their car in order to decide to be bound by such terms. We returned to look for signage on the retail park and could not find one sign that was near the bays. The only sign we could find was high up on a pole but not near the bays. Someone had to get out of the car and stand on tip toes to be able to take a photo of a sign. I would be grateful if someone could help or point me in the right direction. It is now  15 days since the alleged incident and 7 days since I received the notice.
  • 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
      • 162 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

MCOL Claim Help?


moose73
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6392 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

I am just about to start the MCOL process soon against HSBC, however I have been dealing with DG for a credit card account that i had with HSBC and have a monthly agreement with DG through payplan for this. I have made all payments on this without fail for a couple of years now.

As my claim is for a different account (My HSBC current accounts) how does this affect things? one of the account is in credit, the other is in debt by about £400 (this was the overdraft which they then took away)

 

Will DG settle but then pay themselves the money to the credit card account? or will they pay it into the relevent accounts from which it is being claimed for, which will then pay back the overdraft?

 

has anybody been in this situation?

HSBC - Pre Lim sent 12-12-06, LBA sent 27-12-06, reissued 5-1-07. Part offer rejected 17-1-07, MCOL 19-1-07, AQ - 21-2-07. Settled

Nationwide - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 5-1-07, LBA sent 19-1-07, MCOL 2-2-07, WON 22-2-07.

Capital One - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 17-1-07, LBA sent. Settled

MBNA - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Offer rejected 19-1-07, Pre Lim 19-1-07, LBA sent, Setteled 21-2-07.

MBNA Loan PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, Settled.

MBNA CC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, WON 2-7-10.

HSBC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, with Court

EGG PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, FOS upheld 3-7-10

Link to post
Share on other sites

bump

HSBC - Pre Lim sent 12-12-06, LBA sent 27-12-06, reissued 5-1-07. Part offer rejected 17-1-07, MCOL 19-1-07, AQ - 21-2-07. Settled

Nationwide - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 5-1-07, LBA sent 19-1-07, MCOL 2-2-07, WON 22-2-07.

Capital One - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 17-1-07, LBA sent. Settled

MBNA - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Offer rejected 19-1-07, Pre Lim 19-1-07, LBA sent, Setteled 21-2-07.

MBNA Loan PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, Settled.

MBNA CC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, WON 2-7-10.

HSBC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, with Court

EGG PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, FOS upheld 3-7-10

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...