Jump to content

Showing results for tags 'redbridge'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
    • Non-Retail subforums
    • Retail Subforums
  • Work, Social and Community
    • Work, Social and Community Subforums:
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
    • Debt subforums:
    • PayDay loan and other Short Term Loans subforum:
  • Motoring
    • Motoring subforums
  • Legal Forums
    • Legal Issues subforums

Categories

  • Records

Categories

  • News from the National Consumer Service
  • News from the Web

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location

Found 5 results

  1. It has come to my attention that Redbridge council are unfairly profiteering from motorists driving in and around the Ilford area. I am posting here to find out if there is anything myself or others can do to 'overhaul' this system as it is unfair on drivers and is purely a money making scheme for them. Recently myself and a few other guests attended a dinner party and used the Citipark multi-story car park in Clements Road, Ilford. To enter and exit the car park there is a small intersection that splits the one way street and prevents drivers from driving back down the wrong way when exiting the car park. Upon exiting the car park you are immediately directed to the right and the intersection then directs you to the left into Clements road. You then proceed down two lanes. One leads you to the left - under a building through a small tunnel - into Clements Lane. The right hand lane continues to lead you down Clements Road towards Ilford main high street (High Road). We used three vehicles to attend. The drivers of the other two vehicles have informed me that they have both received a penalty notice from Redbridge council along with photographic evidence demanding £130 (£65 if paid early and appealing the decision could be very risky and costly) for driving down a restricted road meant for buses and access only. I myself have not received a penalty notice (yet). I don't recall driving down the wrong lane but I shall update the thread if I do. From looking at Google street view and from searching around I can see why. It is not very clear to me what the road priorities are and the signs are small and could easily be obscured if you were driving behind a bus. The road markings say nothing and there is no red coloring to the road that would indicate a bus lane either. From some research it would seem I am not the only one to notice that Redbridge council are using this as a money making scheme. Some links below give weight to this observation. Dailymail article http://tinyurl.com/nefwh9w Ilford Reporter article http://tinyurl.com/nrtz3mk Forum posts http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=68064 If you look on Google street view (link below) you can get clearly see what went wrong and why drivers are being caught out by this. I dread to know how many other drivers are being caught daily by this who are new to the area. Especially since at least two of us were caught out on this. http://tinyurl.com/p5ousm8 Based on this and the above information I wish to know if there is anything that can be done about Redbridge council's flagrant disregard for motorists and 'outrageous' use of them as a money making scheme. Is there no way for a group of us to fight back? This has been going on for years it would seem and surely it has to stop. If I lived locally I would be there every day with a big sign pointing out to drivers the restrictions, denying Redbridge council their pound of flesh! Both drivers of the other two vehicles have decided not to fight it and pay the fine without any complaint. They simply say it is too much time and hassle to fight this which I can understand. But if nobody fights back then more people will continue to fall into this trap and lose money. All the while Redbridge council will continue to line their pockets and not do a damned thing to change it. I would love to get involved in some kind of group action but at present all I can think of is to write a letter of complaint to Redbridge council, the local MP for Ilford, blog it all over the internet and write to Watchdog. Any advice is appreciated. P.S. Is it legal to put up your own sign informing motorists of the restrictions as long as it does not cause obstruction? If so, I am surprised nobody has tried this yet.
  2. Hi, I received a PCN for parking on Thornton Road, Ilford. This is a narrow road and the parking is allowed with two tyres on the footpath. All the cars were parked in this way so I parked mine the same way to prevent blocking traffic. I was shocked to find a ticket on my car. After checking carefully I found the parking sign which allows parking in this manner except last few meters of the road where my car was parked. However there is no yellow line on the road to restrict parking. Also there were L plates on my car since my wife has a provisional licence and she sometimes drives the car. May be this drew the attention of the traffic warden and I got a ticket. Kindly check the photos and guide me if I can appeal against this ticket.
  3. Yesterday the Local Government Ombudsman issued a public report against London Borough of Redbridge in relation to a complaint. A link to the full report can be found at the bottom of this post. The basis of the complaint is that in May 2011 the complainant received a PCN after the Council’s CCTV saw her committing an offence. She moved home the day after the contravention. LB of Redbridge applied to DVLA a few days later and naturally DVLA provided her previous address. As a result, she did not receive any of the notices. A warrant of execution was authorised and passed to their bailiff provider; Newlyn Plc to enforce. Her car was located by way of the bailiffs ANPR equipped vehicle and clamped. To avoid the removal of her car she was forced to pay £741. The warrant issued to the bailiffs had the previous address for Miss X but, before the first visit Newlyn’s records showed that they carried out a DVLA search on the vehicle. This search would have revealed the new address for Miss X. It would seem that the bailiff knew that a new address had been provided by DVLA and in fact, the hand written receipt the bailiff gave to her had the first part of her previous address and this was crossed off by the bailiff and replaced with her current address. The Ombudsman refers in her report to Civil Procedure Rule 75.7(7) which outlines the procedure that must be followed if a bailiff identifies a new address....which is.... that if a local authority wishes to continue to enforce the warrant it must apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to have the warrant reissued to the new address. (Note:CPR 75.7(7) is very specific on this point in that a warrant may only be reissued in the very rare cases where the address changed after the date that the warrant had been issued). Miss X then filed an Out of Time witness statement which LB of Redbridge so fit to reject!! She applied to have the decision “reviewed” and had to pay a fee £80 to file an N244. The District Judge overruled the decision of LB of Redbridge and cancelled the warrant and revoked the Order for Recovery. LB of Redbridge repaid £172 to Miss X which represented the amount of the PCN.Miss X approached Redbridge to refund the bailiffs fees. They refused and stated that they had no legal duty to do so and they quoted legislation that had been repealed under Schedule 12 of the TMA 2004 (full details are in paragraphs 21-23 of the report). The Ombudsman stated that: · “Once discovering that the address on the warrant was different to the complainant’s current one, the bailiffs should have released the vehicle without charge and returned the warrant to the council for further action” In addition,the Ombudsman decided that the council was dismissive of the complaint and they initially insisted the complainant was at fault for not notifying the DVLA of her new address when they had in fact done so, and it quoted outdated legislation as justification for refusing to refund the bailiffcharges. The Ombudsman also refers in her report to sections 10.68 and 10.69 of the Department for Transport’s Operational Guidance to Local Authorities under theTraffic Management Act 2004. On the procedure that should be followed if the address on the warrant is different from the defaulters current address the Ombudsman stated that the bailiff should: · “Stop action, unclamp the car, not charge any costs and return the warrant to the Council” and that: · “Failure to do so in this complaint was “administrative fault” which “led to injustice” When the complaint was being investigated by the Ombudsman, LB of Redbridge responded to the enquiries to effectively lay blame on Miss X and stated that: · “It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that address details held by the DVLA are correct at all times.” And that: · “In this instance the fees were incurred as a result of what can best be described as an oversight by Ms Young in failing to advise the DVLA of her change of address.” LB of Redbridge failed to provide any evidence to support this “oversight” but shockingly, even after the Ombudsman suggested that Redbridge should settle the complaint, they continued to blame Miss X by suggesting that she was to blame as she should have arranged for her post to be redirected !! From the evidence provided to the Ombudsman it was clear that Miss X had indeed advised DVLA of her change of address almost immediately. Astonishingly, Redbridge also stated to the Ombudsman the following: · “Whilst we appreciate that [the bailiffs] acted as our agents in this matter we cannot be held responsible for their oversight in failing to advise us of the change of address when they became aware of it.” The Ombudsman disagreed and stated in her report: "When Ms Young complained to the Council about what had happened it should have recognised the fault, apologised, instructed the bailiffs to refund the fees and costs, and ensured that they acted correctly in future. The Ombudsman’s conclusion was Maladministration and Injustice. http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2013/mar/redbridge-council-asked-review-bailiff-procedures/ . .
  4. . . . Yesterday the Local Government Ombudsman issued a public report against London Borough of Redbridge in relation to a complaint. A link to the full report can be found at the bottom of this post. The basis of the complaint is that in May 2011 the complainant received a pcn after the Council’s CCTV saw her committing an offence. She moved home the day after the contravention. LB of Redbridge applied to DVLA a few days later and naturally DVLA provided her previous address. As a result, she did not receive any of the notices. A warrant of execution was authorised and passed to their bailiff provider; Newlyn Plc to enforce. Her car was located by way of the bailiffs ANPR equipped vehicle and clamped. To avoid the removal of her car she was forced to pay £741. The warrant issued to the bailiffs had the previous address for Miss X but, before the first visit Newlyn’s records showed that they carried out a DVLA search on the vehicle. This search would have revealed the new address for Miss X. It would seem that the bailiff knew that a new address had been provided by DVLA and in fact, the hand written receipt the bailiff gave to her had the first part of her previous address and this was crossed off by the bailiff and replaced with her current address. The Ombudsman refers in her report to Civil Procedure Rule 75.7(7) which outlines the procedure that must be followed if a bailiff identifies a new address....which is.... that if a local authority wishes to continue to enforce the warrant it must apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to have the warrant reissued to the new address. (Note:CPR 75.7(7) is very specific on this point in that a warrant may only be reissued in the very rare cases where the address changed after the date that the warrant had been issued). Miss X then filed an Out of Time witness statement which LB of Redbridge so fit to reject!! She applied to have the decision “reviewed” and had to pay a fee £80 to file an N244. The District Judge overruled the decision of LB of Redbridge and cancelled the warrant and revoked the Order for Recovery. LB of Redbridge repaid £172 to Miss X which represented the amount of the PCN.Miss X approached Redbridge to refund the bailiffs fees. They refused and stated that they had no legal duty to do so and they quoted legislation that had been repealed under Schedule 12 of the TMA 2004 (full details are in paragraphs 21-23 of the report). The Ombudsman stated that: · “Once discovering that the address on the warrant was different to the complainant’s current one, the bailiffs should have released the vehicle without charge and returned the warrant to the council for further action” In addition,the Ombudsman decided that the council was dismissive of the complaint and they initially insisted the complainant was at fault for not notifying the DVLA of her new address when they had in fact done so, and it quoted outdated legislation as justification for refusing to refund the bailiffcharges. The Ombudsman also refers in her report to sections 10.68 and 10.69 of the Department for Transport’s Operational Guidance to Local Authorities under theTraffic Management Act 2004. On the procedure that should be followed if the address on the warrant is different from the defaulters current address the Ombudsman stated that the bailiff should: · “Stop action, unclamp the car, not charge any costs and return the warrant to the Council” and that: · “Failure to do so in this complaint was “administrative fault” which “led to injustice” When the complaint was being investigated by the Ombudsman, LB of Redbridge responded to the enquiries to effectively lay blame on Miss X and stated that: · “It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that address details held by the DVLA are correct at all times.” And that: · “In this instance the fees were incurred as a result of what can best be described as an oversight by Ms Young in failing to advise the DVLA of her change of address.” LB of Redbridge failed to provide any evidence to support this “oversight” but shockingly, even after the Ombudsman suggested that Redbridge should settle the complaint, they continued to blame Miss X by suggesting that she was to blame as she should have arranged for her post to be redirected !! From the evidence provided to the Ombudsman it was clear that Miss X had indeed advised DVLA of her change of address almost immediately. Astonishingly, Redbridge also stated to the Ombudsman the following: · “Whilst we appreciate that [the bailiffs] acted as our agents in this matter we cannot be held responsible for their oversight in failing to advise us of the change of address when they became aware of it.” The Ombudsman disagreed and stated in her report: "When Ms Young complained to the Council about what had happened it should have recognised the fault, apologised, instructed the bailiffs to refund the fees and costs, and ensured that they acted correctly in future. The Ombudsman’s conclusion was Maladministration and Injustice. http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2013/mar/redbridge-council-asked-review-bailiff-procedures/
  5. My car brokedown on Saturday night (16/01/2011). I called the AA.. They came within an hour.. The agent couldnt fix the car and diagnosed it as a broken timer belt with possibly bent valves. The car was dead and immobile. The car was recovered by tow truck and left outside the garage.. The car was set down by the AA agent in whatever space was available near the garage. He parked it with the near-side two wheels on the footpath. It was dark and raining heavily. The garage was closed on Sunday.. On Monday morning (18/01/2011), I met the garage guys and handed over the keys and they then took a day or so (due to bad weather, incessant rain and lack of staff) to move the car and start work on it.. They had the car for the rest of the week and I picked up the car on the Saturday. When I picked the car there was a PCN stuck on the windshield. Here I must clarify there was a sign allowing parking on one side of the sign and my car was parked on the other side. The sign at the location indicates, using an arrow, the direction and point from which you can park with wheels on the footway. I appealed against the PCN and also had attached the garage bills. Soon after my appeal, I got a letter from Redbridge Parking asking for proof in the form of a letter from the AA. I called the AA and got a letter which I sent them. Now I have got a letter from them rejecting my appeal. Redbridge say that they cannot cancel the PCN because the AA moved the vehicle to the location where it received the PCN therefore the vehicle should have been parked correctly. I have two options now.. Pay the reduced amount £50 within 14 days.. If I do not use this option, a Notice to Owner will be sent to me, the Registered Keeper, at the full penalty of £100.00. I am then entitled to a further representation to the Council’s Appeal Services. Should your representation not be accepted then I will have the option to make a further representation to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Services (PATAS). As I have indicated, the circumstances were not normal. I was not in charge of the vehicle when the alleged violation happened.. The car was dead and wouldn't start.. There was no place to park near the garage. This infuriates me.. This is greed, opportunism and a frantic way by the council to make more money out of me. Any help would be appreciated. Should I fight, what chance to do I have of winning this case with PATAS.. Am I better off paying the reduced amount. Sincerely
×
×
  • Create New...