Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

silverfox1961

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,068

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

 Content Type 

Everything posted by silverfox1961

  1. silverfox1961
    Hi and welcome to CAG. You don't seem to be grasping the main point (in my opinion). While what you did was wrong and you got caught; the police were not involved so that should have been the end of it. There was no loss to Waitrose as they got the goods back. There are certain circumstances where the store could make a claim against you. If a member of the store staff (NOT security staff) was diverted from their usual job, that time could be claimed for. This could mean that someone on the till has had to assist in apprehending a shoplifter. This very rarely happens. Security staff are paid irrespective of whether they catch anyone or not. The time taken to process a shoplifter cannot be counted as being diverted from their usual task. RLP can be a right pain with their letters as they include certain words that make people feel they have more power than they really have whereas if the letter was read again and again, certain things point the letters out to be misleading. A lot of 'May', 'Could', 'Recommend' are included but in a way they become 'Will'. RLP can send up to six letters in the first instance then may pass the 'charge' on to a debt collector. When you realise that RLP have no power over you then a debt collector has even less. It has been known that RLP will go quiet for a couple of years then all of a sudden start again but if you treat them with the contempt they deserve you will see that it is just a game. If you need more reassurance, just ask.
  2. silverfox1961
    The Beavis case is vastly different to other cases. In that case, Parking Eye paid the landowner to monitor the site so it was decided that they were in the right to charge the amounts on the PCN. Other cases differ. On most sites, the parking company haven't paid for the same privilege so it can't use Beavis as it is of no relevence but the parking companies don't want you to know this. They prey on the general ignorance of the law.
  3. silverfox1961
    As far as I can remember, cases such as this (Mainly at JLA) court papers were issued but when it came to the date to attend court, VCS discontinue as they know they would likely lose. The only times VCS could win is if no-one defended the case and they got a default judgement. This is what VCS hope for. They don't like defended court cases.
  4. silverfox1961
    Assuming they are following the general guidelines from the Information Commissioner, they hold the data for as long as there is a reason to do so. In reality, RLP will give up the chasing eventually so that is the time they 'should' delete the data but I bet they won't. In general, this could be up to six years. The implications for you? None whatsoever. They cannot divulge any data to anyone (the police being the exception) without your permission. This database is not open to the general public to view either so nobody will know what happened. In other words, DX's post says it all.
  5. silverfox1961
    Ooh! an awfully powerful debt collection agency--NOT! You are correct to place in the relevant pile. Later on you can cut them into squares and use them for the purpose they were intended for
  6. silverfox1961
    Can anyone imagine what it would be like packaging goods in a garage! All pharma companies work in sterile environments and with blood products, even more so to avoid cross contamination. How big were the flasks? Enough for a cup of tea? "Would you like a drink?" [pours out flask] "Oops, wrong flask. Let's just pour it back!"
  7. silverfox1961
    On the question of regulation, this may be useful for communal living http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/3120/pdfs/uksi_20143120_en.pdf Notice how it only goes on about heating and not electricity usage. Our council thought ahead and introduced electricity meters to stop people 'gaming' the system. If electricity usage was continued on a shared basis, someone could turn off the charged for heating and used fan heaters for heat. Perfectly responsible IMO
  8. silverfox1961
    We used to have a gas boiler but this was replaced with five ASPH which distribute to the whole scheme. If I had the choice, I would have gone for a ground sourced heat pump, preferably one per household but again, we had no choice. The system does work fine but in extreme weather like last year the system struggled to cope and the heating in the communal areas (corridors, communal lounge) had to be turned off. Before we had it fitted, the council came out and explained that we would save money but having the system installed but of course we are yet to see that. There is also the question of the Renewable Heat Incentive. Whilst we are waiting for the system of billing to work, the council can't reclaim the RHI nor have the council said that they will pass on a portion of the RHI to the residents. The system must have cost the council thousands but this outlay was supposed to be offset by the RHI but as mentioned, nothing is happening.
  9. silverfox1961
    Think yourselves lucky. I had no choice in the matter. I live in supported housing and thanks to the EU and one of their directives that where people living in a communal setting who share equally the cost of heating and electricity, they now have to be responsible for their individual use. We all had new fuse boxes with a smart meter built in but hardwired to a router so that individual use could be electronically monitored. We also had an air sourced heat pump fitted so we needed a heat meter fitted too. All well and good!? This was three years ago and the system hasn't worked properly since the beginning. Smart meters failed, heat valves sticking open/closed. We have yet to have a full year of readings so that individual usage can be assessed before billing. Progress!!!
  10. silverfox1961
    Record them! Tell them you are doing so but as it is your home, you don't have to tell them anything. If the police 'want' or 'need' to visit rather than 'ask' if they may visit you, I would be wary. Some police ( but certainly not all) use this tactic to avoid the need to get a search warrant. If you are suspected of committing a crime, demand they arrest you and take you to a police station. If you have witnessed a crime, make sure the questioning is not of the sort that could incriminate you. They may not be there to be convenient to you but as a tool to look around to see if there is something visible that could have been 'obtained' or 'used' in a criminal act. I'm not against the police in any way but I have met a few that have their own agenda. To catch you out. If in doubt, would ring back and state that you would prefer a meeting at the police station.
  11. silverfox1961
    I don't think that 'Big Pharma' hold back drugs that are cheaper. When they develop a new drug they have the patent on that drug for x amount of years. This allows them to recoup the vast amount of costs involved but some companies then change the formulation of the drug in an attempt to get the patent extended meaning more money for them. They do license other companies to produce the drug but they don't make that much profit. One example is a drug I am on, Adulimimab. This has been modified twice since it was first introduced and each time they have obtained a new patent. At over £300 per injection, it is worth it for them. I did a bit of reading on David Noakes and what I found wasn't that impressive. I can't see the court case raising anything new here but I know that when the case is finished the CT's will state that they are all in it together and they could never get a fair hearing.
  12. silverfox1961
    When I first started reading this thread my immediate thought was, "Oh no! TawnyOwl has been nobbled by a conspiracy theory." Glad to see that this isn't the case but it reminds me of Andrew Wakefield who claimed that the MMR vaccines caused Autism. As soon as I saw the claim this GcMAF cured Autism, I knew it was snake oil. These pop up every now and then and while I confess to having no knowledge of GcMAF it would be worth the wait to see what happens on Monday.
  13. silverfox1961
    Hi we seem to be deviating from the main point. It is your contention that this is not your debt. Have you ever had a VF account? If not then Vodafone-not Lowell could end up in trouble VF are very strict on releasing data and I'm afraid an old council tax bill won't be enough. For them to release data they will want proof of ID, proof of address and an old utility bill as well as a new one (this helps confirm how long you have been at the address) If you fail on any point they could rightfully refuse but on the other hand, if you did provide proof and they still refused by saying you had supplied incorrect proof then that starts the ball rolling on getting VF to acknowledge they have the wrong person. Once it is confirmed they have the wrong person, they are then open to a claim for accessing personal data without good reason. They are obliged to get their facts right before a debt sale unless Lowell have done the search and got it wrong. As for Lowell, they didn't place the default, VF did and when it was sold to Lowell, they just replaced the VF name with their own (which is legal as they now own the debt) If you are 100% this is not your debt, you should write to Lowell (never ring them unless you can record the call) telling them that this is not your debt. As mentioned above, if it is Lowell that have searched to Credit Reference Agency files and got the wrong person, they are open to a claim.
  14. silverfox1961
    I am a little confused. In your initial post you state there was an attendant issuing the tickets yet you have shown images of pay machines. Were they not working on the date you parked? Is this attendant there every day? I noticed from the images of the NTK that they didn't show your complete dashboard showing the flipped ticket. Are they on the website?
  15. silverfox1961
    I feel that is the best you are likely to get. If they refused any more than that and you felt you should go to court, any reasonable judge would slap you down for £2.50. Others have had a hard time getting payment from P2G so yours is the exception. Accept and move in (in my opinion)
  16. silverfox1961
    What have they offered?
  17. silverfox1961
    Not often I get to say this nowadays but IF a doorstep collection agent calls, point at your doorstep and say 'Help Yourself' Seriously though. Add this letter to your ever growing pile. It means nothing.
  18. silverfox1961
    What a pathetic NTK! It firstly states that no ticket was issued at the time but in the next paragraph goes on to state that at the date of the notice, no payment has been received?? I also cannot see any mention of PoFA on the letter so they cannot go after the keeper. what they will do is assume the driver was also the keeper and go from there. They cannot state that after 28 days they will go after the keeper. Personally, I would ignore them until/unless a Letter Before Action is received.
  19. silverfox1961
    When you say 'Your Deeds', is that leasehold? You cannot breach a contract where no contract was offered. The signs are prohibitory in nature. Your paperwork states that you have the right to park. This was before MB took over so unless you have agreed to let MB manage the car park, the rules cannot apply to you. Primacy of Contract. My opinion anyway. Oh yes, the sign is non compliant either as they don't give a physical address. PO boxes are not good enough. Having looked on Google Spy on My Street I assume the land in question is this: http://tinyurl.com/y7d2qgut
  20. silverfox1961
    Hi I have to agree with Bankfodder here. I will be surprised if P2G actually pay out your losses without a fuss. They try to wriggle out of their obligation by stating that the item(s) are on their prohibited list which contains virtually everything known to them. As for the Post Office, they did try the protected route a while back with a couple of cases where the customer paid extra for a better service and the parcels were lost. The courts found otherwise and forced Royal Mail to cough up. I have personal issues with the PO. They lost Recorded Delivery letter (now called Signed For) and sent me a book of six stamps to cover my loss. I wrote back to them disputing this but using one of the stamps from the book of six. They sent me a cheque for around seven quid.
  21. silverfox1961
    Hi I have struggled to find out whether these cases are classed as ANPR. As no windscreen tickets were issued and only photo's taken this would generally fall under ANPR however, there are no ANPR cameras on the site so is it a 'Notice to Driver' or a 'Notice to Keeper'?? Even though they are sending a NTK, I can't see how it could be classed as such. It should be a NTD but as they are not issuing tickets, it leaves me with the conundrum. I would think that POPLA should have some data about that somewhere We do need to see the NTK (suitably redacted) and an answer to the link above. I would do it for the latest one. Which company?
  22. silverfox1961
    I have seen signs saying 'Merge in Turn' regularly. It's an advisory notice only. You don't seem to have much luck with cars do you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand that if the FiL was overtaking, the damage would be on the passengers side and not the drivers side (as I assume this is the case). I wouldn't accept a 50/50 as it was the other drivers fault and my suspicion that he didn't like to follow a caravan.
  23. silverfox1961
    yes please. It's easier for us to track your thread than read about your case on someone else's thread
  24. silverfox1961
    Whilst this thread is not related to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?487017-Liverpool-Airport-Stopping-Charge&p=5118468&viewfull=1#post5118468 it does show what VCS are like and although a different area, the principle is the same with your case.
  25. silverfox1961
    Hi and welcome to CAG. HX are members of the IPC and as such couldn't care less what you said as they are only after the money. Equally, the IAS are only interested in their members so very rarely do they uphold an appeal. I hope you kept the ticket showing you paid. The only way for HX to get you to pay is to take court action and I feel that the circumstances here, any judge in their right mind would throw this out. The ticket was issued by an attendant therefore you must have paid. The ticket flipping over is a minor issue and should be tossed out just on that.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...