Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi welcome to the Forum.  If a PCN is sent out late ie after the 12th day of the alleged offence, the charge cannot then be transferred from the driver to the keeper.T he PCN is deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch so in your case, unless you can prove that Nexus sent the PCN several days after they claim you have very little chance of winning that argument. All is not lost since the majority of PCNs sent out are very poorly worded so that yet again the keeper is not liable to pay the charge, only the driver is now liable. If you post up the PCN, front and back we will be able to confirm whether it is compliant or not. Even if it is ok, there are lots of other reasons why it is not necessary to pay those rogues. 
    • Hi 1 Date of the infringement  arr 28/03/24 21:00, dep 29/03/24 01.27 2 Date on the NTK  08/04/2024 (Date of Issue) 3 Date received Monday 15/04/24 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012?  Yes 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No  7 Who is the parking company? GroupNexus 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Petrol Station Roadchef Tibshelf South DE55 5T 'operating in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice' I received a Parking Charge letter to keeper on Monday 15/04/24, the 17th day after the alleged incident. My understanding is that this is outside the window for notifying. The issue date was 08/04/2024 which should have been in good time for it to have arrived within the notice period but in fact it actually arrived at lunchtime on the 15th. Do I have to prove when it arrived  (and if so how can I do that?) or is the onus on them to prove it was delivered in time? All I can find is that delivery is assumed to be on the second working day after issue which would have been Weds 10//04/24 but it was actually delivered 5 days later than that (thank you Royal Mail!). My husband was present when it arrived - is a family member witness considered sufficient proof?
    • lookinforinfo - many thanks for your reply. It would be very interesting to get the letter of discontinuance. The court receptionist said that the county court was in Gloucester 'today' so that makes me think that some days it is in Gloucester and some days its in Cheltenham, it was maybe changed by the courts and i was never informed, who knows if DCBL were or not. My costs were a gallon of petrol and £3.40 for parking. I certainly don't want to end up in court again that's for sure but never say never lol. Its utterly disgusting the way these crooks can legally treat motorists but that's the uk for you. I'm originally from Scotland so it's good that they are not enforceable there but they certainly still try to get money out of you. I have to admit i have lost count of the pcn's i have received in the last 2 yr and 4 months since coming to England for work, most of them stop bothering you on their own eventually, it was just this one that they took it all the way. Like i mentioned in my WS the the likes of Aldi and other companies can get them cancelled but Mcdonalds refused to help me despite me being a very good customer.   brassednecked - many thanks   honeybee - many thanks   nicky boy - many thanks    
    • Huh? This is nothing about paying just for what I use - I currently prefer the averaged monthly payment - else i wouldn't be in credit month after month - which I am comfortable with - else I wold simply request a part refund - which I  would have done if they hadn't reduced my monthly dd after the complaint I raised (handled slowly and rather badly) highlighted the errors in their systems (one of which they do seem to have fixed) Are you not aware DD is always potentially variable? ah well, look it up - but my deal is a supposed to average the payments over a year, and i dont expect them to change payments (up or down) without my informed agreement ESPECIALLY when I'm in credit over winter.   You are happy with your smart meter - jolly for you I dont want one, dont have to have one  - so wont   I have a box that tells me my electricity usage - was free donkeys years ago and shows me everything I need to know just like a smart meter but doesnt need a smart meter,  and i can manually set my charges - so as a side effect - would show me if the charges from the supplier were mismatched. Doesn't tell me if the meters actually calibrated correctly - but neither does your smart meter. That all relies on a label and the competence of the testers - and the competence of any remote fiddling with the settings. You seem happy with that - thats fine. I'm not.    
  • 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

PCN For Parking In A Loading Bay


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2520 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

Hi Guys ,

 

I went for lunch yesterday in Neath and parked in what I though was a legitimate parking pay ,

hindsight is a wonderful thing and it transpires I parked in a loading bay.

 

I received a PCN stating that I had parked in a loading bay during restricted hours.

I don't know why but as the sign stated that the loading bay was to the right and parking was to the left

I thought it meant the next parking bay up was the loading bay

and didn't realize that the parking bays available for around 5 cars was split in two.

 

After I inspected the road markings I realized my mistake

but the dividing line between the two bays was very feint and not visible to me from my drivers position.

 

I fully accept the mistake was mine for not being more observant when I parked

but was wondering if I had any chance of appealing as the painted line was feint.

 

I have included pictures so you can see what I mean.

 

Should I just cough up and put it down to my error or do I have a case to appeal.

 

Picture List.

 

1.Where I was parked

2. Parking Sign

3. Parking Boundary line

4. Parking Boundary line again

Where I was parked.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely appeal it. Whether you will win I don't know, but it's worth a try.

 

Often council's will try to predict how this would be settled if it ended up with the adjudicator, and in my view, it's 50-50. There's no doubt the dividing line is in poor repair, and you could miss it. On the other hand, you are expected to understand the signs, and therefore to expect a dividing line to be there, and to look to see where it is. You can see the line if you look for it, so I would not like to say how it would pan out.

 

But appeal anyway - you've nothing to lose. Also send them the photo of the line to show how weak it is.

 

I don't get your point about the times. Looks like they gave you five mins observation, which is five mins more than they had to, assuming you were in a car, not a van. Even if you had a van, that's still a fair amount of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, your post 1 covers it in my view. How about re-wording it a little, something like:

 

I parked in what I though was a parking pay, but subsequently discovered that I have been parked in a loading bay, when I received a PCN.

 

The sign indicating the loading bay included an arrow pointing to the right. As I could not see any road markings separating the bay I was in, I assumed the sign referred to the next bay, further along the road.

 

After receiving the PCN I inspected the road where I was, and realized my mistake. The problem is the dividing line between the two bays is very feint and not at all visible without close inspection. I include a photograph so you can see the condition of the markings. I had no intention of flouting the regulations - this was a genuine error caused by the worn condition of the markings.

 

Please would you consider cancelling the PCN on this occasion ... (etc)

 

(The photo I would give them would be your last one, with the two feet at the top. They'll have their own photos, but that one shows the lines to be very poor.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you , Should I update the thread regardless of the outcome of the appeal?

 

Absolutely, please. We like to know what happens, especially the people who have offered advice and you will help future caggers with the same problem. :)

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you look up the government traffic signs descrriptions etc (cant find it as present), you will see a description of all of the road markings that go with this particualr on street parking.

 

the paint job fails to meet the minimum width BUT they may argue that the road has bene dug up and replaced so it was correct at the time of the order.

 

 

the other thing I note is that the plate (sign) is facing towards the loading bay so take a picture from the other side and show that it is difficult to read from the parking bays as it faces the wrong way.

 

 

Again, there are standards that must be met so you could show that they arent being met now regardless of what was done when it was laid out.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to get someone else to take the photo's for me as I'm miles from Neath.

I just looked on google maps and it seems the markings and signs have been the same since Aug 2016 ,

 

 

I have included these so you can see.

new photos.pdf

Edited by Daibach12
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there would be any mileage in the sign being slightly tilted. You are expected to look for the sign and read it - that's the motorist's responsibility, and the sign is hardly hidden away.

 

The width of the lines could be a technical argument which wins. No harm at all in adding that one. I think it would be a good idea to include the older photo of them as well, to demonstrate they have not simply won away over the winter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already made my appeal via Neath / Port Talbot Council website with the photo you suggested and I paraphrased what you suggested.

 

I just went to see if I could add to my appeal but it just appears to be making a new appeal and I can't just add to an existing appeal but I did notice that the Parking Officer has since added 8 photographs as evidence

BMW PIX.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a letter from the Head Of Engineering & Transport thanking me for my communication , then reciting the law on Loading bays , then goes on to say that he/she is satisfied that the bay is clearly marked and signposted and it was my responsibility to adhere to the restrictions.

 

There is an option to appeal but if it is rejected I have to pay the full charge not the discount payment.

 

Ah well! , it was worth a try , thanks for the advice guys.

Edited by Daibach12
added something I forgot
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your answers guys ,

I had nothing to lose with the first appeal ,

 

 

with a formal appeal it could cost me an extra £35 if I lose

 

 

I can't afford that

I'm gonna have to concede and pay more attention next time when I park.

If I had more money I would fight it as a matter of principle

( even though it was my mistake )

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...