Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

Cobbets Stay requests


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6078 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

Hello all

I have been patiently reading many mails and taking advice from the many blogs on this site.

I followed every step of the way untill I turned up to Weston Super Mare court this afternoon to find Cobbets had steamrolled over my hearing with a "stay".

I have no idea what this is and have had no formall notification from Cobbets. I was told there is nothing i can do untill 28 days after the oft hearing.

 

What to do??:?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the site.

It is extremely important that you fully understand the way forward from here.

There is detailed guidance and info on how to object to the stay by making an application to have it overturned.

I urge you and anyone else with hearings due soon to be fully read up on this.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They did the same to me. Today I received a copy of their "stay" letter to the court. My prelim hearing is at 2pm tomorrow.

 

I managed to cobble together a rebuttal to their request and managed to fax it to the court. I'm going to give them a bell tomorrow to see if a decision has been made. Little Bar-Stewards those Cobbetts gits leaving it to the last minute like this. I'll just bet they were hoping for a delay in the post so I wouldn't have received the letter in time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best of luck Kurt - I hope you get a positive response tomorrow! And fingers crossed that the hearing goes ahead and isn't stayed! x:)

Can't find what you're looking for? Please have a look at Michael Browne's

A-Z Guide

*** PLEASE NOTE ***

I do not answer queries via PM. If you send me a PM, please include a link to your thread - any advice I am able to offer will be on your thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the bastards got in before I could do anything about it. I received this in the post this morning :(

 

 

IN STOCKPORT COUNTY COURT

 

CLAIM NUMBER 7SK*****

 

Kurt Hamster -V- The Royal Bank Of Scotland

 

REF. R.IM/RR1362.****

 

Before District Judge Clegg

 

Sitting at Stockport County Court, 6th Floor Heron House, Wellington Street, Stockport

 

On Wednesday 15th August 2007

 

Upon proceedings having been started in the Commercial Court, London, on 27th July 2007 reference number 2007 Folio 1186 pursuant to agreements made between several of the major banks and the Office of Fair Trading ("The Proceedings")

 

And Upon reading the papers in the present action

 

And Upon it appearing that the issues raised in the present action are the same or similar to some or all of those raised in the Proceedings

 

And Upon it appearing to the Court to be just to stay the present action until the outcome of the Proceedings is known

 

It is ordered that:-

1.The claim be stayed forthwith pending the ultimate determination of the Proceedings

2.The hearing date fixed for Thursday 16th August 2007 at 2:00pm be vacated

3.Permission to either party to apply on notice to lift the stay in accordance with CPR 1998 Part 23.

4.The stay be without prejudice to any negotiation between the parties to settle the action

5.Unless the Court has given directions in the meantime, the defendant shall within 28 days of the final determination of the Proceedings apply on notice for directions.

 

Note: further information in relation to the test case is likely to be available through the website of the

Office of Fair Trading at:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource base/market-studies/personal2

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Well in response to Cobbetts' stay request I put in an application for removal of stay. As recommended (and because I'm skint) I ticked the no hearing necessary box. It now seems that one of the Judges has overridden that and has convened a hearing on the 21st of September.

 

Any recommendations as to a preferred mini-bundle?

 

As it happens RBS have just today sent me a letter threatening to lodge a default against me, this Hamster is thinking that perhaps this may help in the strengthening the case for either drop the stay or drop the charges whilst it's sorted.

 

Gotta love these buggers, charge you illegally, when you complain they stop you complaining, when you can't pay because they owe you the money they throw a default at you. Is it me or is this a case of playing dirty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...