Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
    • The music streaming service reports record profits of over €1bn (£860m) after laying off 1500 staff.View the full article
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention of peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now - post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!   Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.   Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.   A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
  • 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 5210 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...