Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have received a PCN from Euro Car Parks for MFG - Esso Cobham - Gravesend. I was completely unaware that there was any such limit for parking and always considered this to be a service station. I stopped there to use the toilet, have a coffee and made a couple of work calls. I have read the previous topics on this location which suggest I can ignore this and ECP will not take legal action. The one possible complication is that the vehicle is leased by my employer so I do not want to involve them with the associated reminders and threatening letters. The PCN was first issued to the leasing company Arval who have notified ECP of the hiring company. I have attached a copy of the PCN Notice to Hirer with details removed as per instructions. What options do I have or should I just pay the PCN promptly at the reduced rate of £60? img20240424_23142631.pdf
    • What you have uploaded is a letter with daft empty threats from third-party paper tigers.  Just ignore it. What we need to see is the original invoice you received last October or November.
    • Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of  the original  PCN that they sent to the Hirer  along with your hire agreement documents. Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include  all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer.  Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference. Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper.  You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Speeding ticket paid, now have may new evidence that could get ticket quahsed?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2108 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

Good afternoon,

 

 

I would like some advice on what to do once a speeding ticket has been paid but then a driver may have evidence that could get the ticket quashed.

 

I have found out recently that our group fleet office has been submitting driver details for speeding tickets, bypassing my company process, and for which subsequently the drivers have been receiving the notices and paying the fines.

 

Some of the tickets I have found out were for the stated offence of 'exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle' and for which the drivers have already paid the fines but I know we could have contested these as the vehicles are not goods vehicles, although the drivers apparently did not know any better and paid up.

 

We have the vehicle V5s and photographic evidence of the vehicle interiors clearly showing the vehicles not to be goods vehicles,

 

to whom could we approach to have the fines and points quashed, would it start with the NIP issuer?

 

 

Thank you very much

Link to post
Share on other sites

When your employer receives a Section 172 notice (request for driver's details) they have a duty to provide details of the driver at the time of the allegation.

They have no opportunity to query the nature or credibility of the allegation

 

. Indeed even if it later transpires that no offence was committed, their responsibility remains the same. Furthermore, whatever "procedures" the company has do not alter this responsibility

 

The driver then receives his own S172 notice and after (presumably) nominating himself as driver, receives his offer of a fixed penalty (or notice of court action if the speed is too high).

 

At that point the onus rests with the driver to respond to the allegation.

The Company is out of the loop.

 

If the driver believes he is not guilty of an offence (on the basis you describe or any other basis) it is up to him to decline the fixed penalty (if offered) and plead not guilty in court.

 

What you are suggesting is that the Company must shoulder the responsibility for them receiving the penalties because they did not check that the allegation was valid. Simply put, it is not their responsibility any more than it would be to examine the possibility of any other defence to the allegation.

 

The idea of accepting a fixed penalty is that the driver agrees to have the matter dealt with without court action. In doing so he does not suffer a conviction but has to accept the allegation as it stands.

 

He does not have the opportunity to challenge any of the facts put forward.

This would include the fact you mention (the status of the vehicle as a "goods" vehicle and hence the prevailing limit applicable to it).

As such I would suggest that there is no avenue open to have the matters revisited.

 

There is no "appeal" to be had once a fixed penalty has been accepted.

There is no real difference between this and a driver accepting doing 35mph in a 30mph limit and later discovering (say, from a "black box" or something) that he was only doing 30mph.

 

You could try a letter to the office that issued the penalty, but have a suspicion it may fall on deaf ears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any vehicle with a fully laden weight above 2.0 tonnes and is not car derived (e.g Renault Clio, Vauxhall Corsa or Ford Fiesta) is classified as a goods vehicle and subject to lower speed limits.

 

Even a Ford Transit Connect which has a gross laden weight of 2040 kg, is classified as a goods vehicle and subject to the lower speed limits of 50 mph on single carriageways and 60 mph on dual carriageways.

 

Not many van men are aware of that and I have trained a good few.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the information. Man in the middle I beg to differ as we, the company I work for, have challenged a number of notices, whilst also providing the driver details, and had the notices rescinded. I am not suggesting either that the company shoulders any responsibility I just wanted to know what avenues are now open once a fine has been paid. I'll advise the drivers as you suggest to send a letter to the issuing office, nothing ventured nothing gained and all that.

 

 

Thank you all very much again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...