Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have received a PCN from Euro Car Parks for MFG - Esso Cobham - Gravesend. I was completely unaware that there was any such limit for parking and always considered this to be a service station. I stopped there to use the toilet, have a coffee and made a couple of work calls. I have read the previous topics on this location which suggest I can ignore this and ECP will not take legal action. The one possible complication is that the vehicle is leased by my employer so I do not want to involve them with the associated reminders and threatening letters. The PCN was first issued to the leasing company Arval who have notified ECP of the hiring company. I have attached a copy of the PCN Notice to Hirer with details removed as per instructions. What options do I have or should I just pay the PCN promptly at the reduced rate of £60? img20240424_23142631.pdf
    • What you have uploaded is a letter with daft empty threats from third-party paper tigers.  Just ignore it. What we need to see is the original invoice you received last October or November.
    • 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.  
  • 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

Devilboy V NatWest **WON**


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6180 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

Hi Guys.

 

Although I haven't posted about it I have been following on the instructions here to claim my charges back from NatWest.

 

I thought I'd jot down a quick summary of my claim. I used all the templates found on this forum.

 

1st January - Data Protection Act Letter Sent to Edinburgh

 

Received my statements very quickly - 6 days from posting my letter. Unlike most people the statements were very well packed in a padded jiffy envelope.

 

Unfortunately the statements arrived the day before I went away to work, so for three months they sat at home while I toiled.

 

When I got back I totalled the charges up and using the spreadsheet and found NatWest had robbed me of £4591.

 

4th April - Premilinary Letter Sent to Borehamwood

 

I sent a very nice letter, stating I was claiming £4591 but was prepared to settle for £4100 as a 'gesture of goodwill on my part'. I knew they wouldn't go along with it but thought if I did end up in court I could show the judge I was trying to settle all the way through. Ignored basically. Didn't hear anything, I didn't chase them either - I thought the sooner I can get on to my LBA the better.

 

8th May - LBA sent to Borehamwood

 

Messed up my date calculations and basically gave them a week more than I wanted to. Anyway I sent the standard LBA from this forum. I told them I was now claiming the full amount. Giving them 14 days to reply. The letter was signed for on the 11th May.

 

24th May - Money Money Money

 

Right on schedule. All NatWest's charges are fair of course but as a gesture of goodwill they're are prepared to offer me a full and final settlement of this matter. No conditions, no secrecy, just send us a letter back saying you are prepared to accept the money. Lovely Jubbly

 

So huge thanks to all at CAG. And I'll be making a donation just as soon as the scoundrels give me my money.

 

Cheers

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's amazing news, well done.

 

From reading this forum, it seems as you are much more likely to get your money back (or a partial offer) if you persevere through Borehamwood?

 

I gave NatWest the absolute minimum time allowance before filing at MCOL, and I have had absolutely no correspondence on the subject from them, not even a partial offer, and am now waiting for a hearing date at my local court (for £2,600).

 

I'm starting to think I would have been better off waiting to see what Borehamwood's response was, despite the fact it takes them weeks to process your complaint.

 

Have I done the wrong thing by filing? With all the media coverage banks are getting re the Tom Brennan case and the Lloyd's win, maybe filing the claim was the wrong move to make, as I am now no longer dealing with Borehamwood, but with Cobbetts?

 

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

CONGRATULATIONS, another fine win. Don't forget to do the survey.http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/survey.php

Ps are devgirl and devboy related ?? :)

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's amazing news, well done.

 

From reading this forum, it seems as you are much more likely to get your money back (or a partial offer) if you persevere through Borehamwood?

 

I gave NatWest the absolute minimum time allowance before filing at MCOL, and I have had absolutely no correspondence on the subject from them, not even a partial offer, and am now waiting for a hearing date at my local court (for £2,600).

 

I'm starting to think I would have been better off waiting to see what Borehamwood's response was, despite the fact it takes them weeks to process your complaint.

 

Have I done the wrong thing by filing? With all the media coverage banks are getting re the Tom Brennan case and the Lloyd's win, maybe filing the claim was the wrong move to make, as I am now no longer dealing with Borehamwood, but with Cobbetts?

 

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

 

Stick with it Devgirl, obviously you are now on the MCOL path, but they WILL pay up. They might try and quote the Lloyds case but its not a precedent so don't let that frighten you.

 

I only gave Borehamwood the standard 14 days in my LBA and they paid after 13 so if you didn't have a response then what choice did you have but to file? If you allowed them to they'd drag it out until Christmas.

 

Remember its YOUR money. Don't think of it as claiming back your charges, think of it as making a withdrawal from your savings account!!!! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...