Are we not allowed to use the S word even if it is direct quote?

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. EE customer services were both candid and useless - the guy on the phone said it was clearly a [problem], probably because the salesperson was on commission, but then advised us to 'contact Ofcom and get a reference number from them to take to the shop' either not knowing or knowing but not caring that Ofcom would only refer us to OSC and they in turn would need a deadlock letter or eight weeks without a resolution. Anyway, we returned to the EE shop and confronted the manager about the second contract. I have to admit I expected him to give us the runaround or refuse to help, but to give credit where due he cancelled the contract straight away. My partner has a new phone from Argos with the original SIM on the original contract, so hopefully that's the end of the matter!

Thanks for the quick reply! The second contract was taken out in store 3 days ago but it seems that cooling off period does not apply to in store sales. However, I really feel that the advice she was given was misleading - she was told she could not buy a PAYG phone and put the monthly SIM in it and that the only solutions were to take out a second contract or to buy a phone somewhere else (Carphone Warehouse was mentioned, but there was no branch in the same town). So I think this counts as mis-selling and she should be able to cancel for this reason. I will find out how long the first contract has been in force and will get back to you. But currently she is paying for two concurrent contracts.

Hello everyone - I'm looking for some recommendations following a problem with an EE contract and phone. This is the current situation: My partner has a monthly contract with EE. Her phone stopped working so she took it in for repair under warranty. When it came back it was reported to be unrepairable due to water damage, even though it has been nowhere near water. She asked if she could buy a replacement phone to use with the existing monthly contract and was told by the guy in the EE shop that there was no way to do this because EE only sold phones for PAYG purposes not for monthly contracts. She was advised that the only way to solve the problem was to take out a second monthly contract to run concurrently with the first one, and let the first contract run out in due course. The second contract would come with a new phone. She felt pressured into doing this because she needed a working phone that day. My questions: Is it really not possible to buy a replacement phone from EE for a monthly contract? To be clear, she wasn't expecting a freebie and was willing to pay for the new phone. Even if for some reason it isn't possible to buy a replacement phone for a monthly contract, surely she could buy a PAYG phone from them and just transfer the 'monthly' SIM card? Is it usual practice for EE staff to advise customers to take out concurrent contracts? Isn't this mis-selling? Can we cancel the contract under the terms of the cooling off period? Thanks in advance

Interesting post on the prankster's blog today: "To dissect their incompetence, Wright Hassall have started out by misquoting 9(2)(b), which states nothing of the sort. They refer to registered keeper, while the Act refers to keeper. The two are not necessarily the same, as the Act makes clear in 2(1). They then misquote 9(2)(e), somehow turning an obligation of the operator into an obligation of the keeper. Along the way, they once again mangle keeper into registered keeper, and state that a current postal address of the driver is required. This is wrong - the Act defines the requirements to also allow 'an address at which the driver can conveniently be contacted'. Next, 9(2)(f) is similarly reversed, magically changing from a operator obligation into driver obligation." I hadn't spotted that, but there it is in Sched 4(2)1: “current address for service” means— (a)in the case of the keeper, an address which is either— (i)an address at which documents relating to civil proceedings could properly be served on the person concerned under Civil Procedure Rules; or (ii)the keeper’s registered address (if there is one); or (b)in the case of the driver, an address at which the driver for the time being resides or can conveniently be contacted; So it seems that if you inform the PCC you were not the driver and offer to give them contact with the driver, even if you do not immediately provide the driver's full contact details, they are still obliged to then deal with the driver. Only if the driver denies being the driver can they use (5, 1b) to go after the keeper again...

Sorry, my post was a bit ambiguous in that regard. Short answer: no. More precise answer: I replied immediately to the PCN to tell them I wasn't the driver and offered to send them the driver's details (I was actually expecting them to send me some sort of form to fill in - I was unaware at the time how these companies operate so naively I thought there would be a proper procedure for this). Then they replied a month later, upping the fine and inviting me to appeal directly to them, by which time I had read some of the threads on here and was a bit more clued up, so I wrote back and asked for sight of the landowner's authorization, breakdown of costs etc. I did not actually send in my friend's details, only an offer to do so. Do you think this is an important distinction? POFA 2012 Sched 4, 5(1b) states that they can only pursue the keeper if they are "...unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver..." My reading of that is that by offering to provide his details I was enabling them to take steps (the next step being to accept my offer) whereas I guess a really strict reading of the same paragraph would be that if they don't actually have the name and address of the driver they can elect to take action against the keeper at any time. On a related subject, I find Sched 4, 5(2) similarly ambiguous: "Sub-paragraph (1b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper." What are proceedings in this context? One reading could mean serving court papers, but equally a company might say that by sending any letter or reminder after 28 days they are taking their own 'proceedings'. Cheers RT

Absolutely correct. In my first letter to the PCC I informed them I was not the driver at the time of the alleged overstay and let them know that the driver was happy for me to supply his details so he could take over the correspondence with them. I'd lent my car to a friend while his car was off road, and when I showed him the NTK he agreed that I could send them his name and address and he would sort it out with them. But they ignored that information and waited a month to reply (just enough time to exclude me from POPLA, funnily enough!) and invited me to appeal to them directly, which is when I started dragging up all the other issues (no contract with landowner, mismatched sign/PCN, breakdown of costs, etc). My argument was that by providing or offering to provide the driver's details in my first correspondence with them, they were obliged to follow up with the driver under POFA 2012 Sched 4, 5(1).

Thanks all, donation made Here's the redacted letter, obviously only suitable for those in the same situation although I guess bits of it could be used if appropriate for related scenarios. DRP Plus Ltd PO Box 411 Dukinfield SK14 9DD Your reference XXXX– Parking charge notice XXXX – Date XXXX Dear XXXX I have endured protracted correspondence with your company about the parking charge mentioned in your latest letter dated XXXX despite making it abundantly clear that I dispute the legitimacy of the charge and have no intention of paying it. My position has not changed over the last three years. The debt is denied. I do not owe you or your client any money, I reject your claim in its entirety and I will happily argue the case in front of a judge if you have the balls to try it on. When the alleged incident took place I was not the driver of the vehicle and I informed your client of this fact in writing when I received the original PCN dated XXXX. Notwithstanding your client’s duty under POFA 2012 to pursue the driver rather than the keeper they deliberately delayed their response to my letter until the 28 days allowed for POPLA appeals had expired, and then invited me to appeal directly to them, which is an abuse of the BPA code of practice. I received further correspondence from them addressed to me as the vehicle keeper and eventually letters from your company adding punitive costs and fees to the original charge, which contravenes Schedule 4 (Clause 4.5) of POFA 2012: “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper…” The case of Parking Eye v Somerfield established that even debt collection costs of £60 are not allowable. In my earlier correspondence, I requested a copy of the agreement with the landowner at XXXX giving your client interest in the land and thus the authority to levy a charge, which was declined. I also pointed out that the charge stated on the signs in the car park differed from that on the original PCN, which makes the charge invalid because the PCN stated the incorrect amount, but that information was also ignored. I also asked for a breakdown of costs, which was not provided satisfactorily. Although your latest letter suggests otherwise, the fact that the ‘unfair contract terms’ defence was struck out in the Beavis vs Parking Eye supreme court case does not make me suddenly liable for this parking charge or the punitive additional costs you have arbitrarily applied, because the original charge was incorrect, I was deliberately denied access to the standard appeals process and the fees added for debt collection are illegitimate. In the spirit of fair play (not that either you or your client deserve it) I am prepared to offer you the opportunity to settle this matter by alternative dispute resolution and will even agree to using POPLA if that is your preference. If your client is not willing to use alternative dispute resolution then Mr XXXX please tell them that I will look forward to seeing them in court. I will look forward to making them look like the utter shambolic idiots they are, and I will extract maximum costs from them commensurate with the amount of hassle they have caused me during the last three years. If your client insists on this approach, bearing in mind that the court often applies sanctions if offers of alternative dispute resolution are unreasonably refused, then I will expect them to follow practice directions (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct) and I will bring to the judge’s attention any contravention of these directions which is deliberately used to misrepresent your client’s case. For further correspondence (and for issuing proceedings if your client elects to do so) please note that I have recently moved and have a new address, which is shown at the top of this letter. Please update your records and use my new address for any future communication. Yours sincerely

Out of interest, I followed this line of enquiry and received the following reply from East Riding of Yorkshire Council: "A planning application was approved on xxxxx for the retention of a pole and 2 CCTV cameras. The documentation does show some signage and other signage on site would not likely require planning permission." I could not see any information in the documents about applications for specific signs on poles, so it seems some councils are less strict with their requirements than others.

Blimey - I've just received an email from the BPA (to whom I copied my latest correspondence with Highview, along with a summary of all the reasons I thought the PCN was incorrect/unenforceable) and they say Highview have decided to cancel the PCN and have written to me to confirm this. It's a relief not to have to go to court, even though I think my defence is rock solid and they would have been stupid to try it on. I'm happy to post a redacted copy of the letter I sent if the wording would maybe help others in a similar position? I'd also like to make a donation to the forum running costs if a mod/admin can post below or PM me and explain what to do, because the advice received has (as always) been very helpful and reassuring. Thanks again to everyone

I've done a bit of digging at the land registry tonight. The car park in question is operated on behalf of a well known supermarket, but neither Highview nor the supermarket own the land. The land is owned by a property company and the supermarket leases a unit from them. The lease presumably allows them to use the adjacent land as a car park. I have searched for the property company at Companies House and although their accounts are up to date they are listed as 'dormant'. BPA code of practice: "7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges." So, it seems even if the supermarket invited Highview to operate the car park on their behalf they are not agents of the landowner (merely leaseholders, along with other businesses with units adjacent to the same car park) and cannot give them authorisation - no wonder they wouldn't send me the contract either! Am I correct in presuming that unless Highview can provide a bona fide copy of their contract with this property company (or an authorised agent) that was in force in 2013, then every ticket they issue on this site is invalid? I know this was an important factor in VCS v Ibbotson, but I'm not clear how it breaches contract law if the BPA CoP is voluntary....

This might be my misunderstanding but I thought that the liability for a parking charge was always against the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident and only after POFA 2012 were the companies legitimately able to pursue the keeper. (Until POFA 2012 it was possible to escape these charges simply by claiming not to have been the driver at the time and challenging the parking company to prove otherwise). If the companies can only pursue the keeper under POFA 2012 then they must be bound by that legislation, and if that legislation says they can only ever claim the amount on the PCN and no more, then on what legal basis can they add punitive charges? They could be prosecuted by Trading Standards for misrepresentation at the very least I would have thought.

But that surely means that most if not all of these historic cases are unenforceable, solely on the basis of the additional fees, and further that the additional fees are illegal and the companies issuing them could be prosecuted?

Thanks everyone for the advice so far. I have written to them today solely to make sure they are aware of my new address so they can't get a default by serving papers at my old address, and I have reiterated that I deny the debt. One thing I wanted to check out is the wording of POFA 2012. The letter I got demands not just the amount on the original PCN but also various late payment charges etc so is now double the amount shown on the signs in the car park. According to POFA 2012 Schedule 4 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted): "(5) The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified)." Does that not mean that even if the original parking charge can be enforced, then the top-ups cannot?

Ah yes... an honest mistake guv I will ignore the speculative invoice. Out of interest - what applicable laws or codes of conduct are they breaking by chasing up dormant cases?