Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In answer to your questions yes even though it wasn't called that, it was the NTK. Had it been a windscreen ticket you would not have received the NTK until 28 days had elapsed. In earlier times if the warden was present then a windscreen ticket would have been issued. It nows seems that the DVLA and the Courts don't see a problem  with not issuing a ticket when a warden is on site. A period of parking must mean that ther e has to be a start time and a finish time in order for it to be considered a period. A single time does not constitute a period. I am not sure what you mean by saying it could be taken either way.  All they have mentioned is  the incident time which is insufficient. There are times on the photos about one minute apart which do not qualify as the parking period because they are not on the PCN itself. The reason I asked if the were any more photos is that you should be allowed 5 minutes Consideration period for you to read the signs and decide whether you want to accept them and you do that by staying longer than 5 minutes. if  more  do not have photos of your staying there for more than 5 minutes they are stuffed. You cannot say that you left within the 5 minute period if you didn't , but you can ask them, should it get to Court , to provide strict proof that you stayed longer than the statutory time. If they can't do that, case over.
    • I recently bought some trainers from Sports Direct and was unhappy with them and their extortionate delivery and return postage charges. I tweeted about being unhappy, and received a reply from someone claiming to be from Sports Direct asking me to send my order number and email address by pm, so a claim could be raised. Which I (stupidly) did. The account used Sports Direct's name and branding, and a blue tick.  The following day I received a call from "Sports Direct Customer Service", and with a Kenyan number. They asked for details of the issue, and then sent me an email with a request to install an app called Remitly. They provided me with a password to access the app then I saw that it had been setup for me to transfer £100, and I was asked to enter my credit card number so they could "refund" me. I told them I was uncomfortable with this (to say the least), and was just told to ring them back when I did feel comfortable doing it. Ain't never gonna happen.  I just checked my X account, and the account that sent the message asking for my details is gone. I feel like a complete idiot falling for what was a clear scam. But at least I realised before any real damage was done. if you make a complaint about a company on social media, and you get a reply from someone claiming to be from that company and asking for personal details, tread very carefully.   
    • The good news is that their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  Schedule 4.. First under Section 9 (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; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; The PCN does not specify the parking period. AS you rightly say the ANPR times do not include driving to the parking space and then from there back to the exit. And once you include getting children in and out of cars especially if seat belts are involved the time spent parked can be a fair bit less than the ANPR times but still probably nowhere near the time you spent. But that doesn't matter -it's the fact that they failed to comply. Also they failed to ask the keeper to pay the charge.  Their failure means that they cannot now transfer the charge from the diver to the keeper . Only the driver is now liable. As long as UKPA do not know who was driving it will be difficult for them to win in Court as the Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. Particularly as anyone can drive any car if they have the correct insurance. It might be able to get more reasons to contest the PCN if you could get some photos of the signs. both at the entrance and inside the car park. the photos need to be legible and if there are signs that say different things from others that would also be a help.
    • Farage rails and whines about not being allowed on the BBC ... ... but pulls out at the last minute of a BBC Panorama interview special. It was denied it was anything to do with his candidates being outed as misogynists and Putin apologists, or that farage was afraid Nick Robinson might throw some difficult questions at him ... despite farages recent practice at quickly cowering in fear.   It was claimed 'it wasn't in Nigels diary'     Nigel Farage pulls out of BBC interview at last minute amid Hitler row WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK ‘Panorama’ special postponed as Reform UK party faces row over candidate who claimed UK would have been ‘better off’ if it had...   Waaahhhh
    • i'd say put lowells to strict proof of where the payment came from. cant hurt to send SB letter, even if proved not. at least they get your correct address. they'd have to link the old IVA times scale to a payment  these IVA F&F pots (if thats where it came from) most mugs dont even know they are not only taking most of your payments on fees but also creaming money off to supposedly offer F&F's.  funny when the IVA fails or is complete these sums of money in F&F pots never get given back or even mentions... these IVA firm directors esp with regard to knightsbridge and creditfix were fined and struck off more times than Paul Burdell of Link Fame and still managed to continue to scam people.
  • 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 
        • 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

earac06 v abbey


earac06
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6166 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 all,

 

wow what a fantasic site and i can see the inspiration it is giving people to pursue the banks when normarily you would get scared off by the heavy handed tactics...... well done all involved.

 

My situation is this:- I have started an MCOL claim against abbey afetr the process of receiving my charges and then the 2 stansdard letters requesting a return of these. Abbey have acknowledged my claim but have until the 24th July (ish) to defend it. I have spoken to their various departments and been advised that Abbey HAVE to enter a defence to cover themselves against fraudulent claims if people are claiming for amounts that aren't lawfully correct etc. The South African lady i spoke to said once the defence is entered, and ONLY once the defence is entered i can ring up to request a settlement and start negotiations. They will offer between 40 - 75% of my claim (looks like 65% is the norm from reading on here!!) dependant on the circumstances. I can refuse this and request what i will settle for.

Has anyone tried this (am guessing thats a stupid question) and if so is this tact showing a success rate without the polarva of court bundles etc etc. I aim to threaten them with the extra 'abuse of system' charges to try and jolly them along into an early settlement............. else i am going to be asking for a lot of help from you kind people out there if it doesn't work with regard to court docs etc.

 

Thanks for reading and i appreciate any help............ and good luck in all of your claims

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the settlement offers, it seems to be a bit hit and miss, there is no real guidelines that the legal team go by. Some have offered to settle for 75% and got it others 80% but some have not even had replies back from the legal team. (guess it depends what mood they are in).

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the settlement offers, it seems to be a bit hit and miss, there is no real guidelines that the legal team go by. Some have offered to settle for 75% and got it others 80% but some have not even had replies back from the legal team. (guess it depends what mood they are in).

 

 

nothing like my IF experience, all be it a smaller claim, £600 next to this one of about £2,000. With IF I sent 2 letters, they RANG me up, offered me half, i declined and they staright away offered me full amount..... all on that 1 phone call, i got no where near to threatening court action

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am now 26 days into MCOL procedure, abbey have acknowledged my case but as yet haven't defended it. Are they likely too still?, and if at midnight in 2 days and they still haven't, can i request a judgement and that would be it all over?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ear,

 

there seems to be one rule for the banks, and one rule for us when it comes to dates. The courts are lenient and allow the banks to miss deadlines quite often, and then if you were to file for judgement, the banks appeal for it to be set aside...........................so don't build your hopes up too much.

 

having said all that............it can and does happen, so you might be one of the lucky ones

All advice offered here is my opinion only based on what I would do in a given situation. If you wish to act on it you do so at your own discretion

......................................................

I have no legal expertise or qualification, and give advice on the basis of my own experience and nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ear,

 

there seems to be one rule for the banks, and one rule for us when it comes to dates. The courts are lenient and allow the banks to miss deadlines quite often, and then if you were to file for judgement, the banks appeal for it to be set aside...........................so don't build your hopes up too much.

 

having said all that............it can and does happen, so you might be one of the lucky ones

 

 

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhhh

 

thanks Charley, but as predicted I got in from work and there is the abbey defence sitting on the mat with the same script as others have mentioned and the requisit 65% offer. I rang up the number on the letter and said i would settle for £1800 (claim is £1950, and there offer £1240). they refused that as did inga on an email. I have advised them i will not accept any further offers now and will be applying for 'abuse of system' charges in addition.

I don't see how they get away with this, as i a m now going to have spend lots of time and resources to prepare a court pack which will probably never be used as they will try to settle at the 24th hour as usual.

The impact on time at the courts must be colossal

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...