Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good evening, My husband and I are looking for some help regarding a faulty car which we have recently purchased from Big Motoring World Enfield. The details are as follows: - Make - Nissan Qashqai 2017 1.2L milage 55,349 miles.  Date purchased -   01/06/2024 Price paid - Deposit £9000, finance £4794 (this includes the 3yr Nissan extended warranty), buyers fee £249.      Total including all fees etc = £ 13794.        Initially, during the test drive, there was no problem with the car at all and this is why my husband bought the car on the day. No problems on the way home from the dealership and up to three days after purchase, the car drove smoothly. However, after day 4, occasionally we would feel a slight shudder during some gear changes (automatic car). Over the next few days these shudders worsened and then on day 5 the car would make very a very loud shudder with every single gear change. It was at this point we contacted Big Motoring World for advice as we are still under the 14 days no questions asked return.  My husband contacted BMW for advice on 06/06/2024 and stated the problems as above. He spoke to a sales person who informed him that he should only take the car to a Nissan dealership (we have now been told that this is false information). We were also promised that a courtesy car would be provided for us after the fault on the car had been identified and confirmed by their mechanic fixing the car. We took the car to the garage that Big Motoring World had told us to go. Upon arrival there we discovered it was a third-party garage, not Nissan. We took the car to the garage on day 9. The mechanic ran a diagnostic test which found no faults, but after the test drove the car and below are his findings...   we scan the car but no faults with the gearbox showing but when I test drove the car it was really juddering and jumping.I spoke to my auto transmission specialist and he said they are very common on these as the CVT belt starts jumping within the box due to pressure loss.  We had this vehicle in for diagnostics for gearbox mate but both the gearbox and battery are faulty.Gearbox supplied and fitted comes to £3500 plus vat   Where we are at now…. My husband spent all of day 10 (11/06/2024) making phone calls between the garage, Warranties2000 and Big Motoring World. He tried, unsuccessfully to find out if the diagnostic reports had been shared between all three. Everyone kept saying the report hadn’t been received and yet the garage assured us it had been sent. Eventually we were told that the courtesy car would be given to us if it was deemed the works to fix the car would take longer than 8 working hours, and that decision would be made after 48hours of receiving the report. Today is day 11 and no decision has been made as nobody is telling us any decisions as people are off sick or on holiday! Today we called the garage and told the mechanic NOT to start any work as we will be returning the car. He said none have been started and we have left the car in his storage as he has deemed the car undrivable. I have sent an email to BMW now formally stating that we want to return the car and I have used the terminology that was suggested.   What can we do next?   Thank you everyone. .  
    • Yes will do thanks Dave, I wonder what will happen at the preliminary hearing no idea what they will ask I assumed once I sent the proof they asked for about my sons condition that I would have just  been given the go ahead to be Litigation friend
    • First the judge will rule on you representing your son, which will be a doddle. After that the full hearing date will be fixed, with WSs exchanged 14 days before. So for the moment just concentrate on getting the right to represent your son.  
    • Thank you, the mediations in a couple of days so hopefully they show up this time. I'll update this thread after how it goes
  • 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

ticketed on private/unused land


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6079 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

Hello everyone

 

I received a ticket last thursday but would be very grateful if anyone has any advice before I appeal. There is a narrow alley just across from where I live and to the right of it is a bit of land in front of an old factory building where cars and rubbish have been dumped. The owners of the property where I live have only provided about half of the spaces needed for tenants so there is always a problem with parking. I parked in front of 3 dumped cars one of which has been there for 4 years, as I knew nobody would need to get to them. I was ticketed for footway parking.code 62. I would like to appeal as I dont believe this to be a footway. There are bits which could be called a footway but they are so narrow people just walk straight up the alley.Any advice would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very difficult to challenge a PCN for "footway" parking on the grounds that where you were parked was not footway. There may be other grounds that give you a greater chance of success.

 

Post a copy of the PCN so we can look at it.

 

BTW I assume this is a LA PCN and that you are actually in an area where footway parking is prohibited.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bernie

 

the contravention was that I was :parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway(footway parking). I dont know what the last bit of your e-mail means.

 

Sue

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks buzby, I looked at the map and used the zoom tool but still couldn't see the road there was no detail of road names just areas:confused: .

 

Sue

 

Check on your Council's website - they may make their GIS (Geographic Information System) available on-line for you to look at. The scale you need is 1:2500, this shows footpaths and pillars in high detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking on the footpath has always been illegal/prohibited, just it is seldom enforced.

The position in and outside London is different. Even where footway parking is generally prohibited there may be exemptions and where exemptions end signage has to be adequate.

 

The PCNs that I have had for footway parking have been cancelled on appeal for inadequate signage. The argument that "it is not part of the footway" gets nowhere as it is not being on the carriageway that is the contravention.

 

The PCN itself and the NTO are likely to be more fertile grounds for appeal.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd contend that parking on the public footpath is always prohibited unless in can be shown the footpath uses private land in which the landowner still can drive over and use. It would therefor seems sensible that if what you say is true, parking legally on the footpath would be the exception, not the rule so any signage would be declaring that parking on the footpath is allowed at that locus, rather than it being specifically prohibited!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd contend that parking on the public footpath is always prohibited unless in can be shown the footpath uses private land in which the landowner still can drive over and use. It would therefor seems sensible that if what you say is true, parking legally on the footpath would be the exception, not the rule so any signage would be declaring that parking on the footpath is allowed at that locus, rather than it being specifically prohibited!

This is what the dft say:

In some areas pavement parking is prohibited by a local Act of Parliament, and it may be prohibited elsewhere in particular streets or parts of streets by traffic regulation orders. But enforcement may be a problem unless the local authority is able to take on the responsibility through the arrangements being developed under the Road Traffic Act 1991. The various physical measures described in this leaflet are however largely self-enforcing.

In London

“The relevant Traffic Management Order (TMO) is The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 which prohibits the parking of a vehicle in a position on an urban road where one or all of its wheels rest upon a footway.

“Footway” is defined in section 15 (12) as follows: “footway means a way comprised in an urban road which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only.’

It is also relevant that:

By section 329 of the Highways Act 1980 “Footway is defined as “a way comprised in a highway,

which also comprises a carriageway over which the Public have a right of way on foot only.”

My understanding is that in London it is banned unless an exemption is in place. Outside London it is permitted unless otherwise indicated.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bernie and buzby

 

Thank you for your advice but theres a lot of legal jargon which I just don't understand. Since I will appeal regardless, I need to know what I am talking about before I write it. In simple terms what do you suggest I say.

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soobee,

 

What I am saying is that I don't think you will have much chance in appealing against footway parking unless you can categorically show that where you were parked was both private land and that there can have been no reasonable expectation of the public to use it.

 

Where I do think you may have a chance is in possible irregularities in both the PCN and, if you appeal the NTO.

 

To comment on detail we need to see scans of both sides of the PCN.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to find out whether you were on private land or the footway is to contact the highway authority and ask for a definitive statement as to the extent of the highway.

 

There is every chance that the PA is wrong; every chance that you are wrong - only the authority (usually county council) will have the definite answer. They have no axe to grind about PCNs

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of whether it is private land or not is a red herring. The question is whether or not the public have right of way on foot only.

 

You can still get a LA PCN for parking on privately owned land.

 

Refer here.

 

What of course this does throw up is an issue if you get a PCN for "footway parking" when the pavement is split part footway and, closest to the road, cycleway.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What of course this does throw up is an issue if you get a PCN for "footway parking" when the pavement is split part footway and, closest to the road, cycleway.

 

The contravention is termed 'footway' parking but is as stated previously is actually parked on any part of the street other than the carriageway. This can be a grass verge, driveway, flowerbed, footpath or anything else really that is not meant to be driven or parked on. Parking on a dedicated cycletrack is also a contravention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The contravention is termed 'footway' parking but is as stated previously is actually parked on any part of the street other than the carriageway. This can be a grass verge, driveway, flowerbed, footpath or anything else really that is not meant to be driven or parked on. Parking on a dedicated cycletrack is also a contravention.

Of course! Don't I feel dumb particularly given that I referenced it in an earlier post. I confused myself reading this old case (still valid but before the contraventions were updated)!

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that this helps your case, but the following may be thrown at you;

 

The Highway Code (Para 21) states: "Do not park partially or wholly on the pavement unless signs permit it"**

 

The RTA (Road Traffic Act) 1988 (amended 1991) states: "the pavement/footpath is for walking on and is not an extension of the road, and must not be used for parking on."

 

**The Highway Code has no legal standing, but the RTA does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...