Jump to content

carowner1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Okay, I won't be starting a new thread now - I've submitted my case and it's best to see what happens. But as m1n1me has also submitted, all these posts are just causing confusion - so please feel free to remove.
  2. Sorry I think I may have added to the confusion here as I was referring to some details that I have submitted to Peterborough Court today and clearly if we are talking about m1n1me and VCS's cases all at the same time there may be confusion! What I can do is start a brand new topic with only my details and then you can tear me to pieces if you like! However, I shall wait until I see what the court has to say and then at least I may provide advise on what went well and what was regarded as "worthless twaddle"!
  3. Civil cases are initially dealt with in County Courts such as CBCN and the rules that govern their procedures are as I posted earlier but for some reason dx110uk deleted my post as he thought it inappropriate that a consumer action group should know about procedures posted on a government website related to courts controlling civil law! I am currently disputing the case this ruling in Peterbourgh Crown Court. What is wrong with the site team here? Do they not like useful information about court procedures and civil law?!
  4. According to the terms and conditions of the British Parking Association that I directly quoted above, but for some reason you have deleted, parking companies should not use the term PCN. If the PPC is a member of this association (and many are) whenever they use the term PCN they are contravening their own associations rules. It is indeed worthwhile pointing that out to a court. You may state as above that PCN is a "Parking Charge Notice". That's your personal opinion. However, many people would see PCN as meaning "Penalty Charge Notice" as the police and traffic wardens use the term PCN to mean this. So by using the term PCN, the claimant is trying to make the defendant assume that they actually have the statuary powers to issues parking tickets and fines like the police and traffic wardens do. However, they do not have such powers. Sorry I'm only try to help but clearly you don't want any advice posted here!
  5. In my case they did use the term PCN. And KFC did use the term "fine". Unfortunately for them, they are scuppered at the first hurdle. I believe that many car parking companies do still resort to using such terms. And it is always worth while pointing out that the claimant actually does not have any statutory rights to try to enforce a fee/fine/payment upon you. They all do it!
  6. Could I just add one further piece of information about PCNs - I have just used this in my defense against Civil Enforcement submitted to Peterborough Crown Court - actually today! Anyone can feel free to quote me on the following! 5. Under civil contract law in England, no private individual or company has the statutory power to fine or apply a penalty to another individual or company. The only authorities that are allowed to issue fines or penalty notices are courts, the police (traffic wardens come under the police) and councils under certain by-law though these fines are usually administered by courts. The claimant is a private company. It is actually illegal for them to issue a fine or a penalty notice to anyone or any company. I note that KFC stated that their car parking company “fined” people. Clearly, this is illegal and this car parking company should be subject to criminal action. Though many of the letters that the claimant sent me were very threatening making all sort of false claims about what would happen to me if I didn’t pay the claimant ridiculous some of money for some offence, they were careful not to use the word “fine”. Instead they have been using the term PCN which is a common acronym for “penalty charge notice”, for example in the claim: “PCN REF: REF4967111970” According to the British Parking Association Code of practice, update V6 October 2015 (which would be the version in power at the time of the alleged offence) - see https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf 14.2 You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as ‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’. Clearly the claimant does not regard this code of practice as applying to them (but then again they do not describe themselves as a car parking company). I believe that the claimant has deliberately and repeatedly used the term penalty charge notice and various other threats in an attempt to make me assume that they have some statutory power to enforce fines and penalties on me. They do not have such powers and trying to make someone believe that they do so and using it in evidence for a court case to claim money is a criminal offence. I did actually continue in my defense, this is a bit frivolous, but it may end up being read out in court and if Civil Enforcement were to appear I want to watch them cringe! (Note CCBC is the court that upheld Civil Enforcement's attempt to apply a PCN on me). Under civil contract law, CCBC cannot apply any of the claimant’s fines, penalties, PCNs or whatever upon me (and that is regardless of any assumed contract). The only payment that CCBC can enforce me to pay for actual losses only. For example, if I were sick of people allowing their dogs to fowl my front lawn, I might be inclined to post notices all over my lawn stating in large letters stating “Dog owners: do not allow your dog to fowl my lawn. Penalty for doing so - £1000”. I could take a picture of an owner allowing their dog to fowl my lawn right in front of the one of my notices. I could then ask the owner to pay my fine (as long I did not threatened them or try to make them assume that I had any statutory right to do this). The dog owner could simply ignore all my claims. If I were to take them to court with all my evidence, the maximum penalty a court could enforce the dog owner to pay me is the cost of a handful of grass seed. The claimant’s “PCN” used in the claim is actually an unenforceable fee notice. The claimant needs to be very careful that they ensure that anyone that they choose to send such notices to understand this. Perhaps they could write: “Civil Enforcement wish to invite you to pay an unenforceable fee notice for parking on some private land. Note that we do NOT assume any statutory rights to enforce you to pay this and we are claiming damages of £0. As such, you are quite entitled to ignore this letter”. If CCBC, thought that all details of the claim were valid, they could have ruled in the claimant’s favour and enforced me to pay them £0 for damages caused. If you want to be pedantic and show that you have some understanding of the law and due legal processes you can refer to: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06 The court will not like this as you are starting to tell them what rules they are allowed to apply to you. However, it is clear that in PCN claims, they should actually be reverting to civil contract law and so can only order a defendant to pay for actually damages caused by breach of contract (and not any fines or fees that may by outlined in that contract). If only more people started pointing this out to the courts, they would be become very reluctant to ever get involved in upholding case involving parking on private land as clearly courts and Judges do not want to be seen contravening the rules that they must operate under.
  7. Yup I have the feeling that they didn't even bother changing the oil - they certainly didn't top up the washer fluid, reset the service indicator nor put air in the tyres. It was one of those combined service/mot jobs and they perhaps did the bare mininum for an mot and when I came to pick up the car, the manager had the idea to get a little bit extra out of me by advising that the alignment was out (and was a bit taken aback when I clearly knew that it wasn't)! I shall await a reply from them for a couple more days but this is really a very poor way to treat customers and run a business. In any case I already have the trading standards complaints form ready!
  8. No they did not charge me - they simply stated that the wheel alignment was out by a few degrees. How they knew this, is the question, as a wheel alignment check is not stated to be part of an interim service? The car drives fine and does not pull in the slightest to the side so they could not have decided this from a road test. The manager did a bad slip of the tongue when he used the word "exagerate" as it only implies that something is not true! The reason that I am suspicious of the oil change is that I just noticed that the oil is soot black. It is a diesel but when I've checked it before it has been an appropriate colour. I am somewhat suspicious that they actually serviced it at all as they couldn't get the wheels of as I didn't have the locking wheel not (which Kwik fit had previously lost!) It is actually pretty easy to get locking wheel nuts off - the same garage did it later for a "free" brake check where the advice was to have all round disk/pads replaced as you may imagine. However the point here is that I don't think they should be let to get away with completely unnecessarily advising alignment checks. This rarely needs to be done - only when you've hit something really hard or had suspenion parts changed (but then they should set it right as part of the job). But I suspect that many people will feel it must be dangerous not to have it done and that £49 is not much to pay. Problem is that it is hard to prove mal-practise on this.
  9. After having my car "serviced" at kwik-fit (they didn't actually succeed in completing all of the task - I'm not convinced that they even changed the oil), the manager mentioned that I needed the wheel alignment fixing as it was a few degrees out. This confused me as: 1. Checking the alignment is not part of the interim service 2. I had recently had the alignment fixed by another garage and the car drove perfectly well since then. So I questioned the manager about his figures and his reply worried me. He simply said that "the readings do tend to exagerate things a bit". This is not what it states on the kwik-fit web-site about the state-of-the-art precision machinery that they use for alignment. So perhaps the exageration was coming from elsewhere? I was provided a feedback form and emailed this concern together with other things they did wrong - but still await a reply. Presumably Kwik-fit can make a fair bit of money from their £49 alignment check plus extra for each wheel they see fit to actually align. Just wondering whether others have been unexpectedly been told they need their alignment adjusted?
×
×
  • Create New...