Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • depends what the fees are, typically nothing can be added once judgement is passed bar litigation costs. on document retention time limits etc at least 6yrs previous must be held though many hold complete info. as for acronyms and abbreviations ideally yes they should     
    • Still have to submit a statement either system....if they fail they can only give verbal because they failed to file and serve.
    • OP stated they had been arrested, but not charged (let alone convicted). They DON'T have a criminal record, but do have an entry on the PNC. That information stays on the PNC (Police National Computer) for life, but doesn't get released in a standard DBS. It only MIGHT get released for an Enhanced DBS (eDBS) check  ... but it would be incredibly unlikely. (The rational behind this is that eDBS's allow for 'information at Chief Officer of Police's discretion' ..... this covers the 2 'barring lists' and is also intended for the scenario where someone has multiple arrests or investigations, where safeguarding is a concern .... it was brought in after the Soham murders / Ian Huntley case, where the information known about the now-convicted child murderer may have prevented his employment in a school, had it been made available). So, for the sake of accuracy and completeness, arrests stay on the PNC for life, wont appear in a standard DBS, MIGHT appear in an eDBS, but in reality, would be the exception rather than the norm, and I can't see them being released  to a defense barrister. What then if the defence found out a different way, and brought it up in court?. Again, unlikely, but the important feature is that the judge would make sure they trod very carefully!. They MIGHT consider using it if there were other factors that allowed them to try to cast doubts as to the truthfulness of your evidence, but on its own : No way. Anyone MIGHT be arrested (if a seemingly plausible complaint been made against them)! The approach to take if it did come up is to be truthful. "Yes, I was arrested. It arose from a vexatious complaint. I wasn't charged, let alone convicted. That could happen to any one of us, if a vexatious complaint gets made" Far better that than lying, saying you'd never been arrested, and getting caught in a lie : that would ruin your credibility. I'm incredibly doubtful it will even come up, though.
    • we dont get N157 because its new OCMC but no court dont have evidence either.   Just seems a bit of a pointless wait but oh well
  • 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

Got a PCN for overwrritten VRM in Newham,need to challenge


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3901 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

Hello everyone. I am a new member and I need help with that case

 

I have visited one of my friend houses in new ham (Gwendoline avenue E13) on 9th August 2013. I did use visitor parking permit card to park the car, which issued by Newham Council. I have been using these permit ages and never had a problem.

 

When I came out from my friend house I found the ticket on the windscreen.

 

The reason given for the PCN was –

 

[Contravention code 19, parked in a residents or shared used parking place or zone either displaying an invalid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket, or after the expiry of paid for time]

 

I contacted with them over the phone to know the specific reason for PCN they said I have overwritten the time that’s why they have given me a PCN.I explain to them if I overwritten the Permit card how vehicle registration number, date and year remain same. The person inform informed me in this case you need to appeal against them within 14 days time.

 

I am going to challenge the PCN.Could you help me what point should I include with my letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it scribbled out like that?

 

I think he has just hidden his VRM. Would have been better though if OP hadn't marked the voucher in any way before his appeal. Looks like it has been tampered with now so that alone might screw his appeal. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see. So the original problem is just that the "8" looks "overwritten"?

 

They should (hopefully) have a photo of it in the car, so they can see how it was.

 

I think in terms of an appeal, the best thing to do is deny that it was overwritten. Just say that it's written heavily, which is not a contravention, and ask rhetorically what number is could have possibly been if it was amended as they say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see. So the original problem is just that the "8" looks "overwritten"?

 

They should (hopefully) have a photo of it in the car, so they can see how it was.

 

I think in terms of an appeal, the best thing to do is deny that it was overwritten. Just say that it's written heavily, which is not a contravention, and ask rhetorically what number is could have possibly been if it was amended as they say.

 

yes you are right "8" looks "overwritten" and they said from the the picture number looks like "7".

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's hard to accept. If it was a 7 originally, the pen line would have to be entirely under the 8, and none of it is poking out - I can't imagine a 7 being shaped that way. If it were me, I would fight it all the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should not matter if the time looks overwritten. The permit is valid until midnight regardless of the time of arrival. So long as the date was set correctly and midnight for that date had not yet been reached then surely the permit was valid? According to the signage the restriction ends at 6:30pm so the permit being valid until midnight is a nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...