Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
      • 160 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

Partner issued with a FPN for "littering" a rollup


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2447 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 Caggers

 

Been a while since I last posted on here, but im hoping someone somewhere can give me some help/guidance regarding this matter.

 

My partner was recently given a FPN for a "littering" offence (while waiting for a train) OUTSIDE the curtilage of the station frontage (i.e. roof) - There ARE signs put up everywhere for Non-smoking but NONE for LITTERING - I have since checked.

 

My partner was "grabbed" by the Enforcement officer (3GS) (female) - and then straightaway read his rights before he was even told by the EO what my partner was being given a Fine for.. (disgusting i think)

 

I have since looked up the law they are using and the law is pretty clear when it comes to the act of "littering with intent" - which in this case there was no intent - it was accidental

 

The actual part of the law that im interested in is this:

 

Section 87 - Subsection (6) states:

 

"A local authority, with a view to promoting the abatement of litter, may take such steps as the authority think appropriate for making the effect of subsection (5) above known to the public in their area."

 

So, as I my understanding of the above law says - its down to the Local Authority to make sure that the local population ARE AWARE that they are taking steps to counter littering. I.e. by means of signs etc - I would have thought ?

 

If that is the case - there are NONE in the immediate vicinity.

 

Also - what powers do these EO's have? She "grabbed" my partner from behind while they were walking towards the station platform between the outside area where they were smoking and the interior where the barriers are. I thought they had no powers to "apprend" ??

 

Are they "allowed" to apprehend said suspect? I think not. I have again researched this and it would appear from the info that I found that they are only allowed to request name, address, postcode & age - NOTHING else. They have no powers of arrest at all - I've checked. So I believe the EO "overstepped" her powers here...

 

2 points -

 

1. the FPN states "cigarette" - whereas the law concerning littering only states "cigarette butts" as being litter - I know its a mute point but if my partner can get off on a technicality then so be it !

 

2. can my partner "counter claim" against the EO for "grabbing" him? i.e. can the EO be done for assault ?

 

The reason that we both have a problem about this is because down our road the pavements are often littered with crisp packets (non-biodegradable), plastic items (non-biodegradable) and other (non-biodegradable items). And the local council do nothing about it.

 

Cigarette butts ARE biodegradable however. They only contain paper & tobacco both natural products.

 

Can someone give me some guidance/help on this please?

 

We are thinking of letting this go to court and see if we can win the case. Especially on the grounds upon which the FPN was issued (wrongly in my opinion). I dont like the idea of our Local council running what essentially is a money making [problem] at the local populations expense !

 

I would be grateful for your feedback.

 

Many thanks

 

Muldy

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not supposed to grab anyone under council policy, regarding the law it's a bit of a confusing area.

The way I look at it is that if an official suspect an offence and requests name and address, then the suspect tries to walk away, they can detain them until police arrives or they disclose their details.

I don't think you can make an allegation of assault, unless you have proof of it.

Is there any CCTV camera on that spot?

Regarding the FPN, if your partner was under the station shelter, most likely she was on station property (private), so the FPN is unenforceable.

You need to check with the land registry and if that bit of pavement is indeed station property, you can secure the CCTV (if present) to prove that they acted outside their jurisdiction.

You need to move fast though: CCTV footage is not kept indefinitely.

I have been approached by these low life individuals outside Ealing Broadway station for dropping a cig butt.

I pointed out to them that there are no bins in the vicinity because of roadworks and anyway, the pavement outside the station belongs to the station.

They were "good" enough to give me just a warning (don't understand what for considering that I was standing on private land).

They insisted on asking my name and address (probably to issue a FPN once in the office) but I told them to call the police as I wasn't giving it to them.

They moved on to the next victim who complied with their requests and coughed up.

Check who owns the land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Hi King12345

 

Thanks for the reply...

 

Yes I thought as much with regard "apprehending" anyone. They have no more rights to "stop & detain" than you or me do.

They have no more powers other than advising that they will issue a FPN for littering etc. - thats the extent of their powers.

If they did want to "detain" someone then they would have to go find or call a Police officer to attend.

 

The area that im interested in is the lack of any SIGNS anywhere from the council making it clear of what will happen if someone "litters" in a public space.

 

Section 87 para (6) makes this very clear - thus:

 

"A local authority, with a view to promoting the abatement of litter, may take such steps as the authority think appropriate for making the effect of subsection (5) above known to the public in their area."

 

So...the local council have to "make it known to the public in the area"

 

So...how have they done this? Certainly not by SIGNS - there are none !!

 

My partner doesnt read the local newspapers - so thats a no go as well. And if it was on local news then thats not watched !

Also the local council brought these new scheme in 2016 !! my partner only moved to Brighton LAST year so would have only been on the news over 18 months ago so wouldnt have seen it anyway.

 

How local councils expect the local public to be mind-readers is beyond me !!

 

In answer to your queries:

 

1. Yes there are several CCTV cameras right on the spot where my partner got "grabbed" by the EO - BUT NONE where the alleged offence took place...unless the EO had a bodycam - which my partner isnt sure of...

 

2. The area where the alleged offence took place (pavement) is outside the curtilage of the station "canopy" so possibly may be owned by the council

 

3. Re station property - as I understand the law if someone were to "litter" on private property - as long as the council have been given permission by the Station to issue FPNs on their property then they may do so...so really depends on the Station if they have given that permission or not...

 

4. In order for the EO to issue a FPN they have to be certain there was "intent" to litter - NO INTENT - NO FPN to issue !!

 

To be honest the council is utilising the fact that most people DONT KNOW the law...so when they get clobbered by a an EO they think they have no rights & the EO baffles them with what they think the Law is (a watered down version that is)...this is their strength.

 

Thoughts please !

 

Muldy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...