Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
By honeybee13 · Posted
Please do, we'd like to hear how you get on. Or you can pop back if you have queries once the police correspondence arrives. HB -
I really appreciate the help, I’ll be sure to report back with the outcome once it’s all dealt with -
By Man in the middle · Posted
Correct. You must confirm you were he driver and then the police will make whatever offer they decide. It should be a course as they are normally offered up to (and including) 53mph in a 40mph limit. The main thing is that you need to ensure this is dealt with as a "straightforward" matter with no hitches. The first job is to make sure you get your own NIP/request for driver's details, complete it properly and sign it. -
Here it is!! no ws recieved from them as yet but will speak to mum in a couple of hours to get an update Screenshot_20240703_150154_WhatsApp.pdf -
My apologies Dave you are correct! I think I'm losing the plot as im aging 😔 Here is a draft what do you guys think?? 1. I requested a Subject Access Request from the Defendant on 3 July (exhibit 2). 2. I am totally bemused as to why, in para 10 of the defence, the Defendant's solicitor, Ms Leonard, thinks I do not have the right to make a SAR. 3. I had in fact made a request for disclosure under CPR XXX (exhibit 3) which was also ignored by the Defendant, so I sent a SAR. 4. The Defendant's solicitor, Ms Leonard, quite rightly, in para 7 of the defence, puts me to strict proof of posting of the SAR on 3 July. I do so by attaching the proof of posting (exhibit 2). 5. I received no reply by the deadline of one calendar month. However, I did not rush to court. I complained to the ICO. I also gave the Defendant "de facto" an extra 14 days to satisfy the SAR when I sent a Letter of Claim on 3 August (Exhibit 3). I once again attach proof of posting because Ms Leonard has, completely understandably, underlined the importance of such proof (exhibit 4). 6. Nowhere in Ms Leonard's fantasy timeline where Parking Eye Ltd did everything by the book does she even mention that I sent the company a Letter of Claim. 7. There was no reply to my Letter of Claim by 17 August so on 18 August I issued a county court claim. 8. Shortly after filing the claim, the Defendants paperwork arrived but after both the original calendar month and the 14 extra days stated in my Letter of Claim had expired. 9. Ms Leonard claims that Parking Eye Ltd sent the SAR response on 4 August. It doesnt normally take 14 days for post to arrive. She put me to strict proof of posting so I put her to the same test. She, quite rightly, insists that the other party in litigation can prove posting, so I request the same. 10. What is likely to have really happened is the following : The Defendant's business consists of sending a series of threatening letters at different time intervals to motorists who do not pay them. In this repetitive work a SAR or a Letter of Claim will have been ignored. At the last minute someone will have realised the importance of a Letter of Claim and will have sent out the SAR with an invented date of 4 August and will have "forgotten" to obtain proof of postage. 11. Failure to disclose data in breach of a statutory deadline. Under Article 12 GDPR, a data controller must respond to a SAR “without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request.” Thank you all so kindly for putting up with me ❤️
-
-
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
-
-
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 5445 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