Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • 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 
        • 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

Dropped Kerb


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4777 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

why do you think this will be an issue?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I be ticketed for parking in front of my own drive on the dropped kerb?

I haven't been, but just wondered if I could be?

 

I would say yes Jamie , because you would be causing an obstruction to the general public on a pavement meant for pedestrians

The pavement would be the property of the local council even although you have went to the expense of dropping the kerbs to gain access to your property .

 

regards

 

rs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say yes Jamie , because you would be causing an obstruction to the general public on a pavement meant for pedestrians

The pavement would be the property of the local council even although you have went to the expense of dropping the kerbs to gain access to your property .

 

regards

 

rs

 

I think the OP means on the road alongside the D/Kerb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP means on the road alongside the D/Kerb.

 

Im sure the OP said he was parked ON the dropped kerb .

 

Anyway here`s the answer to his question ...

From 1 June 2009, as a result of Regulations made under the Traffic

Management Act 2004, all councils in England and Wales have powers to

introduce blanket Special Enforcement Areas covering vehicles that park on

dropped kerbs or double-park without a requirement to provide specific traffic

signs or road markings. These Regulations do not apply to Scotland

regulations.

 

and this from DIRECTGOV...

244

 

You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.

 

[Law GL(GP)A sect 15]

 

 

 

regards

 

rs

Edited by royalscot
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP means parking on the road, in front of the dropped kerb which presumably only provides access to his own driveway. In which case the answer would be no.

 

The council/police would generally only enforce on a dropped kerb which has been dropped to allow pedestrian/wheelchair access on or off the roadway. To enforce on a dropped kerb which only allows access to a private drive the council/police would normally require a complaint from the homeowner that their drive was blocked, and even then, they may not get any help unless they are trapped inside their drive unable to get off, (in which case the police could class it as obstruction as you can no longer go about your lawful business).

 

If you are trapped outside your property then that is "unfortunate", but is not stopping you from going about your business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP means parking on the road, in front of the dropped kerb which presumably only provides access to his own driveway. In which case the answer would be no.

 

 

Unless of course there is a restricion there, the exemption does not apply if there is a yellow line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True G&M, but I don't think the OP would have asked the question in the fashion he did if there was a yellow line outside his house. But for the perpose of clarity, it would help if the OP could be more specific about the circumstances. i.e. does he mean parking on the road or on the pavement? Are there any lines (be they yellow or white zigzags)? Is the dropped kerb for his drive only or is it a shared entrance? etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

True G&M, but I don't think the OP would have asked the question in the fashion he did if there was a yellow line outside his house. But for the perpose of clarity, it would help if the OP could be more specific about the circumstances. i.e. does he mean parking on the road or on the pavement? Are there any lines (be they yellow or white zigzags)? Is the dropped kerb for his drive only or is it a shared entrance? etc

 

I only added it as I know of a couple of occasions when people have thought they could even on a single yellow, daft I know but it happens!

Link to post
Share on other sites

lots of exceptions to the prohibition whereby you can block your own dropped kerb - and so can others that you have given permission to.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86

 

G&M must have forgotten to balance his yellow line comment with something that would inform and assist you so I have balanced it for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lots of exceptions to the prohibition whereby you can block your own dropped kerb - and so can others that you have given permission to.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/86

 

G&M must have forgotten to balance his yellow line comment with something that would inform and assist you so I have balanced it for you.

 

Talking rubbish again are we?? If there is a yellow line none of your wonderful exemptioms apply so how does that balance anything out? If you insist on having a childish dig at me at least try reading the thread properly first before posting garbage. We have already established the OP can park on his own drop kerb I was just being helpful and warning him it did not apply if there was a yellow line but of course that is in some way not helping anyone in your strange warpred mind!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The council/police would generally only enforce on a dropped kerb which has been dropped to allow pedestrian/wheelchair access on or off the roadway. To enforce on a dropped kerb which only allows access to a private drive the council/police would normally require a complaint from the homeowner that their drive was blocked, and even then, they may not get any help unless they are trapped inside their drive unable to get off, (in which case the police could class it as obstruction as you can no longer go about your lawful business).

 

If you are trapped outside your property then that is "unfortunate", but is not stopping you from going about your business.

 

Below are extracts from the Nottingham City Council website relating to dropped-kerbs which may be of interest.

Other Councils may/may not have a similar service in place.

 

.........citizens will also be able to contact Parking Services for help if a vehicle is blocking a dropped crossing prevent them getting on / or off their own property.

 

If a vehicle is blocking my drive what do I do?

1) If your driveway or home is blocked by a vehicle parked over a dropped crossing, please call Parking Services hotline on: (0115) 915 6655 to complain.

2) Parking Services will need to see if a Civil Enforcement Officer is available to attend.

3) A Civil Enforcement Officer will need to see a vehicle parked over a dropped crossings for 20 minutes, checking that the property has the correct dropped kerb and recording details of the vehicle parked and those of the person who is complaining.

4) A Penalty Charge Notice (fine) will be issued and the vehicle could be towed away.

 

I wonder if this is a 24/7 service....., personally I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI,

 

Apologies, v busy weekend.

 

Kerb dropped outside my house for my own access only onto driveway.

 

There is a single yellow line on the road where my kerb is dropped to restrict parking between certain hours.

 

Was just wondering that, outside the restricted times, if someone were to be arsey (like I know them to be) and they were to phone up and complain someone was blocking their driveway (when in fact it is my car outside my own dropped kerb) - could I be ticketed for parking over my own drive?

 

You may be wondering why the hell am I parking on the roadside instead of on the drive now the kerb has been lowered? Simples... the council c0cked up bad and haven't been back to fix the mess they have made of the dropped kerb/tarmacing and so for the mean time I am stuck to parking on the roadside still.

 

Thanks for your responces. Very helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI,

 

Apologies, v busy weekend.

 

Kerb dropped outside my house for my own access only onto driveway.

 

There is a single yellow line on the road where my kerb is dropped to restrict parking between certain hours.

 

Was just wondering that, outside the restricted times, if someone were to be arsey (like I know them to be) and they were to phone up and complain someone was blocking their driveway (when in fact it is my car outside my own dropped kerb) - could I be ticketed for parking over my own drive?

 

You may be wondering why the hell am I parking on the roadside instead of on the drive now the kerb has been lowered? Simples... the council c0cked up bad and haven't been back to fix the mess they have made of the dropped kerb/tarmacing and so for the mean time I am stuck to parking on the roadside still.

 

Thanks for your responces. Very helpful.

 

Technically you can get a PCN which you would then have to appeal and would as the householder get cancelled but most Councils check the complaint against the electoral role to cut down the chances of someone trying it on, obviously if they pretended to be you that would not work. At the end of the day if its outside hours of the SYL you can park there if its a residential address and you live there if you do get a PCN for some unlikely reason it would ultimately get cancelled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers G&M.

The garage over the road scares me, had plenty run ins with them already for parking their cars in front of house etc and with this dropped kerb I have taken 2 spaces away from them - hence the hypothetical scenario - thanks for clearing up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically you can get a PCN which you would then have to appeal and would as the householder get cancelled but most Councils check the complaint against the electoral role to cut down the chances of someone trying it on, obviously if they pretended to be you that would not work. At the end of the day if its outside hours of the SYL you can park there if its a residential address and you live there if you do get a PCN for some unlikely reason it would ultimately get cancelled.

 

.....not forgetting an appeal for the refund of the paid PCN AND the towing charge in the event that the vehicle is towed away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking rubbish again are we?? If there is a yellow line none of your wonderful exemptioms apply so how does that balance anything out? If you insist on having a childish dig at me at least try reading the thread properly first before posting garbage. We have already established the OP can park on his own drop kerb I was just being helpful and warning him it did not apply if there was a yellow line but of course that is in some way not helping anyone in your strange warpred mind!

 

Just balancing your imagined yellow line (turns out there was one ! but that was unknown at the time)

but the yellow line issue IF it existed had at had been agreed earlier in the thread.

 

(you failed to mention if it was red route :) or a DYL :) :) )

 

what wasn't in the thread was the full information for the exemptions.

Links to the complete legislation are now 'rubbish' are they

 

and you accuse me of having a 'strange warped mind'.

 

too touchy by far G&M. Just try to balance things out a tad. This is a help forum.

 

and stay cool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...