Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Peter McCormack says "ambition is big" and Real Bedford's attendances are increasing with promotions.View the full article
    • How does one obtain the permit? The permit team number is only open between the hours of 9am to 3pm Mon - Fri. It says on the website, To obtain an additional 2 hours, the driver must pay a tariff of £3.00 + booking fees in person at our Security Hut, is that how you get the permit also, from the security hut? What a rigmaroll that would be but maybe just another step to take to try and catch people out?
    • Anotheruser0000 bear in mind that not all Judges are equally versed in the PoFA regulations. Fortunately now most of them are but sometimes a Judge from a higher Court sits in who is well experienced  in Law but not PoFA. and so they sometimes go "offkey" because their knowledge can raise a different set of arguments and solutions. It does seem particularly unfair  when the decision is so  bad . it can also be that in some situations the motorist being a lay person is not sufficiently know ledgeable to be able to counter a Judge's decisions in a way that a barrister could.
    • The argument about the date of receipt is now dead because the PCN  does not comply with the wording  of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  First reason Section 9 [2] [e]  "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges;" Second Reason Section 9 [2][a] "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;" All your PCN does is mark the time you entered and left the car park. It does not include all the myriad things you do in between-driving into the car park, looking for a parking space-perhaps a disabled space or  parent and Child place@ getting the children or disabled person out of the car then going shopping. Coming back; loading the car with shopping [, getting the children or disabled into the car, taking the trolley back to the store; driving to the exit perhaps stopping to let vehicles/pedestrians cross in front of you etc. so subtracting the driving times from before and after parking can make quite a difference from their time to the actual period parking time. So the upshot is now that only the driver is responsible for paying the PCN and the keeper is not liable at all even if the name of the driver is never known by Nexus so well done for not appealing. You obviously want to keep it that way to make it very difficult for them to win in Court if it ever goes that far. Although your question is now moot since  the same objective has been achieved by the non compliant PCN [ie no keeper liability] just  about the only way to dispute the timing of the PCN would be if one kept the envelope and there was a discernible date stamp on it that did not match the date on the PCN. There is a new Act coming out [and it cannot come quickly enough ] and one of the things required is that parking companies will have to prove the date of sending out their PCNs. We are not the only ones who sometimes doubt the veracity of their dates particularly as the later it is sent [unlawfully] the shorter the period motorists have to benefit [?] from the reduced payment. I haven't seen it on your posts but do you know how long you are permitted to park for free?
    • I was so annoyed and frustrated about the fact this case was lost it's been floating around my head all night. Dave962, are you sure that's what the Judge said? .... It doesn't make sense. Did the judge in fact dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant did not make an appeal within 28 days? Effectively telling the PPC about the error entering the registration number and providing proof of payment at that time? To me, that's an important point.  
  • 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

Shiply - Transporter driver damaged classic car during loading & unloading


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2032 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 all,

 

Yesterday I had my classic car transported to a new storage location via an agent on Shiply and the driver damaged the car twice - once during loading and again when unloading.

 

The first instance is a little complicated: I had forgot to tighten the anti-roll bar bolts and it had dropped down, rattling on the loading ramp. However, rather than check what the problem was, the driver heaved the car back off the ramp with such force that it inverted the ARB and crushed the chassis rails underneath. I had gone to get cash while this happened and only returned in time to see him hauling the car off the ramps.

 

The second instance was when unloading at the other end: the driver rolled the car off the ramps and then pushed it with his backside / hip and dented the tailgate - this happened right in front of me. I didn't notice he had dented it until after he'd hurriedly left and I moved the car into the barn, so didn't get to confront him directly.

 

I wasn't going to make any kind of fuss about the initial damage, as it was a combination of our errors that lead to it, but the dented bodywork is just unacceptable. I messaged him when I got back last night:

 

Hi Tony, I have two big dents in the tailgate of my car from where you pushed it off the bottom of the ramp. The damage to the chassis rails I was willing to take on the chin as it was a combination of our errors that caused it, but I'm really unhappy about the bodywork damage. How do we go about making an insurance claim to cover the tailgate damage?

 

Which seemed kind of OK to me.. I was furious but tried to be civil.

 

His response came in three messages:

 

20:18 - Really, you didn't bolt the anti roll bar linkage on the car, any damage of any was caused by you not putting things back together properly. Your car damaged my truck. So please don't try this crap on with me

 

20:20 - What a [problem] artist

 

20:27 - I have just checked the cctv on my truck, there's no damage I can see done when loading or unloading your car, plus your car was covered up. I will gladly see you in court for making false insurance claims.

 

The first two are nonsense, as I'd told him I wasn't trying to place blame on him for the damaged chassis, as the ARB should have been secured. The third is what I'd like help with, because he's claiming to have CCTV footage. I haven't yet responded, so am hoping for some advice on how to proceed first. The car was covered, but the area of tailgate he damaged was exposed, so if he does have CCTV it should show everything.

 

I'm unsure whether I should ask for his CCTV footage, because (if it even exists) he may very well delete it. The guy clearly goes from 0-100 quickly and I don't want to ruin my chances of making a claim for the damaged bodywork by his rash decisions.

 

Can anyone please advise how to proceed from here? His service was fully insured up to 30k according to Shiply.

Edited by CamMoreRon
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I've done that.

 

I also realised that I have CCTV in my workshop covering the area where he loaded the car, so this should show exactly what he was up to while I was away and how the car ended up pole-vaulting over the anti-roll bar.

 

I've asked him to make copies of his CCTV, and offered a G-Drive link for him to upload them.

 

If he refuses, what do I do? I have never had to initiate any kind of legal action against anyone before so have no idea where to start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he refuses to allow you to see the CCTV and then tries to rely on it later he will just annoy the judge and thus lose the claim.

 

Start off with saying that you would like a copy of the footage and as a business he has no right to refuse but it would be in his interest to allow you to see this. Once he has allowed this you send him a copy of your CCTV without comment as to what it might show at this stage. If he doesnt allow you to see what he ahs then keep yours under wraps for the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...