Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
    • Thank you for posting their WS. If we start with the actual WS made by the director one would have doubts that they had even read PoFA let alone understood it. Point 10  we only have the word of the director that the contract has been extended. I should have had the corroboration of the Client. Point 12 The Judge HHJ Simkiss was not the usual Judge on motoring cases and his decisions on the necessity of contracts did not align with PoFA. In Schedule 4 [1[ it is quite clearly spelt out- “relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—(a)the owner or occupier of the land; or (b authorised, under or  by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land; And the laughable piece of paper from the land owners cannot be described as a contract. I respectfully ask that the case be dismissed as there is no contract. WE do not even know what the parking regulations are which is really basic. It is respectfully asked that without a valid contract the case cannot continue. One would imagine that were there a valid contract it would have been produced.  So the contract that Bank has with the motorist must come from the landowner. Bank on their own cannot impose their own contract. How could a director of a parking company sign a Statement of Truth which included Point 11. Point 14. There is no offer of a contract at the entrance to the car park. Doubtful if it is even an offer to treat. The entrance sign sign does not comply with the IPC Code of Conduct nor is there any indication that ANPR cameras are in force. A major fault and breach of GDPR. Despite the lack of being offered a contract at the entrance [and how anyone could see what was offered by way of a contract in the car park is impossible owing to none of the signs in the WS being at all legible] payment was made for the car to park. A young person in the car made the payment. But before they did that, they helped an elderly lady to make her payment as she was having difficulty. After arranging payment for the lady the young lad made his payment right behind. Unfortunately he entered the old lady's number again rather than paying .for the car he was in. This can be confirmed by looking at the Allow List print out on page 25. The defendant's car arrived at 12.49 and at 12.51 and 12.52  there are two payments for the same vrm. This was also remarked on by the IPC adjudicator when the PCN was appealed.  So it is quite disgraceful that Bank have continued to pursue the Defendant knowing that it was a question of  entering the wrong vrm.  Point 21 The Defendant is not obliged to name the driver, they are only invited to do so under S9[2][e]. Also it is unreasonable to assume that the keeper is the driver. The Courts do not do that for good reason. The keeper in this case does not have a driving licence. Point 22. The Defendant DID make a further appeal which though it was also turned down their reply was very telling and should have led to the charge being dropped were the company not greedy and willing to pursue the Defendant regardless of the evidence they had in their own hands. Point 23 [111] it's a bit rich asking the Defendant to act justly and at proportionate cost while acting completely unjustly themselves and then adding an unlawful 70% on to the invoice. This  is despite PoFA S4[5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9[2][d].  Point 23 [1v] the Director can deny all he wants but the PCN does not comply with PoFA. S9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN only quotes the ANPR arrival and departure times which obviously includes a fair amount of driving between the two cameras. Plus the driver and passengers are a mixture of disabled and aged persons who require more time than just a young fit single driver to exit the car and later re enter. So the ANPR times cannot be the same as the required parking period as stipulated in the ACT. Moreover in S9[2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; You will note that in the PCN the words in parentheses are not included but at the start of Section 9 the word "must" is included. As there are two faults in the PCN it follows that Bank cannot pursue the keeper . And as the driver does not have a driving licence their case must fail on that alone. And that is not even taking into consideration that the payment was made. Point 23 [v] your company is wrong a payment was made. very difficult to prove a cash payment two weeks later when the PCN arrives. However the evidence was in your print out for anyone to see had they actually done due diligence prior to writing to the DVLA. Indeed as the Defendant had paid there was no reasonable cause to have applied for the keeper details. Point 24 the Defendant did not breach the contract. The PCN claimed the Defendant failed to make a payment when they had made a payment.   I haven't finished yet but that is something to start with
    • You don't appeal to anyone. You haven't' received a demand from a statutory body like the council, the police or the courts. It's just a dodgy cowboy company trying it on. You simply don't pay.  In the vast majority of these cases the company deforest the Amazon with threats about how they are going to divert a drone from Ukraine and make it land on your home - but in the end they do nothing.
  • 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

Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4793 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

sounds like demanding money with menaces or black mail. Take the letter to you local police station.

 

 

Who unfortunately will say that it is a civil matter then send you on your way.

 

Rstainthorpe - do they say 'will' or more likely 'may'? Fact is that you have received an invoice, not a legal fine or penalty. To get anywhere near a bailiff's visit they will have to:-

 

1. Issue a County Court claim (they won't)

2. Win the case (they won't)

3. Not receive payment of the Court Judgement (go back to Point 1)

 

You could write to them and argue, but this will mark you out as a player, so your best offer is to tough it out. You will get reminder letters, probably increasing the amount 'due', and containing more threats of Court action. The next stage will be letters from debt collectors making the same threats (just remember they can't blacklist you, or do any more than threaten), then they will probably offer you a discounted rate to settle before they are 'forced to take legal action'. Finally when they realise that it is actually costing them more than anything they could hop eto recover, they will disappear.

 

If at any time you need reassurance or help with something you are worried about, simply post back here.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I too have recieved a letter from them. However they say that a bailiff will come to my property for the monies.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

Will this happen or will they have to take me to court first?

 

No and yes.

 

I also do not want a CCJ issued against my name.

What are the legal technicalities of all of this?

 

You wont get a ccj against your name, it is all part of the bluff to frighten you into paying, don't fall for it.

 

I am totally disgusted that they do this, i am a single mother that was 11 minutes over the qualified time, and now they demand £120. I do not want to pay.

 

Simple, then don't.

 

Please advise.

 

OK, ignore all the free toilet paper the ppc will send you.

 

Thank you

regards

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having now read a great deal on this subject (thanks to sites like this) I feel so much more informed.

 

I am very aware of the tactic to ignore and not be seen as a 'player' ie someone who is prepared to engage and communicate, someone who is maybe worried, someone who is concerned - more importantly someone who is a potentially vulnerable and therefore a victim. I understand this, however there is a also a large school of thought out there which says do this but - and here is the point for discussion, send a first and only letter to them first setting out your store and position. This being an insurance policy which in the highly unlikely event of court proceedings will be looked on favourably by a magistrate.

 

Back to the floor - would appreciate the Experts Views. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

time and time again it has been proved that simply ignoring them works, why on earth would you even concider entering into dialogue with them. Would you reply to the many [problem] emails you get asking for your bank details so that they could send you £50,000 ??

The IGNORE route works the best , this is what the PPCs hate the most , this is why you get the PPC trolls on these forums telling you to appeal or pay up and appeal!

This is what the PPC would do to you if you sent in an appeal, all they are after is your money!

Edited by SURFBOY

hello all:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

??????????

 

quote

 

This being an insurance policy which in the highly unlikely event of court proceedings will be looked on favourably by a magistrate.

 

first what insurance and why would a Magistrate be looking @ it

 

if and when it actually went to court its a COUNTY COURT NOT A CRIMINAL ONE

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

. This being an insurance policy which in the highly unlikely event of court proceedings will be looked on favourably by a magistrate.

You are not required to respond to [problem] mail, and it would make no difference to a DJ if you did or not.

regards

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - sorry County Court.

 

So advice is not even one opening (back-off letter) simply silence?

 

A 'back-off' letter to you and me means exactly that, to a [EDIT] it's the biggest come on ever. You have confirmed your name and address and shown you might be pushed into paying if the threats get hard enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of attempted extortion is well out of hand. Should we all boycott all retailers where these cowboys operate the car parks and all spread the word to, say, 10 others? That would be a big loss of trade and might apply minds when renewal of contracts is considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree, highlighting to businesses Sharks that operate car parks that they rely on for their income is a good lobbying tactic and one which could yield a new type of pressure. Let's do it.

 

Still waiting to hear from someone who has been through the letters and threats and come out of the other side with a smile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of attempted extortion is well out of hand. Should we all boycott all retailers where these cowboys operate the car parks and all spread the word to, say, 10 others? That would be a big loss of trade and might apply minds when renewal of contracts is considered.

 

Yes I agree, highlighting to businesses Sharks that operate car parks that they rely on for their income is a good lobbying tactic and one which could yield a new type of pressure. Let's do it.

 

Still waiting to hear from someone who has been through the letters and threats and come out of the other side with a smile.

 

Unfortunately that is something that will never work in the UK. We seem to be a nation of whingers and do nothing. It was tried with petrol but motorists couldn't even be bothered to drive a few extra yards to boycott a certain filling station.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boycotting and more publicity seem to be the only way we can help prevent others getting conned; I expect the majority of people just pay up but we are talking (even at the reduced early payment rate) of half a pensioners weekly pension, which is appalling for an, often inadvertent, infringement of possibly only a few minutes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy to ignore the notice that we received today. My only worry is, the notice was issued against the company vehicle. So the notice was passed on by the finance department who have asked us to deal with it. Which is fine, but if i ignore it then they will just keep writing to head office. Who may decide to pay it and take it out of my husbands wages.

So, as much as i dont want to it sounds like i might have to write to them once, so that they write to us here rather than head office. Then i can ignore them. What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boycotting and more publicity seem to be the only way we can help prevent others getting conned; I expect the majority of people just pay up but we are talking (even at the reduced early payment rate) of half a pensioners weekly pension, which is appalling for an, often inadvertent, infringement of possibly only a few minutes!

 

There is an advert running at the moment for one of these comparison sites and it sums up the UK to a tee.

There is a girl on the phone agreeing to her car insurance quote and saying "I suppose I will have to pay it", but the phone is taking from her by some guy who says down the phone, "It's a hatchback not a limosine, you've got to be having a laugh".

 

The Uk people never puts up a fight, we just tend to lay back and accept it, and that is true in all walks of life.

 

We need a 'union' of the people to stop us being continually walked over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i got a response back from these F****** jokers!

They sent me a 'Cessation of Correspondance' basically meaning they are not going to be writing to me, rergarding this matter anymore...pay or else!!!

They put at the end of the letter..they will pass this over to a debt collector!!!

 

Whats now guys?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They put at the end of the letter..they will pass this over to a debt collector!!!

:eek::eek::eek:

Ahhhhhhhhh, not debt collectors? You mean people with absolutely no powers to do anything but send out silly letters some even in scary red ink?

Better pay up quick:grin:

regards

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. I have read through a lot of the posts but not all due to time constraints and the slowness of my computer, so hope I will be forgiven if the answer to my question is here somewhere. I have been sent the usual outrageous demand by CEL (parking in Budgens free car park for half and hour to take my elderly father in law shopping - they say I was in the access road - they cannot possibly have the evidence of this that they say they do as I was wholly within the carpark.) My question is simply has anyone ever, whether they wrote back to dispute or simply ignored all correspondence, been summonsed to court or had a debt collector turn up on the doorstep? I live with a learning disabled brother who is very suggestible and I am worried that if I just let things take their course that he will let someone in. (He has form for this as I once came home to find an enormous hole in the front garden dug up by BT with his "permission.) Many thanks for any help.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4793 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...