Jump to content

FEP

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About FEP

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Er...NO! Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999: 4.— Terms to which these Regulations apply (1) These Regulations apply in relation to unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or a supplier and a consumer . (2) These Regulations do not apply to contractual terms which reflect– (a) mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions (including such provisions under the law of any Member State or in [ EU ] legislation having effect in the United Kingdom without further enactment); ...
  2. I have been reading through all the new law - Part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement act 2007 (TCEA); Schedule 12 of TCEA (Sch. 12); the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 (TCGR); and The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 (TCGFR). A number of points arise and I would be very grateful for the viewpoints of the experts here. I know that I don't post here often (and never before with regard to bailiffs as the area has been a bit of a black hole for me in the past), but I do genuinely hope that my questions will be helpful and spark valuable debate. 1. R
  3. Not sure exactly where to post this - sorry if this is the wrong place. My experience is with Nat West but I believe the issue is of wider relevance. I have just sent Nat West the following complaint, after they sent me a 'Contactless' debit card without me asking for it and with a leaflet that tries to claim that the technology is safe and secure. Any thoughts? "You have just sent me a replacement Visa Debit card after I left my last one in a shop and subsequently cancelled it. With the card you sent me a leaflet telling me that the card includes 'contactless' technology and
  4. You say that you know the company through the scooter scene. I would have thought that the biggest lever that you have against the company is the threat to publicise their behaviour in the same scooter scene. Work out the most effective way that you could do that (eg appropriate web forums/ website etc). Then write to the company setting out what you believe they have done wrong and how you want matters rectified. Include a copy of the material that you propose to use to publicise the issue and explain very politely that you are happy to give them x days to rectify the situation after whic
  5. Indeed, I was quoting the gist of the guidance from memory - thank you G&M for the clarification. Here is the link to the statutory guidance. dft.gov.uk/publications/tma-part-6-cpe-statutory-guidance G&M, your cunning advocate's line of thinking may be right, but I note that the use of the word 'and' in the section that you quote. Surely that would mean that the LA would need to show not only the impracticality of enforcement at the loading bay, but also how CEO enforcement would have been 'difficult' or 'sensitive'. Alternatively of course, the LA could just point ou
  6. I was passing on a bus so I can't be sure, but I believe I just saw a Hackney Civil Enforcement Officer with a CCTV camera attached to their hat! Anyone know about this? What do they use the footage for? Is the CCTV camera an approved device? What about Data Protection issues? Do they still get arsey if you try to film them with a mobile phone? The world has truly gone mad! FEP
  7. No of course not. The requirement a) to advise you on the PCN of your right to view the video footage at a council office of your choosing and b) to then, within a reasonable time, let you see the footage at a council office of your choosing, is a non-negotiable and perfectly un-ambiguous statutory requirement. However, like I've said before, don't expect the council to do anything but laugh at your detailed reliance on statute - after all they seem to be quite happy to ignore their statutory obligations in the first place. The problem you've got, given that you've been seduced by the d
  8. There are different levels of procedural contravention. 1. Against an absolute requirement of statute. The requirement to tell you on the PCN that you may view the video at a council office of your choice is non negotiable statute. 2. Against a requirement of statute that is open to interpretation. The requirement to tell you the grounds of the offence committed (and arguably then the location). 3. Against a code of practice orguidance document. Might help persuade a judge or adjudicator, but ultimately compliance is purely voluntary. I believe that you have something in
  9. Search online for The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. The first hit should bring it up from Legislation.co.uk. I'd post the link but I'm apparaently not allowed to! Have a look at Regulation 3, sub-paras (4),(5) and (6). Regulation 10 of the General Regulations relates to PCN's served by post. 10(1)(a) is CCTV tickets. So there you have it - invalid PCN. If you point this out to the LA they will ignore you and you may flag up the fact that you want to view at a council office of your choosing. I reckon you'l
  10. Of course you are right. Issuing a ticket in the circumstances that you describe is a typical local authority outrage. The good news is that there are numerous things that you can do to put the LA back in their box. First - try not to think about the 'discount' figure. I would put it this way. You have been issued a fine (£120 or whatever) and the LA have offered you a bribe of £60 to just pay up without asking any awkward questions or questioning the validity of their attempt at extortion/blackmail. My attitude is ALWAYS, thanks but no thanks, lets make it £120 and go all the wa
×
×
  • Create New...