Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
By lookinforinfo · Posted
They are absolute chuckleheads. You paid but because you entered a different car park site also belonging to them they are pursuing you despite them knowing what you had done. It would be very obvious to everyone, including Alliance that your car could not have been in two places at the same time. Thank you for posting the PCN so quickly making it a pity that you appealed since there are so many things wrong with it that you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. They rarely accept appeals since that would mean they lose money but they have virtually no chance of beating you in Court. Very unlikely that they will take you to Court given the circumstances. Just in case you didn't out yourself as the driver could you please post up your appeal. -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
Jasowter I hope that common sense prevails with Iceland and the whole matter can be successfully ended. I would perhaps not have used a spell checker just to prove the dyslexia 🙂 though it may have made it more difficult to read. I noticed that you haven't uploaded the original PCN .Might not be necessary if the nes from Iceland is good. Otherwise perhaps you could get your son to do it by following the upload instructions so that we can appeal again with the extra ammunition provided by the PCN. Most of them rarely manage to get the wording right which means that you as the keeper are not liable to pay the charge-only the driver is and they do not know the name and address of the driver. So that would put you both in the clear if the PCN is non compliant. -
Thank you so much. Yes, I wish I had done my research and not paid. It's all for the same car park. Here is one of the original PCNs, they are all the same bar different dates. PCN-22.03.24-1.pdf PCN-22.03.24-2.pdf -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
Hi Clou, Welcome to the Forum and thank you for reading first before you posted. There seems to be many problems with Cornwall and getting a signal to use your a phone which could be why these parking companies don't use alternatives. It is a shame you paid the first one as you would probably have not had to pay that one either. Was the car park at which you paid the same parking company as the one sending you these PCNs? On the subject of PCNs could you please post them up so we can see if they comply with the Act. -
1 Date of the infringement 16th March 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 22nd March [scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'s 3 Date received unsure 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] UNSURE 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed? [Y] post up your appeal] Yes. Stated incorrect location was used in JustPark app as honest mistake. Rejected of course. Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Yes, rejected: Site: Sea View Car Park, PL27 6SR Date of Event: 16th March 2024 We are in receipt of your challenge in relation to the above Parking Charge. Appeals must be handled in a fair and consistent manner, therefore, in order for us to cancel any Parking Charge; it is necessary for us to find that the Notice was issued in error. As per the clear and prominent signage at this location ('The Contract'), drivers agree to pay the sum of £100 if 'A valid ticket is not displayed face-up on the dashboard; enabling all of the printed information to be inspected'. 'The Contract' also details that there is an exception for those with a valid mobile session in place. Had the driver felt that the terms of the contract were unacceptable, they had the option to seek alternative parking. By remaining, the driver is deemed in law to be bound by the terms of 'The Contract'. Our photographic evidence confirms that a valid ticket was not displayed, and a search of our records confirms that no mobile session was in place for the registration XXXX at this location; therefore, your appeal is declined. We note that you have submitted evidence of payment; however, said payment is not for this location. It may be the case that you feel that the charge is unfair; however, there is no legal basis to now reject a charge that the driver has already agreed to pay. In light of the above, the sum £100.00 is payable by 21/05/2024 or £170 thereafter. Our internal appeals procedure is now exhausted, our decision is final; therefore no further correspondence other than payment will be addressed or responded to. Should you disagree with our decision, you may submit an appeal to 'The Independent Appeals Service'; full details are on the rear of this letter. 7 Who is the parking company? Alliance Parking LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Sea View Car park, Polzeath, Cornwall For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IAS Hi there, thanks in advance for any help on this. Had 3 'PCNs' in post from Alliance for parking 3 times over a period of two weeks, unfortunately we were away from home so letters must have come over the two weeks but we received all at once if that makes sense. I realised I had used the wrong location on the car park app. The signs are not clear what the location is called (no code.) I only had receipts for two instances so I assume the first it didn't go through as had terrible signal. Paid £60 for one of the fines. Appealed the others saying it was an honest mistake and not very good signage (unfortunately submitted on their website and have no evidence of my appeal.) received the rejection of appeal as above. Have now received the attached letter of claim. I have done some research for the amazing snotty letters but wonder if someone could kindly help me with writing one specific to my case? Thank you so very much in advance. LOC-alliance-1.pdf Apologies, 2nd page of LOC here. LOC-alliance-2.pdf
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 6141 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts