terriersaregreat
-
Posts
330 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by terriersaregreat
-
Apparently have been advised by mechanics, not Vauxhall, that this can not be done with the newer cars. Would love to have by-passed the immobiliser but no go. But would probs affect insurance too. RAC also said that Vauxhalls are a terrible nuisance as they can not diagnose problems so can't get be going roadside. Thanks for the thought though TAG
-
You are absolutely right and so glad to have legal insurance which is where the advice came from......but in the meantime a few interesting facts have come to light. Apparently the immobiliser unit always communicates any faults to the engine management unit but there are certain parts of the car that do not, one of which is the fuel system which the immobiliser is connected to....so why hasn't anyone from Vauxhall mentioned this fact as it could be the fuel pump! However I suppose its difficult to admit to this when Vauxhall advertises the fact that they can diagnose faults swiftly. Not very swift in our case
-
I know its been ages but I contacted the dealer I bought it from who said try a new battery, which we had done and didn't work. Contacted a solicitor who said that it is probably an inherent problem as car not talking to the unit, no recorded faults. He also said that the dealer is responsible and that if the fault was inherent would still be the dealers fault as our contract was with them. Of course the dealer said that we were too late to claim but the solicitor advised that there would not be a time limit so it looks like we have to take the dealer to Court as we have a 2010 Vauxhall Meriva parked in the garage and not going anywhere! Anyone interested going cheap
-
Think you need to start again. I HAD MOVED THE CAR AWAY FOR AN HOUR!!!!!! I called for the CCTV coverage and the CEO then backed down. It is within the CEOs remit to ask me to move even if there is no problem, she decided to make me move the car. I was justifiably annoyed that I was being wrongly accused and that the CEO went further by stating that I "did it every day". Totally unfounded allegations which would be construed as bullying and harassment. I will not be reporting her on this occasion and will show compassion but she must be warned that this must not happen again. The facts are that the Government is trying to increase the spaces for the disabled "on street" realising that car parks are too far away for the disabled. At present this can only be achieved by allowing parking on a single yellow line. Perhaps the disabled should campaign for the non disabled to use the car parks and do not use the spaces provided for them in the street! Revolution!!!!! :) Unfortunately the "tone" of this discussion is that the disabled are fortunate people who are able to park for free. Believe me disabled people would be more than happy to join the non disabled and go about their daily lives without pain and exhaustion. But then life has taught me "get on with it".
-
Not sure what this comment brings to the discussion. Originally was aggrieved that I was threatened with a ticket when I had moved the car away for an hour, more actually. Follow the thread. It does not state in the Blue Badge leaflet what "moving" actually means. That was kindly supplied by green_ and_mean. If a person is in receipt of the mobility element of disability or PIP automatically granted a blue badge. Seems that there is a huge concern about use of the blue badge by persons not entitled. The Government actually wants to increase proper use to ensure disabled have the same rights to access as non disabled. This is in part due to the Equality Act 2010. This "Peep" is shouting for the rights of the disabled to not be a burden on Society and be as independent as possible. Believe me lack of mobility is awful and so debilitating in life. We can do without CEOs making unfounded accusations.
-
Oh you are a bit green_and_mean only joking! Thanks for the legislation this was a great help and now sorted the problem with the CEO. Think it was a bit unnecessary though to state that we get more or less 24 hours parking free. Surely this is not the point! Being disabled is not much fun you know.Take a look at the Equalities Act 2010. Very interesting. Perhaps you are a CEO if so you need to check more often that the badge holder is the badge holder because apparently you havn't been doing this enough. Word is from the Government that we need to get rid of the cheats so that there are more spaces available on the yellow lines, which the disabled has a right to park upon for three hours, leave for an hour and return to for another three hours so that the disabled do not have to walk hundreds of yards from the car park. Where do we go for an hour that's free or close by......goodness only knows but we manage. Thanks to you I now have the legislation, brilliant....is this Wales as well? Thank you for finding the legislation. TAG
-
We're not going to agree on this one Jamerson. The legislation quite clearly states, and I accept that it states, that providing you are a blue badge holder you can park on a single yellow line for three hours leave that space for one hour and return for another three hours. Having checked the Equality Act 2010 it seems that it is considered important that every assistance should be given to the disabled to work. I have now received the appropriate legislation re moving from the road which begs the question why the CEO asked me to move back 10 yards. Evidently I will have to speak with her and warn her about harassment. I had moved the car away for an hour but this was not accepted. Whether you accept the facts or not the legislation has been designed to insure that the disabled can park. It has been an interesting debate which has culminated with me discovering that the Government are concerned that certain car parks are not suitable for the disabled as they are unable to operate barriers, enter certain car parks due to height restrictions etc. Most importantly there is a huge concern that CEO's should be checking whether the blue badge holder is actually the legal badge holder. Apparently so many badges are being misused there is concern that these dishonest people are causing problems for the genuine badge holder. The comments made here have been interesting but in the main little understanding as to the reasons why badges are issued to disabled. The public and CEOs need to be careful....just because someone does not carry a stick or is seen to be "disabled" has no bearing on their physical ability........for example heart disease is a terrible thing and not always obvious. The fact is that the disabled have the right to park on a singlke yellow line for three hours vacate for an hour and return for another three hours and it could be argued that that is why there is a single yellow line. Thanks though I've enjoyed reading your comments TAG
-
If you read your comment back this does not make any sense. It has been quoted on this thread that it is OK to park on a single yellow line for 3 hours, move away for 1 hour to another road, and return for another 3 hours. Logic states that the disabled can therefore move off the single yellow line allowing another disabled driver to park in the same place. Therefore technically speaking the single yellow line can be parked upon 24 hours a day albeit by different drivers. I think that the purpose of this is to ensure that the disabled are allowed access to areas which they probably could not access without this system as the car parks are too far away. I am surprised by the lack of sympathy and understanding for the disabled person's needs shown on this thread. Being disabled is not fun and trying to lead as normal a life as possible by continuing to work etc. is important. Please could some one provide the ref to the legislation??????
-
Don't think that you have grasped the situation, which is worrying. All day P&D or Disabled bays are minimum 500 yards away. Single yellow line area is 10 yards away. In fact in this case there are free parking bays for the disabled for 2 hours (no return for one hour), 100 yards away and the all day disabled parking bays, which number six, are at least 500 yards away. There are free one hour parking bays, for all, alongside the disabled 2 hour parking bays which are closer than the disabled P&D parking places. Its mad and not thought out. In the main street there are two disabled bays compared with 25 non disabled bays. Anyway as yet no one has come up with the legislation as I want to take this up with the Council etc. Suspect quotes re return has come from hand books. Need the legislation on this please.
-
This is not a double yellow line. According to the use of a blue badge you are permitted to park on a single yellow line for three hours so it is considered "suitable" for three hours and a further three hours after a break of an hour! In actual fact another disabled driver could take the place of the disabled driver moving away for an hour. Therefore not a question of suitablility. As a blue badge holder you can of course park on double yellow lines if you park at least 15 metres from a junction and do not cause obstruction. In this particular case parking is a suitable place to park for all disabled and non-disabled providing they park between the hours of 6 pm and 8 am. My main point is what is considered moving the car away for one hour. The question arose as the CEO instructed me to move a few yards to ensure that I had moved the car. It had nothing to do with obstruction. Thinking about this I then considered the position for all disabled drivers and how difficult it is to get to their place of work etc. TAG
-
So imagine this:- you are disabled and your place of work is 10 minutes walk from the car park. There are a small number of disabled parking bays for all day parking. However outside your place of work there is a road with a single yellow line. You choose to park on the yellow line as you won't be so exhausted from the walk. After three hours you have to move the car.....but where do you go? If you move it to another single yellow lined road, hopefully around the corner, you have another three hours. After three hours you have to trot off again and bring the car back to the original place for another three hours by which time you should have finished work. Or you could move it for an hour and bring it back for another three hours by which time you may not have finished work etc.. However if you park in a car park all day you will have to walk back to the car park after a full day's work. Of course the single yellow line I am referring to indicated that you can park there after 6.00 pm but you must move by 8.00 am. Its a mess and things need to change. TAG
-
I see your point mikeymack2002 but more from the point of safety for the disabled person.
-
This is very helpful. So what legislation does this come from as it didn't come up when I Googled it? On this occasion I had moved the car and returned an hour later as I have done today. The CEO was relying upon a photo of the valves and was adamant that I hadn't moved the car when I had. It was obvious to me that the distance I had parked from the kerb was different the first time than the second time. So the photo would have proved me correct and of course the CCTV. To be accused of doing it every day, i.e. not move the car, was also untrue and quite frankly the CEOs are not in town every day. I was shocked by her attitude and behaviour as I have always been polite to her when I see her in the street. The public are not always wrong and there were some very upset drivers in town that day that were going to report her. I won't on this occasion but I will if her harassment continues and yes I am photographing each time I park. Its just that I realise how logistically this law has to be changed.
-
I had moved the car and I didn't get a pcn. I was happy to receive a pcn and call for the evidence of the CCTV coverage, we were right under a camera.
-
Well thanks that makes it clearer, could you direct me to the necessary legislation. A photo had been taken which you say would indicate the road, so as this was kerbside it would show that I had been parked differently. My distance from the kerb in the morning was greater then when I had moved away for an hour and returned. My point was that I do remove the car for an hour or two and then return but the traffic warden's point was that I hadn't and that I never did! "You do this ever day". Traffic wardens only operate in our town a couple of random days a week. So felt that this was quite a nasty remark. It would appear that she backed off when I said that I was parked further up the road, she insisted that I hadn't, and that the distance from the kerb was different. I couldn't see the photo as the sun was very strong on the screen. I also stated that I would call for the CCTV coverage. I was just curious as to why I had been requested to move the car a few feet backwards and was hoping that this was what I could legally do. The situation demonstrated how difficult it is for the disabled to park close to their work as day long car parks are often a long way away as in this case. Look forward to receiving any more help and comments. Thank you TAG
-
I have looked to see if anyone else has encountered this problem on CAG couldn't find anything, so apologies if I have missed it. In Wales there are circumstances when you can park on a single yellow line for three hours and then the car must be moved for one hour. I believe that this may be different in England but not sure as there is conflicting advice. Having had a rather nasty experience yesterday with a traffic warden who swore blind that I hadn't moved the car when I most definitely had as she said, "the valves are in the same place", I wondered how far the car has to be moved? Does anyone know? It was a horrible experience being told that I hadn't moved the car and that further more I did it every day! There was a CCTV camera on the pub nearby so I suggested that the warden go ahead and book me and I would request the evidence. Eventually when neighbours came out to support me we told that we were "ganging up on her". Fortunately in law witnesses are not accused of this! In any event I was told to reverse the car 10 foot to move the car. I understand that this is within the power of the traffic Warden so I complied. Therefore it appears that moving a car is just moving it so that the valves are not in the same place! But is this correct or should the car be removed from that stretch of yellow line making it difficult to return to a place of work? It has also occurred to me that this must create difficulties for disabled workers trying to park near their place of work. Popping out and moving the car every three hours to where?
-
Sorry not to have continued with this thread for some reason did not receive any notifications that there had been responses. Anyway thanks for your responses. I did not accept the offer from the Ombudsman as I would have had to agree not to take any futher action. I don't really understand the response from BankFodder as I was seeking whether others had had similar problems. I should also have pointed out that I had numerous emails and very rarely contact by phone. It was in fact the Ombudsman who contacted me by phone. I requested everything in writing which seemed to really upset them! I now have their responses in writing. Not quite sure I agree with BankFodders second paragraph either.....have to say not my experience.
-
Meriva purchased three years ago, good little car. Started developing an intermittent immobiliser fault three months ago. Failed to start at home RAC called. RAC could not diagnose problem as car would not "communicate" with their diagnostic system, apparently common fault with Vauxhall. Had it looked at by our usual mechanic, again could not be diagnosed. Car started intermittently. Contacted Vauxhall garage had to wait until the immobiliser came on but also had to book an appointment to co-inside with it breaking down! Eventually car again refused to start at home, contacted RAC taken to Vauxhall garage, which is another story! Apparently no fault recorded on system. VG removed immobiliser and Engine Management Unit and checked wiring. Put back together and car started. However could not find the fault. I was told that they could change both the immobiliser and the EMU at a cost of around £800 + VAT but there would be no guarantee that it would cure the problem. Explained to them that the immobiliser would come on again as this was how it had been. They insisted that I collected the car and that I paid £42 for the diagnostic test. I insisted that I should leave the car with them until the problem was sorted. Apparently the fault could not be diagnosed until the immobiliser came on again. I contacted Vauxhall customer complaints and posted on Facebook. Absolutely useless. I contacted the Managing Director who passed me to the Complaints Director. The eventual suggestion was that I return the car to the VG and a team would be sent to look at the car....at my expense! I collected the car and needless to say it is now stuck outside my home with the immobiliser coming on and for no reason intermittently starting. I am unable to drive it anywhere for fear of not getting home and I can't keep calling RAC. I say that the car is not fit for purpose as the inbuilt system to diagnose the fault has failed. I have legal insurance should I sue Vauxhall or has anyone else had the same problem? Help please?
-
I complained to the Energy Ombudsman last June about British Gas Business. We had been in dispute since 2010. I've had a "report" which is totally inaccurate and based on a telephone conversation that the EO had with BGB the same morning as the verbal report was given. BGB had not supplied any correspondence to support their answers to my complaint which was supported by correspondence. I have been informed by the EO that it has no power to enforce disclosure of correspondence. Apparently the "report" is not a final decision, I or BGB have to take it a step further by providing more evidence. A previous offer made by BGB (in writing to me) was denied by BGB. That offer accepted responsibility for poor service including the attendance at my shop by a BGB representative looking for payment despite the fact that I had been told I would not be pursued whilst the matter was investigated. I paid by cheque in full under the duress of a shop full of customers. This low life wanted cash and made the throw away remark that if the cheque bounced, "and it probably would" he'd be back to disconnect. Of course the cheque did not bounce but when I complained about his manner I was told that I should have paid by debit card, it would have cleared quicker than the 16 days for the cheque! I am now interested in hearing others dealings with the Energy Ombudsman. I mean let's be honest if you were BG it is much easier not to pass on any information and pay a small amount of compensation but still demand the bill. It appears to me that the EO's system is flawed before it starts. Any interest?
-
I have become increasingly concerned by the number of banks and companies using "no locus standi" as a defence. It is becoming obvious that third parties cause the bankruptcy of a Claimant/Defendant allowing the right of action to be vested in the Official Receiver or Trustee. More often than not there is a decision not to pursue the action, cost, success of action etc being the excuse. Surely if the bankrupt was involved in legal action, in particular to obtain recompense, the claim must be pursued in the interests of both creditors and the bankrupt. I have seen evidence that banks etc are using the "no locus standi" argument to prevent evidence of their conduct to be "buried". This is an injustice and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
-
I have been looking and considering historical emails recently. I then considered several cases that I had heard about. It seems that it is becoming increasingly worrying that a number of victims of corporates and financial lenders are being made bankrupt. Of course any claim, could be ongoing, vests in the Official Receiver or Trustee. The victim has no right of action and this then protects the "attacker" from legal action unless the right of action can be regained. How many victims have been made bankrupt? I an very concerned by my findings as this is standing in the way of justice and at the end of the day honest creditors who may be able to regain recompense. I hope this makes sense. TAG To clarify:- if you have something to hide and there is a risk that it will come out in Court proceedings make the victim of your mistake/fraud bankrupt. It is becoming increasingly worrying that some corporates and companies are using the victim's bankruptcy (caused by them) as a defence to their actions, no locus standi pleaded. The only way to stop this, in my opinion, is to lobby your MPs or the Government to allow ongoing claims to be pursued and to change the insolvency rules to force the OR or Trustee to continue ongoing litigation. If it is proven that a creditor secured or otherwise has used this tactic to avoid prosecution or compensation there should be hefty fines imposed or even a prison sentence for the offenders. TAG
-
LCS and BT where is their logic
terriersaregreat replied to terriersaregreat's topic in Debt Collection Agencies
During the conversation with BT I was told that the debt was £110 but the letter with their logo is for more as it is the "transfer charge" to LCS.......I have all bills and letters from BT....."sorry you are leaving" etc........what is wrong with BT. When I moved house recently they made a huge mess with the connection, cutting off my neighbours and finally cutting me off but then charging as if I had been connected on the date promised. I have ended up paying for calls for the previous owners. I warned BT at the time that when I had time I would be chasing them for the huge problems they caused at the time.......I am in business and time is precious but enough is enough..... -
I have spent the day on the phone talking to brick walls I have been paying BT by D/D since 2012, no gaps. I decided to leave last May after speaking to a price comparison site. As usual its a mess:- The day started with a nice letter from LCS stating that I owed BT £110.00. Apparently money had been added in order for BT to transfer the bill to LCS. Problem.. .not had a phone with BT since 8 May 2014. Firstly told that I have never paid by D/D....what? Then spent hours being told that I needed to understand my bill. ...particularly the one in April... ..except that I had one in May which covered all calls made from March to May.. ..that famous cancellation fee of £25 had been added, but the credit taken out of my account for £16.80 is not accounted for and of course there's the advance rental until May 21st...sorry? yes line rental and broadband up until May 21st even though I have a letter from BT stating the line will cease on May 8th. Contacted LCS for their email address.. ..explained to the brick wall that this is a real mess that I have tried sorting out.... ."do you have a telephone reference number for that?".. ...ummmm no because they don't give you one, well "can't discuss this with you"....really Tried talking to more brick walls blood pressure too high... ..emailed LCS and if they are reading this. ..take note I will pursue LCS for compensation for spending far too long discussing rubbish with you and if you do not pay the £200 within 14 days. ...its small claims for you. ...who else agrees that many bills that are not paid are not actually owed and that we should all start billing and following up our claims for compensation legally unless these debt agencies start taking care on chasing false claims by the various services?
-
Interesting link unclebulgaria67!!!!
-
Seems a bit like my request to cancel:- It arrives in the post from One Call and I am told, you havn't attempted to cancel! Oh and I'm still waiting for the letter from One Call which apparently informed me that they weren't charging me the £49.50. Honestly these postmen! TAG
