Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No, do the section 75 chargeback to your credit card provider.
    • See what dx thinks but it seems to me that sending a photo of your own pass isn't relevant to what happened. Let's wait and see what he says. HB
    • 1st letter image.pdf1st letter 2nd page.pdf
    • Many thanks for the replies and advice!   I what to send this email to the Starbucks CEO and the area manager. Your thoughts would be appreciated.   [email protected] [email protected]   Re: MET Parking PNC at your Starbucks Southgate site   Dear Ms Rayner, / Dear Heather Christie,   I have received a Notice to Keeper regarding a Parking Charge Notice of £100 for the driver parking in the Southgate Park Car Park, otherwise infamously known as the Stanstead Starbucks/McDonalds car park(s).   Issued by: MET Parking Services Ltd Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXX Vehicle Registration Number: XXXX XXX Date of Contravention: XX.XX.XXXX Time: XX:XX - XX:XX   After a little research it apears that the driver is not alone in being caught in what is commonly described as a scam, and has featured in the national press and on the mainstream television.   It is a shame that the reputation of Starbucks is being tarnished by this, with your customers leaving the lowest possible reviews on Trustpilot and Trip Advisor at this location, and to be associated with what on the face of it appears to be a doubious and predatory car park management company.   In this instance, during the early hours of the morning the driver required a coffee and parked up outside Starbucks with the intention of purchasing one from yourselves. Unfortunately, you were closed so the driver walked to McDonalds next door and ordered a coffee, and for this I have received the Notice to Keeper.   It is claimed that the car park is two separate car parks (Starbucks/McDonalds). However, there is no barrier or road markings to identity a boundary, and the signage in the car park(s) and outside your property is ambiguous, as such the terms would most likely be deemed unfair and unenforcable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   I understand that Starbucks-Euro Garages neither operate or benefit from the charges imposed by MET Parking. However, MET Parking is your client.   Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.   However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   As the driver’s intention of the visit was genuine, I would be grateful if you could please instruct your client to cancel this Notice to Keeper/Parking Charge Notice.   Kind regards
    • I received the promised call back from the Saga man today who informed me that the undertakers have decreed it IS a modification and they will need to recalculate a quote individually for me. However it all sounds very arbitrary. The more I think about it, and with help from forum replies, the more I am sure that it is not a modification. If for example the original seatback had become damaged by a spillage or a tear, I would be entitled to replace it with the nearest available part. The problem is when it comes to a payout after an accident, there is no telling what an individual insurer will decide when he notices the change. I am still undecided which of the two best routes to go with, either don't mention the replacement at all, or fill in the quote form without mentioning, and when it comes to buying the insurance over the phone, mention it at the time.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6159 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 had trouble paying my council tax bill and got behind on payments last year, the council sent it to Equita. This year i missed 1 payment and they sent it to Equita.

 

I contacted Equita and one of the bailiffs' came down and made a verbal arrangement with me, he said that once he got back to the office he would authorise it. I did hear from him for a while, so i contacted him again and his reply was "if you havent got the paperwork, then you cant pay it!". I was shocked.

 

I left it for a few days and then contacted him again, this time he told me that my case had been passed onto another bailiff, and to contact the office and they would give me the details.

 

I did exactly what he said and contacted the office and then contacted the new bailiff. I explained that i had made a verbal agreement with the previous bailiff. He said he would look into it and contact me.

 

I waited by no phone call, i left several messages but still nothing, i contacted the office but they couldnt discuss anything!!!

 

I was told that i could claim council tax benefit, so i did and asked for it to be backdated.

 

1 1/2 months later i was told that my benefit claim had been accepted and it would be backdated.

 

I tried to confirm this with the bailiff office but they said that they had no contact with the council regarding this. I phoned the council and they said all the information had been passed to the bailiffs and my council tax arrears have been cleared.

 

Today, whilst i was out i had a visit from the bailiff, demanding £230. The original amount was £45.14, which i had confirmed from the council this morning.

 

The bailiff refuses to listen to me and wants me to pay in full, which is impossible. I asked him if we could make an arrangement over the phone, he said no. He would need to levy my goods first. I said that i wouldnt let him in the house, this is when he refused to talk to me and terminated the phone call.

 

I am really stressed out with this and need some advice. I have a car parked on my drive, would he need to levy that first or could he just clamp it and tow it away, when he nexts pays me a visit, or shall i say when i next pay him to pay me a visit.

 

Please help any information would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Park the car away from the house is my first thought.

 

Not sure if it's of use but when we had problems with council tax and waited 18 months for a benefit claim we finally got our MP involved and it was sorted out really quickly. MP's can question the actions of local government officers.

 

Hopefully someone with a bit more knowledge about bailiffs will help you further.

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

if i understand correctly you say that after you found you were granted council tax benefits that the council had confirmed that the debt had been cleared. If that is correct then surely there is nothing for equita to collect. The only thing as i understand it that you would be liable for is any costs they incurred up to the point that the debt was cleared. these charges a laid down by the and they cannot charge above these fees. they can charge for maximum 2 visist £22.50 for the first and £18.5 for the second and thats all. they may also be able to charge a nominal amount for correspondence sent. If they try and charges you for the attendance of a van, they cannot do this unless they have levied goods,

Firstly if a bailiff calls do not let him in. keep all doors and windows shut. Ask to see a current certificate issued by the courts to check he is registered to collect such liabilities, also ask for id to make sure he is who he says. tell him the charges are in dispute and you will deal directly with the council until they (equita) validate their charges. do not pay them anything until the charges are validated

write to equita and ask them for a detailed breakdown of charges giving dates and times and details of things for which they are trying to charge.tell there are some template letters in the stick

Write to the council and advise them of your issues with equita complaining about teh charges they have levied. ask themto confirm that the debt is cleared.

they tried to charge me £300 above my council tax debt, i paid the council directly, challenged the charges and got them down to £41 thanks to great advice from this site and its members.

if i have made any incorrect statements i am sure some one better advised will correct me

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the advice, i have moved the car away, and decided that i will pay the original charge of £45.14, by visiting their office in town and they can shove their charges were the sun dont shine.

 

The council explained that the council tax has been cleared and that the £45.14 is court costs etc???? They cleared the outstanding council tax but not the court costs!!!!

 

The bailiff said that even though the amount outstanding has been reduced by the council, they are still gonna charge me for all charges since they have been handling the account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yeah i forgot to mention, i have only received one letter, which i acted upon as a matter of urgency, so i dont know what happened to the rest, maybe the staff at royal mail took them!!!

 

According to them they have written me several letters???!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

if there are court costs then i would have thought these too could be paid directly to the council as these are the costs they themselves incurred ? not sure but worth checking, so speak to the council again.

from what you have said they should only be able to charge you for one visit, and one letter. So write to equita and dispute their charges, ask them for a detailed breakdown of these charges, then you will be able to challenge these costs and pay only what they are legally entitled to charge. You can check their breakdown against info on national debtline. If the bailiff calls again tell him the same.

If they dont give you this information then send them an SAR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...