Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

CPP ANPR PCN - overstay MOTO Heston East - Fell asleep


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2288 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

You don't have to pay them unless they take you to court and win. That's not a certainty, but it makes life a little more awkward that you named yourself as the driver.

 

But all is not lost. I'll have another look at this tomorrow and make some comments on your options.

 

Do you pass this services on a regular basis by any chance?

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right then Rhino, first a couple of observations, and then I'm setting you some homework :lol:

 

This is the approach to Heston East. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.488471,-0.3922728,3a,75y,92.69h,87.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTYMYbRawT6EsGh8RVwpAJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

As we can see from that, there is, as you come off the M4, a speed limit of 40mph. Now, whilst this is a limit and not a target, it must be accepted that (smaller) vehicles (at least) will be travelling at at least 30mph as they reach the top of the exit slip, which is where the parking sign is that sets out the Terms & Conditions and therefore (so they say) forms the contract.

 

Here it is... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4883128,-0.3905047,3a,60y,90.47h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-aMEoEz2rfr_faZxPa2rbQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Good luck with reading that from a moving vehicle, never mind understanding and agreeing to it!

 

 

Now then, for your homework.

 

Heston East is in the London Borough of Hounslow. You can start by looking at their planning portal. http://planning.hounslow.gov.uk/planning_user_accept.aspx? to find any and all planning applications, approvals, refusals and anything else related to Heston East.

 

What you're looking for in particular is planning applications and approvals made by CPP for their ANPR Cameras and all of their signage. These are applied for and approved under two different planning regimes, general planning and advertising consent (respectively) and cannot be covered under deemed consent. So they MUST have been granted planning consent for either to be there legally. A contract cannot be formed by an illegal act. So if they've broken planning laws, there is no contract regardless of what they may claim.

 

Also, you're looking for any planning applications, approvals and/or variations on any time limits for parking.

 

You may find that planning permission for the car parks was granted with no arbitrary time limits (unrestricted parking). And therefore it's either Moto or CPP that have introduced a time restriction. Whilst they might like to, they can't do that (lawfully) without varying the planning permission for the site.

 

If you can't find anything on the planning portal, then you're going to have to phone Hounslow council (Planning Department) on Monday 020 8583 5555 and you need to ask for details of all of the above. So...

 

Planning consent for ANPR cameras.

Advertising consent for all of the parking signs.

Planning consent and any variations of time limits for parking.

 

Don't contact Moto or CPP again for now, get the above information back to this thread and we can look at what they do (or don't (which is more likely)) have and formulate a plan from there.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing they needed approved there, so looks like it's a call on Monday.

 

Well, that's telling :lol:

 

The council, if they don't really know what they're talking about (surprisingly, some don't) will say something about "deemed consent". There's no such thing once your advertising signage exceeds a certain size, which is quite small, they need specific permission for each sign (which can be on the same application/consent).

 

If they don't have planning consent then the signs and/or ANPR cameras are placed in breach of the law. And if a party (in this case CPP) attempts to create a contract (their T&C's for parking) that was based on an illegal act (no planning consent) then the contract cannot be enforced. It really is as simple as that.

 

Whilst they can apply for retrospective planning consent for the ANPR cameras, the same is not true of the advertising signage. There is no such thing as retrospective consent for advertising, so any claim that they made in court would be doomed to failure. Though this shouldn't be the only point of your defence as some Judges still don't get it.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make sure the council don't confuse the two sites (East & West bound). Whilst it's doubtful, CPP/Moto may have applied for planning permission for one side. If that had been granted, they might have assumed that it applies to both. It doesn't.

 

I won't mention the area (so that they can't change it before anyone challenges it), but there's a big retail outlet near me which is "Managed" by ParkingLie.

 

There are two very distinct car parks, separated by a road, roundabout and about 300 metres. So they must be separate sites even if they're on the same retail park. They do have planning permission for signs and ANPR on one of the sites, but not the other.

 

Just waiting now for someone to get 'caught out' on that second site and post here :evil:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Dear!

 

Well, if they choose to take you to court over this, their case has already hit the iceberg. It's now just a question of how fast it's sinking :lol:

 

That won't be your only line of defence, but it'll put one hell of a hole in their case.

 

Sit back and wait for all the begging & threatening letters now. Keep them, don't reply to any of them, but do keep this thread updated with any further developments.

 

 

I know that it would mean a trip to the archives for someone at the council planning department. But it really would be good to know if there were any parking restrictions (ie. any specific period for free parking) on the original application/consent. I'd put money on there being absolutely none.

  • Confused 1

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, also. If it ever get's near a court. Moto and/or CPP will be able to explain to the Judge exactly what this means in relation to a (seemingly self imposed) 2 hour free parking limit and road safety.

 

I'm sure the Judge would love to know :lol:

 

2618017495_786458af08_m.jpg

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s going to be a bit difficult to receive red nasty letters and not do anything about it

 

The way to look at it is that you're not doing nothing. You're letting them waste their money. :wink:

 

It'll give you a warm glow inside when you see how desperate they are by seeing quite how much money they're prepared to t̶h̶r̶o̶w̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ waste. I've got almost a whole drawer full of letters from PPC's, DCA's and their pet/fake Solicitors. They've probably spent hundreds of pounds chasing me for money I don't owe :lol:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...