How will a 3 tier parking charge level proposed by the BPA fit on a legible sign? Answer = it won't

Coupon-mad

Just a heads up to @AnotherForumite:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-9043063/Mastercard-forced-pay-UK-adult-300-each.html

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 can be used for class action style claims even if people affected don't opt in.  That case was about Mastercard charging all consumers too much in fees and it can now be heard.

It strikes me, there will be nothing to stop a similar action on behalf of UK consumers where PPCs have added the £60 (or more) as very clear double recovery...'let's charge twice for the letter chain of demands, thanks to ZZPS inventing this idea ''or no-one would make any money'' '. 

If people have paid debt collectors or PPCs more than they are 'entitled' to demand for a private PCN, and if the Government makes the right decision about the added £60, then this could all get very interesting indeed.  ZZPS beware (we know you read this forum).

beamerguy

I think that a PPC telling us about his dreams, we can assume business is dead right now and not much else to do

Umkomaas

AnotherForumite said:

Coupon-mad said:

AnotherForumite said:

Lets simplify the 'War and Peace' then:

By parking in breach of the terms and conditions (or contractual licence etc), the driver agrees to pay a Parking Charge of up to £120 / have their vehicle immobilised with a release fee of £150 / have their vehicle removed to a secure compound where no release fee will apply; however, proof of ownership will be required before release. Warning CCTV in use so as to assist with the identification of the driver in the event of any dispute.

Hows that for team work 

It fails on contract law.  No certainty of terms.

And you are never getting clamping back; get used to it.

Who said anything about clamping

Accepted, but .......

Lets simplify the 'War and Peace' then:

By parking in breach of the terms and conditions (or contractual licence etc), the driver agrees to pay a Parking Charge of up to £120 / have their vehicle immobilised with a release fee of £150 / have their vehicle removed to a secure compound where no release fee will apply; however, proof of ownership will be required before release. Warning CCTV in use so as to assist with the identification of the driver in the event of any dispute.

Hows that for team work 

How else will cars be immobilised?  Tyres slashed? 🙄

Redx

I still think my simple sign was better 🤔😄👍

Free parking , no restrictions , Enjoy

beamerguy

Umkomaas said:

AnotherForumite said:

Coupon-mad said:

AnotherForumite said:

Lets simplify the 'War and Peace' then:

By parking in breach of the terms and conditions (or contractual licence etc), the driver agrees to pay a Parking Charge of up to £120 / have their vehicle immobilised with a release fee of £150 / have their vehicle removed to a secure compound where no release fee will apply; however, proof of ownership will be required before release. Warning CCTV in use so as to assist with the identification of the driver in the event of any dispute.

Hows that for team work 

It fails on contract law.  No certainty of terms.

And you are never getting clamping back; get used to it.

Who said anything about clamping

How else will cars be immobilised?  Tyres slashed? 🙄

Let's think, there must be some pills or therapy we could suggest

Snakes_Belly

Coupon-mad said:

Just a heads up to @AnotherForumite:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-9043063/Mastercard-forced-pay-UK-adult-300-each.html

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 can be used for class action style claims even if people affected don't opt in.  That case was about Mastercard charging all consumers too much in fees and it can now be heard.

It strikes me, there will be nothing to stop a similar action on behalf of UK consumers where PPCs have added the £60 (or more) as very clear double recovery...'let's charge twice for the letter chain of demands, thanks to ZZPS inventing this idea ''or no-one would make any money'' '. 

If people have paid debt collectors or PPCs more than they are 'entitled' to demand for a private PCN, and if the Government makes the right decision about the added £60, then this could all get very interesting indeed.  ZZPS beware (we know you read this forum).

Another PPI perhaps.

I wonder what will happen to the huge pipeline of claims when the new CoP is introduced. We know that it will not be retrospective but how can it fail to have an influence?

MothballsWallet

Snakes_Belly said:

Coupon-mad said:

Just a heads up to @AnotherForumite:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-9043063/Mastercard-forced-pay-UK-adult-300-each.html

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 can be used for class action style claims even if people affected don't opt in.  That case was about Mastercard charging all consumers too much in fees and it can now be heard.

It strikes me, there will be nothing to stop a similar action on behalf of UK consumers where PPCs have added the £60 (or more) as very clear double recovery...'let's charge twice for the letter chain of demands, thanks to ZZPS inventing this idea ''or no-one would make any money'' '. 

If people have paid debt collectors or PPCs more than they are 'entitled' to demand for a private PCN, and if the Government makes the right decision about the added £60, then this could all get very interesting indeed.  ZZPS beware (we know you read this forum).

Another PPI perhaps.

I wonder what will happen to the huge pipeline of claims when the new CoP is introduced. We know that it will not be retrospective but how can it fail to have an influence?

For the love of Hagan, I hope not - I was getting sick and tired of all the ads, calls, emails and texts from PPI reclaim firms: they would only stop when told to Foxtrot Romeo Oscar because my numbers are TPS registered.