National Consumer Week 2- 6 November 2015: Forum & Twitter Q&A

bazster

bod1467 wrote: »

And there we have the issue ... BOTH responses regarding UKPC are incorrect.

The response regarding PPL is also incorrect. Since PPL is not a member of any Accredited Trade Association it has no way of obtaining the name and address of the vehicle keeper and can safely be ignored.

The advice to use PPL's own appeals or complaints procedure is the worst possible advice. Why give them your name and address when otherwise they have no way of obtaining them?

bod1467's little teaser has served its purpose in demonstrating that Citizens' Advice remains utterly clueless when it comes to speculative parking invoices.

Coupon-mad

CitizensAdvice wrote: »

Again, we'd refer you to UKPC's appeal procedure and if that doesn’t resolve the matter, you can contact POPLA: http://popla.co.uk/

Premier Parking Logistics don’t appear to be registered with either British Parking Association or Independent Parking Committee. You’re still able to follow Premier Parking Logistics' appeals or complaints process but there isn’t access to an independent appeals procedure.

Sorry, wrong about all 3 PCNs....and that's why we posted it because we want other people to learn what is right and we would love the CAB to learn the right answers too. CAB advice on private parking tickets is notoriously awful and comes across as if it was made up by the BPA (who are obviously representing the dark side).

CABs cost consumers money every week with this sort of advice and we know you get LOTS of queries about it. We have seen lots of threads mentioning wrong advice from local volunteers and it could easily be put right.

I've never, ever heard of the CAB giving the right advice about these.

Neither of the firms mentioned can get DVLA data so to tell people to appeal to them is telling consumers to hand a rogue ticketer their name and address on a plate! They cannot get the person's name and address (PPL aren't a member of an ATA and UKPC are banned by the DVLA currently for alleged fraudulent activity) so any 'PCN' on the windscreen from them right now, is like an advertising flyer - destined only for the bin.

In Scotland, POPLA doesn't apply at all and nor is there 'registered keeper liability' so telling a person in Scotland to appeal about what happened (even to a BPA member) is condemning them to misery of wondering for 5 years if they might be sued now they've ID'd the driver.

Really wish the CAB would liaise more with the British Motorists' Protection Association, a charity who have occasionally delivered presentations to explain the scam to CAB staff and would gladly do more, if contacted.

CitizensAdvice

unholyangel wrote: »

Hi, already on this board we've had people having trouble with the short term right to reject from the new consumer rights act.

Is the new short term right to reject a sort of replacement for the period of acceptance from Sale of Goods Act? Meaning if goods are faulty within that time, the consumer can insist on a refund rather than a repair or replacement?

Yes. Before the Consumer Rights Act, the law was unclear about how long consumers could return goods for a full refund.

unholyangel wrote: »

Also, we had someone who ordered a corner sofa & matching footstool. The corner sofa was damaged/faulty on delivery but the company were refusing to refund both. I was of the opinion that the contracts wouldn't be divisible as the contract for the footstool wouldn't have been entered into if the contract for the corner sofa had not been entered into and also because the contract would be rescinded as opposed to a repudiation, but having an answer from yourself would help clarify things.

If a consumer is supplied with a number of items, one of the remedy options they have if some items are faulty and some are not, is to reject all the items. The other options are to reject the faulty items and keep all those are not faulty, or to reject or keep any number of faulty items and keep all that are not faulty. The consumer never has the option to keep only some of the non-faulty goods and if goods form a commercial unit, the consumer can't use the partial rejection option. (A commercial unit is where goods are sold together and splitting them up would materially reduce their value or character).

unholyangel wrote: »

Companies can be stubborn. What advice would you give for those who are dealing with a particularly stubborn company and where small claims may not be a feasible option given the amount involved?

Consider whether there's another redress route that you could use. Is the trader a member of an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme, or a trade association that includes dispute resolution? Does the way that you paid offer another option? s75 of the Consumer Credit Act protects payments between £100-£30,000 and chargeback procedures usually apply to debit cards; both protections lead to the Financial Ombudsman Service if the matter doesn't get resolved. The same applies to PayPal payments.

unholyangel wrote: »

Are we ever going to see any obligations placed on retailers to ensure they comply with the law (the same obligations placed on any member of the public, any driver, person selling alcohol etc)? Especially given that they have likely been profiting financially from them neglecting to adhere to consumer rights (ie next, debenhams etc not refunding delivery charge under DSRs).

Traders aren't allowed to exclude their consumer protection obligations to consumers. Consumers can report any traders not complying with their consumer protection obligations to the Citizens Advice consumer service who will report non-compliance to Trading Standards. Local authority Trading Standards Services enforce consumer protection requirements.

CitizensAdvice

unholyangel wrote: »

Oh and the ADR

What assurances do consumers have that the ADR is not industry orientated? Are they going to uphold their rights or is it possibly a way that consumers will end up accepting below what they're entitled to or even being mislead about their rights if the ADR doesn't make decisions based on statute?

Certified ADR schemes are schemes that meet the requirements of the ADR Regulations and have been approved by the competent authority within their sector. For regulated sectors - such as energy and aviation - the competent authority is the regulator. For non-regulated sectors the competent authority is the Chartered Trading Standards Institute.

ADR schemes offer an out of court way to resolve a dispute and benefits include defined time periods for dealing with complaints, decisions are usually binding on the trader but allow the consumer the to reject an ADR scheme decision and pursue in court. A court uses the law to decide the outcome of a case whereas ADR schemes have more options and benefit from expertise in the sector.

All certified schemes have to produce an annual activity report and publish it on their website. Competent authorities have to collate annual information for their sector for BIS.

Helenbonbellon

Thank you, I was getting my months mixed up and thinking we bought the TV in the middle of October not September. Sorry for any confusion and thanks for your help. :beer:

ampersand

Johno100 wrote: »

Wow! So the CAB have infinite resources, think they should forget about consumer advice and turn their hand to something like eliminating world hunger and poverty.

#
'Please remember Citizens Advice is a charity, its resources aren't finite.'

Oh Johno, you've spoilt my spot-the-deliberate-mistake moment. Had that one all clickettied, copied and ready to paste, then found myself sharing your hymn sheet.

Never mind - we have retained the RWC with a magnificent display of footie[the proper name for the real game]. My joy is yours to share.
#
Have undone 3 CAB blunders since mid-October - redundant, incorrect, incomplete advice and innumeracy - one concerned pp scumpanies.
It gives me no pleasure to write this, under siege as CAB are.

What c-m writes is true. CAB routinely refer to speculative invoices as
'f - - -s', tell £-pressured people to 'ring and see' if they can arrange to pay it off weekly. They have little or no contemporary knowlege or understanding.

Fruitcake

CitizensAdvice wrote: »

Hello bod1467,

UKPC are members of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme. Follow their appeal procedure and if that doesn’t resolve the matter, you can contact POPLA: http://popla.co.uk/

There's more information and advice on the Citizens Advice Scotland website: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/consumer/transport/driving-and-parking/parking-tickets-s/parking-tickets-on-private-land-s/

Hope that helps.

CitizensAdvice wrote: »

Again, we'd refer you to UKPC's appeal procedure and if that doesn’t resolve the matter, you can contact POPLA: http://popla.co.uk/

Premier Parking Logistics don’t appear to be registered with either British Parking Association or Independent Parking Committee. You’re still able to follow Premier Parking Logistics' appeals or complaints process but there isn’t access to an independent appeals procedure.

As already mentioned, all three of these answers are WRONG and will cost consumers money if they follow your advice. UKPC are being investigated for fraud because they have been caught sending out parking invoices after altering time stamps on photographs making out people have been parked for longer than they really have. Why on earth would you advise people to give their details to a company that has been caught trying to scam the general public? That's like advising people to give their bank details to email scammers!

Please CAB representative, do your research before posting incorrect advice. The questions were a set up to see if you knew the correct answers and you have failed.

Like you, the people who help out on the Parking Forum are volunteers. It is hard enough fighting unethical and unfair demands for payment from parking companies without having to deal with people like you who are supposed to be trying to help but are doing untold damage instead.

Please delete your answers, do your homework, then post the correct advice here and make sure everyone in CAB gives the correct answers to the public in general as well. Alternatively, if you don't know the correct answers, please say so, then direct people to one of the sites giving free expert advice on the subject such as this one, pepipoo, parking cowboys, or parking prankster.


Legitimate parking charges should always be paid, but most PCNs from private parking companies are grossly unfair and do not recompense the landowner for any missed charges.

luke1989

Question what right does a company have to back out of a deal after it has taken your money?. I pre ordered an Item Several weeks ago only to get a cancellation email saying money was to be refunded due to them not receiving the item from there supplier. after further investigation i can see the seller is selling the same item they claimed to have not been received as in stock and a substantially higher price. (sold out across the uk) can they do this? been screwed over because they realized they can make more money.

gordonmurr

Do supermarkets have to display prices of products on the shelves?

bod1467

gordonmurr wrote: »

Do supermarkets have to display prices of products on the shelves?

No. If they do then the prices need to be correct, as far as possible, but mistakes are allowed. (Keeping an incorrect price displayed after being advised of the error may fall foul of advertising standards rules).

Pricing is merely an "invitation to treat".