Jump to content

MaisyMouse

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MaisyMouse

  1. Unfortunately not

     

    Was it simply a dent or was there paint damage as well ?

     

    Was the dent on a flat piece of metal or on a crease ?

     

    What is the metal under the paint, steel or aluminium

     

    Is the paint on the surface metallic ?

     

    The age and condition of the car may also have something to do witht he cost of repair, moreso if it is a rare edition model, or classic car.

  2. Replacing an engine on a Bini ? More than the car is worth if it goes back to the dealer.

     

    It might be worth doing it yourself.

     

    Additionally it sounds as though you have finance on the vehicle, in which case you should be speaking to whoever the contract is with, rather than the dealership.

  3. This is not correct. PCNs are not issued for breach of contract. They are penalties ("Penalty" charge notice), like fines. You are issued with a penalty charge for contravening the regulations covered by the decriminalised parking scheme.

     

    In many cases, contravention of a regulation IS a breach of contract.

     

    Pay and display tickets for example, where it falls off the dashboard as the door is closed. The penalty is for failure to display rather than not having paid to park in the first instance

  4. If you feel you could help, please reply, and if you have been in a similar situation even better!

     

    Robert

     

    I used to write up technical manuals and as of late have provided my services for dissertations.

     

    I'm unsure as to how best to contact you, but I am in west London if you wish to PM me.

  5. the main complaint I have with the tyres are their performance in the wet both braking and handling which is a big concern to me having already nearly come a cropper (the front of the car wanted to go straight with part lock on a roundabout in the wet) not going fast at the time, it was scary to say the least, ...

     

    Does your Citroen have ABS, and if so, is it working ?

  6. Reading between the lines (well into the single paragraph anyway), the car was fitted with a black box sensor. Getting confirmation that it was functioning correctly should be your first port of call.

     

    Following that, copies of the results of the data that was recorded at the time, along with any independent witnesses.

     

    Does the other side dispute what occurred or is it simply the insurance company taking liberties ?

  7. The ratuonale for the distinction, I believe, is that people who commute to work are more likely to be driving at rush hour, which is when accidents are most likely to occur - but I've always found that in practice it makes little difference to my premium. Even adding business use this year cost me about the same as a pint of beer.

     

    Whilst there may not be too much of a hike in premium, anyone that fails to have the correct subsection within their policy are subject to the ANPR camera, police officers, and council operatives, with the real risk of vehicle stop/seizure/clamping/removal/impounding/daily charges/court fees.

     

    To find one's insurance invalid, at worst following an RTA (which may not even be the owner's fault), through a simple oversight when applying, smacks of something sinister / profitable behind the additions.

     

    The 'rationale' for the distinction, and the reason for posting in this thread, looks quite different from the other side of the fence.

  8. :lol:

    A CEO sacked for gross misconduct is obviously going to be a credible source of information and have no hidden agenda!

     

    Apologies, I thought he was the same CEO that was completely exonerated at the employment tribunal within the earlier post.

     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17190084

     

    Strikingly similar name though, they could actually be distant relatives if one squints hard enough .

  9. No, it's not. "Staff bonuses" as you said it, means extra cash in their pay packet. That's just a myth.

     

    If you're now saying a "bonus" means not getting the sack (which is a new definition on me!), read the link you posted. It says quite clearly that it is illegal to set staff minimum quotas, and when this guy was dismissed, he was deemd to have been wrongly dismissed and awarded compensation.

     

    Not at all, though retaining one's job is certainly an incentive to reach the minimum quotas, whether set by the company, or simply advised by those above you in the pecking order.

     

    "The bonus money wasn't that great, an extra £65 a month, and to get your bonus you had to jump through all kinds of hoops." The pressure came instead from management: "I got told more than once: you've got to do more tickets, more tickets, more tickets.

     

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/confessions-of-a-traffic-warden-6286324.html

  10. There are never bonuses for ticketing, and in fact the companies involved tend to face penalties themselves for PCNs issued for no good reason.

     

    Retaining one's job is not a bonus in your view ?The judge cited an email from Emma Collins, a regional manager with NSL, which read: "There are still significant numbers of people issuing at a rate of below 9 per hour... we should not feel uncomfortable to use the disciplinary process."

    Judge Burns responded: "We have no doubt the managers felt under pressure to ensure PCN issuing was maximised and they passed this on to CEOs [traffic wardens].

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17190084

  11. The two policy options from my first quotes were

    1) social and domestic, and

    2) business

     

    Now a third has been added to the list, namely social and domestic, including travel to their workplace.

     

    A lot of people are unaware of this change, ignorance of which will get their vehicle seized and the ensuing fine for the release plus any court penalty.

  12. Let them take you to court, you can show proof and demand full costs for wasting yours and the courts time.

     

    Thanks for the quick answer.

     

    I am under the suspicion though this may be like the other database abuser

    - DVLA - where once you are at court with all paperwork in order,

    they will simply drop the case, leaving me out of pocket for the time off work and other costs.

     

    I've also just realised whilst I was the one that let them in (is it Capita ? and are they on a commission based wage ?)

    and the licence is in my name,

     

    the summons is for my fiance whose name appears on the mortgage - and I suppose the database,

    but he is out of the country until the second week of December, save two flying weekend visits before then.

     

    Can I turn up to court with the documentation to answer for him as the bank statement

    proving full payment is in my name and I signed the inspectors documents?

  13. Except that I have, and it's paid in full. A brief background.

     

    The Licencing people - is it still the home office ?

    - have been supplying a receipted licence for eight years to this property following a one off payment.

     

    This is the first year it has been done totally online to save paper and a stamp.

    I have bank statement proof that I paid on the day and that it has not been refunded at any time since.

     

    The issue which has led to a summons is, from what I can gather, a change to the house number

    as a result of a postal address change, that Royal Mail have confirmed was modified by the TV Licencing office themselves in 2011.

     

    I have confirmation of this in a letter from the local sorting office.

     

    I had one of their 'inspectors' come round and since I have a licence I saw no reason not to let him in last month,

    and show him the Royal Mail correspondence.

     

    The problem is, the contents within their statement supplied in the court summons is completely different

    to what happened on the day,

    he states that I never showed him the letter and asked him to leave after an argument ensued.

     

    Since I can prove a licence is valid, why should they ask me to appear in court, wasting a day of my time for no gain ?

     

    Secondly, I have to send something back to the court, pleading guilty or not guilty, of course I'm going for the latter.

     

    Am I entitled to claim for the lost time and costs of scanning and printing

    all the valid documentation at the local stationers when I turn up ?

     

    Thirdly, as a direct result of the postal alteration,

    I have lost some mail, other mail has gone to another address a few miles away,

    and I have lost two appeals, one for a parking ticket and another for a self assessment penalty,

    through the timing of correspondence back and forth exceeding that required by HMRC.

     

    Can I also claim for these penalties back from TV Licencing ?

     

    Fourthly, how does one state in court correspondence that the TV licencing people

    and their 'inspectors' (Capita ?) are cretinous without actually using such a word,

    by their fabrication of a witness statement and the detail within the database they have at their disposal,

    simply to go for proceedings via the court ?

  14. -Prosecutor informed me I was free to leave, I told him I would prefer to stay until the case was closed; the clerk of the court agreed with me that this was a better idea, and called the magistrates back in.

     

    -Prosecutor stated he had no evidence to offer and withdrew the charges..

     

    Sounds like a plan. Many thanks for the info.

×
×
  • Create New...