Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.  
    • Hi DX, Sorry, fell asleep as I was up all night last night writing that statement. Yes, I attached the rest of the witness statement on post 50, bottom of webpage 2. That's the important part.  It looks like the lawyer who wrote Erudio's Witness statement does not work for them any more. So, I'll have another lawyer representing instead. Not sure if I can use Andy's hearsay argument verbally if that happens.... I did not put it in writing. Apart from not sending deferral forms, my main argument is that in 2014 Erudio fixed some arrears mistake that SLC made and then in 2018 they did the same mistake, sent me confusing letters. What is the legal defence when they send you confusing material?
    • Chinese firm MineOne Partners has been ordered to sell land it owns near a US nuclear missile site.View the full article
    • That isn’t actually what the Theft Act 1968 S1 actually says, BTW. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;   The difference between what you’ve said and the Act? a) intent to permanently deprive rather than  just depriving (which is why the offence of “taking without consent” was brought in for motor vehicles, as otherwise "joyriders" could say "but I intended to give it back at the end") b) dishonesty : If I honestly believed A's pen belonged to B, and took it and gave it to B - B might be found guilty of theft but I shouldn't be. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Support for all bank charge reclaimers in the Indie today


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6291 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 couldn't believe my eyes when I picked up The Independent from the mat this morning. A front page spread, an article on pages 2 and 3, the main leader and an article in the financial section, all on the subject of unfair bank charges and supporting the right of customers to challenge the banks over this. The financial article mocks the idea of ending free banking in view of the record profits Barclays are expected to announce today. It also says that the OFT has 'already judges such charges to be ILLEGAL' - not just unlawful. Is that as significant as I think it could be? It certainly seems very encouraging to us all to keep going for the return of OUR money!!

 

DDD.

Dolly Day Dream

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me about it DollyDayDream, I nearly had a heart attack on the train ! It's was so funny as the normal shoulder surfers that read over your shoulder could not belive it ! Obviously I mentioned to them about this site and then discussed my own current claim, it put a smile on everyone's face ! Even the Ipod / headphone group stopped playing there music to Listen in !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm retired now, so I just took the paper back to bed with a cuppa and enjoyed the news. When I filed my papers at the court last week I managed to tell the girl who dealt with them about CAG. She was gobsmacked that it was possible to get money back from the banks. They obviously don't have time to read through what they are processing - perhaps because we are keeping them so busy!! :D

Dolly Day Dream

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a bandwaggon effect is happening now. Today it's the front page, page2, page 33, page 36 and page 39. Then there were mentions on TV and radio news as well as Watchdog and so on. Last night a further 20,000 people downloaded the template letters, so they won't know what's hit them. I imagine it will slow the process - or maybe they'll throw in the towel and meekly give us our money back?!!

DDD.

Dolly Day Dream

Link to post
Share on other sites

20,000 "Give me my charges back" letters on their way shortly?

 

I can see the response being 20,000 standard 'bog off' letters. Sent at the end of the response deadline, of course.

 

Some will drop away, some will persevere with S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s if need be. Cue another 40-day delay. Those who persevere (or already have statements), and continue with the 14-day LBA, then MCOL/N1 will prompt a serious response from the Courts at the Allocation stage. Something will hit the fan at that point, I think.

 

I get the impression that the banks are hanging on desperately for the OFT to recommend a 'fair charge', so that their lawyers can counter-offer intelligently. 20,000 at an average of £1,000 is £20 Million ...

 

For those of us fortunate enough to already have cases lodged, I'm hoping that this prompts a few sensible, early offers.

 

But then again, I always was naive!

 

;-)

"Weasel (n): any person or group that operates in that vast grey area between good ethical behaviour and the sort of activities that might send you to jail".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the charges were unlawful, not Illegal as the independent has reported. Can someone confirm either way, to satisfy my curiosity? Ta.

 

HI PAULROCKLIFFE. According to Collins Gem mini dictionary eleventh issue 2003. Unlawful means: Not allowed by law.

Illegal means : Against the law. Very confusing:confused:

WOTCUMSROUND

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

HI PAULROCKLIFFE. According to Collins Gem mini dictionary eleventh issue 2003. Unlawful means: Not allowed by law.

Illegal means : Against the law. Very confusing:confused:

 

Unlawful is basically 'against the spirit of the law'.

 

Banks are acting unlawfully as we are proving by them paying up every time. Not precedent has been set so they are not acting Illegally...... maybe one day that will change!

 

The paper shouldn't really have used the term 'illegal', but they are not the first to do it - The Money Programme' recently said it too....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlawful is basically 'against the spirit of the law'.

Banks are acting unlawfully as we are proving by them paying up every time. Not precedent has been set so they are not acting Illegally...... maybe one day that will change!

The paper shouldn't really have used the term 'illegal', but they are not the first to do it - The Money Programme' recently said it too....

Thanks for clearing that up Thailand but what the banks have done for years in my own small opinion is Legal Robbery. Lets hope the wind has changed for the better now.

WOTCUMSROUND

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...