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 
      • 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

Rhibox v Barclays


Rhibox
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5870 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!

I'm a little confused......

had a letter from my local court today 'general form of judgement or order' stating...

before district judge ...... sitting at Carmarthen County Court etc

Upon neither party attending it is ordered that the matter be transferred to Cardiff County Court. Dated 05/07/07.

And ...

'Notice of transfer of Proceedings'

stating...

as a result of an order made on 05/07/07 this claim has been transferred to The cardiff County Court.

 

Why? I have had nothing from them since the first transfer of proceedings dated 02/07/07 with defence from B's stating it was being transferred to my local county court (Carmarthen) and whats this about neither party attending? I didnt know about it!!

Anyone know whats going on please?

Barclays - claiming £2710!

Offered £2030! Offer rejected, filed MCOL 21/05/07!

Abbey - Settled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So... same as then, just wait for a court date, yeah?

Oooh it got me a little rattled then I must say!!!

Cheers Saint!

Barclays - claiming £2710!

Offered £2030! Offer rejected, filed MCOL 21/05/07!

Abbey - Settled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Ok a little confused...

received a court date for Nov 14th and thought, 'thats ok a few months more, a bit more interest and hey give B's a ring and they will settle full amount as I have done this by the book'!

Now what the h£ll is going on...

1. Does this test case mean that I will have to go to court (which i'm well up for now as this has been going on far too long)?

2. Will my court case be adjourned/stayed (whatever) untill this testcase is finished?

I have been reading around on here and cant seem to find these answers, sorry guys if these questions have been answered.

Barclays - claiming £2710!

Offered £2030! Offer rejected, filed MCOL 21/05/07!

Abbey - Settled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi the advice is to carry on with your case as if the OFT case wasnt going .... ie do everything that yopu are supposed to to meet the directions given to you by the courts

 

At the moment there is work in place to produce documentation against the request from any stays that the banks ask for. All the courts at the moment are saying that its bussiness as usual

 

Hope this has helped

Saint :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody settled full amount prior to going to court since the Test case has been announced? or have the banks stopped doing this?

Barclays - claiming £2710!

Offered £2030! Offer rejected, filed MCOL 21/05/07!

Abbey - Settled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was one that I know of [Abbey I think] the claimant turned up at court with it..... but then it is early days yet, the settlement may have been authorised just prior to the announcement.

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah will have to wait and see how this all pans out to see how it affects all of us awaiting to go to court!

Cheers Dar!

Barclays - claiming £2710!

Offered £2030! Offer rejected, filed MCOL 21/05/07!

Abbey - Settled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Had a letter this morning 'staying' my court case.

What can I do what are my options?

Havent had much chance recently to read uo on all this!

Thanks

Rhi

Barclays - claiming £2710!

Offered £2030! Offer rejected, filed MCOL 21/05/07!

Abbey - Settled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

morning Rhi...what court are you in?

 

Is the letter from Barclays or the court?

If it is from the court does it inform you that you do not need to attend?

 

you can request the stay to be lifted but this all depends on how independant the judge is, or if he/she is under the thumb like most of them.

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Dar!

Cardiff court and its from the court, but the letters at home will check tonight and post.

Cheers

Rhi

Barclays - claiming £2710!

Offered £2030! Offer rejected, filed MCOL 21/05/07!

Abbey - Settled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter is

 

General Form of Judgement or Order

Before his honour judge etc etc.... upon neither party attending UPON READING the file AND UPON IT APPREARING THAT the issues in this case are to be considered in litigation currently before the Commercial Court (2007 Folio 1196)

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The claim be stayed with immediate effect pending the ultimate determination of the Commercial Court litigation.

23. Permission to apply to lift the stay. Any application shal (i) be made on notice to all othe rparties, (ii) include reasons why this claim should proceed before the ultimate determination of the Commercial Court litigatin and (iii) shall be reserved to the designated civil judge (unless specifically relaesed by him)

 

3. Unless the court has given directions in the meantime, the defendant shall, upon notice to the claimant, apply for directions within 3 months of the ultimate determination of the Commercial court litigation.

 

4. The hearing listed for the 14th November 2007 has been vacated.

Barclays - claiming £2710!

Offered £2030! Offer rejected, filed MCOL 21/05/07!

Abbey - Settled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

After all the fuss of the OFT case I have to admit I left this on a back burner, I'm waiting for the OFT case to go through, is this the right thing to do?

Anyone else doing this?

Barclays - claiming £2710!

Offered £2030! Offer rejected, filed MCOL 21/05/07!

Abbey - Settled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some have put in an application for the stay to be lifted ....... however successes with this are few and far between with most judges being unwilling to overturn the stay.

 

So yes at the moment you join the long list of people who are waiting for the outcome of the OFT case

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hey guys!!!

Only just come back on here after a long time not thinking about this... any developements??? Havent heard anything, so I'm gonna start reading some threads now!!

Barclays - claiming £2710!

Offered £2030! Offer rejected, filed MCOL 21/05/07!

Abbey - Settled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rhi!

I'm in (and I'm sure others) in the same boat, the bug**rs like to keep us waiting!!!;)

Slick said on my thread to Koala, to have a look and get re-aquainted with the court bundle just incase we need to use it! I mean we probably won't but it doesn't hurt to be prepared!:)

Tori:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Can someone clarify something for me please....

The longer this text case goes on the less charges I will get back (if it goes in our favour) as I can only go back 6 years! Or am I way out here??

Barclays - claiming £2710!

Offered £2030! Offer rejected, filed MCOL 21/05/07!

Abbey - Settled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Barclays - claiming £2710!

Offered £2030! Offer rejected, filed MCOL 21/05/07!

Abbey - Settled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5870 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...