Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Parked at a dropped footway [Code: 27]


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5204 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

I had a ticket on my windscreen of my vehicle on 12/07/08 whilst I was a work for being parked at a dropped footway, Contravention Code 27

 

Where I was parked was an entrance/exit for a private car park but it had metal posts concreted into the entrance so in otherwords it was unused

 

There were double yellow lines on the road but not within the bit where my car was parked, there is also no signs up around the area where I had parked

 

There were yellow dropped curbs that cross the area where my car was parked

 

The ticket states that my Tax disk was obscured when I know that to be false as I have one of them aluminium holder fixed to the lower nearsisde part of my windscreen, (the correct place for tax disks)

 

Have I got any grounds as with regards to no signs being in the area, or my ticket saying my tax was obscured?

 

I was thinking if they have photos of my vehicle as they always take photos then there would be a conflict between my vehicle and the ticket as in the photo my tax would be clearly displayed

 

This is a £120 fine, or £60 payable within 14 days and printed out on by computer from Barking & Dagenham Council

 

Thanks for you help if you are able to offer some advice (except do not park there again)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can only park across a drop kerb if loading or with the permission of the landowner/occupier of property the crossover leads to. The CEO will record your serial number off the tax disc not the disc itself so it may be a case of the holder was obscuring the serial number (at the top of disc) having said that the tax disc is not really relevant these days as photos are usually taken as additional proof it was your car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are other exemptions rather than the ones G&M chose to "only" include.

have a look at

Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18) - Statute Law Database

 

Only (true meaning of "only" this time) you know the full circumstances and whether any of these other exemption apply in your case. I suggest you read S86 of the Act linked above in case any of them do

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't give up just yet. You said the posts were concreted so you have nothing to lose, so why not write a letter making informal representations pointing this out. By making the informal reps the local authority will usually extend the time you have to settle at the reduced figure.I would also suggest you got to pepipoo.com and post in their parking section on this one as well. You don't have to listen to posters like Green and Mean (the champion of the local authorities).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks but ive already paid it now, but I cant see how the posts will be able to negate the fact I was still parked across a dropped footway, I knew I was in the wrong to start with but it was worth a try to look into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the posts had were permanent and meant that the dropped footway could not be used then that would be a point worth taking up, but it is moot as you have decided to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the posts had were permanent and meant that the dropped footway could not be used then that would be a point worth taking up, but it is moot as you have decided to pay.

 

What the crossover owner does with the access is not relevant as far as the contravention is concerned and would not be grounds for appeal unless the drop kerb had been revoked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the crossover owner does with the access is not relevant as far as the contravention is concerned and would not be grounds for appeal unless the drop kerb had been revoked.

 

In your opinion of course:rolleyes:

 

Wouldn't the cross over owner in this instance be the local authority? And if the crossover is no longer in use why should it be enforced? Surely the local authority should be revoking it as soon as it's status changes, rather than leaving it and allowing their CEOs to rack up additional revenue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion of course:rolleyes:

 

Wouldn't the cross over owner in this instance be the local authority? And if the crossover is no longer in use why should it be enforced? Surely the local authority should be revoking it as soon as it's status changes, rather than leaving it and allowing their CEOs to rack up additional revenue.

 

Its not my 'opinion' its the law. I could put posts across my drive and then still drive my motorcycle in and out. You can also get steel posts that can be removed to allow access. It is not for the driver to decide if the drive is used or not as far as the law is concerned. The owner of the 'private' car park would be the only person who could give permission to park. My neighbours garage is covered with ivy and never used as he does not have a car but it would not give me a legal right to park across his drive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I have been given a fine of £120 for parking outside Youngs Chineese in Barking on a double yellow, fair enough I deserved it, what I am baffled with is that I too like you have been slapped with a fine for having an obscured tax disc. I pay my car tax regularly why on earth would I want to obscure it, like you my car was parked in Barking I think its terrible, I have sent an email challenging their decision to give me a fine for an obscured tax disc which is showing the reg number the date it runs out, I just dont understand I can understand if the tax disc was obscured from inside by myself but it isnt.:-x

I have been told that even the police dont fine you for obscured tax discs I have asked them to produce a photograph so I can see where it was obscured.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been given a fine of £120 for parking outside Youngs Chineese in Barking on a double yellow, fair enough I deserved it, what I am baffled with is that I too like you have been slapped with a fine for having an obscured tax disc. I pay my car tax regularly why on earth would I want to obscure it, like you my car was parked in Barking I think its terrible, I have sent an email challenging their decision to give me a fine for an obscured tax disc which is showing the reg number the date it runs out, I just dont understand I can understand if the tax disc was obscured from inside by myself but it isnt.:-x

I have been told that even the police dont fine you for obscured tax discs I have asked them to produce a photograph so I can see where it was obscured.

 

You said the fine was for parking on double yellow lines where did you get the fine for obscured tax?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that what has happened is that where the CEO was expected to key in tax disc details they have keyed in "obscured" or similar and that is what is causing the confusion.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that what has happened is that where the CEO was expected to key in tax disc details they have keyed in "obscured" or similar and that is what is causing the confusion.

 

Agreed.......hardly confusing though unless he also thinks the PCN is for having a 'Blue Ford' or whatever is stated on the PCN. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

reply to green and mean, I got the ticket for being parked on a double yellow line and on the same ticket he did me for having an obscured tax disc as well, which is total rubbish, my tax is within date and the description silver grand cherokee is clearly stated on the tax disc which is what my car is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you stick a copy of the penalty charge up here (blank out identifying info) and someone will confirm exactly what the fine is for.

 

Your statement "I have sent an email challenging their decision to give me a fine for an obscured tax disc which is showing the reg number the date it runs out" suggests it was partly obscured, and you know which bits of it were showing. Is this the case? (You can tell us!!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...