Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well done on your victory!  👏   You must have a magic touch, it's extremely rare that the PPCs accept an appeal.
    • Court hearing today. WON on all counts of claim. The win though is not the interesting bit, but the ‘why’ is really useful. We were allocated 90 minutes but it took two hours by telephone . The defense were represented but I failed to note whether by a solicitor, barrister or other advocate.   As soon as the judge finished the introductions and before he had time to pass the time over to me to explain my case, the defense interrupted and asked the claim be struck out. He then spent the next 40 minutes discussing with the judge that I had failed to properly serve my bundle upon which I intended to rely. The judge asked me to explain and I said I had served the bundle to them and the court 3 days before the deadline, by signed for post with a tracking number to the address named in the summons being the Royal Mail Head Office in London. I said it was a bit rich that they were making this request when they had failed to serve me and the court with their bundle within the deadline and that I had only just received it. They quoted a certain principle of law (which I failed to write down) which explained that service of documents must be made to the address which either party may request service to be made. They claimed that six months earlier when they lodged their defense to my summons, the covering letter had been sent from their Sheffield office and it constituted the address for future service of documents. I of course had no idea of such a requirement and said that a simple letter heading on a piece of correspondence was not the same as a formal sentence in a letter requesting such future service. It gave the judge some concern but he decided to park the issue and allow the hearing to continue.   I was able to explain my case for the £50 compensation for the lost parcel using the evidence from the defense bundle referencing the Overseas Post Scheme. It was all straight forward. I explained the facts and let them speak for themselves. I then moved on to the delayed Special Delivery items. This is where the fun began because I had to argue against their terms and conditions. I used the defense bundle referencing the UK Post Scheme. I quoted from various clauses which explained the rules relating to claims. That ALL delay claims must be made within 3 months, then that Special Delivery was actually 14 days so not 3 months after all, then another clause which confirmed the deadline was 3 months for all delay claims. I quoted further that these were “common terms” and that some services (Special Delivery was one) had additional terms which were called “specific terms”. Another clause stated that where a conflict arises between common and specific terms, then specific terms took priority. So I turned to the Special Delivery section to quote the specific terms as these would have priority. There was only one term that referenced claims. It simply said If we do not succeed in attempting to deliver by this time (being the next day) we will refund your postage. I used this single phrase to take priority over the 3 months  or 14 day deadline mentioned in the common terms. I discussed how the various clauses conflicted with themselves as if the clauses themselves did not know what the deadlines were and how ambiguous and confusing it was.   The time was then past to the defense and he started to argue there was no contract nor liability in tort (a substantial portion of their written defense document and bundle discussed this argument). It made me smile because I was ready for that. The judge though was ahead of the game and (especially because 40 minutes had been wasted at the beginning) he did not want to hear of it. After about one minute, he stopped the defense by saying exactly what I was preparing to say. Simply that I was not suing under contract or tort but under the conditions of the various postal schemes for which they were liable. He asked the defense to answer my claims. The defense then prevaricated trying to argue the clause that distinctly mentioned the 14 day time limit within which to make a claim for delay (which of course it did) ( as an aside, most people might accept that deadline and not bother to pursue a claim). He had nothing to add about the lost parcel.   Time had run out, we had no questioning and the judge said he was summing up. He was quite happy I had served my documents sufficiently well and took the view that the defense had fallen foul of the court order so he was cancelling out the question about valid service. He had no difficulty in accepting the claim that the lost parcel was valid and awarded me the £50 compensation. He then spoke at longer length about the delay claims and the conflict in the clauses. (at this point I had no idea which way this bit would go). Then, he spoke of how a business such as Royal Mail should not be accepting clauses in their contracts which were clearly inconsistant. (that’s when I started to relax), (and then the best takeaway of the hearing), He said that common law provides in the event of a standard contract if there is any ambiguity, the interpretation should be judged against the person drafting the contract. He called it Contra Proferendem. (I had no idea of that concept but had effectively explained it anyway). I was awarded the whole claim plus costs. The defense asked for permission to appeal which was refused.    Remember the phrase “Contra Proferendem” . I shall be looking more into it. I am sure it will come in handy against any institution that have drafted contracts that cannot be individually negotiated. And will certainly be useful for a long while yet against Royal Mail et al.
    • The White House highlights the upcoming offer of free trips in the US by the ride-hailing firms. View the full article
    • Original loan was £5000 unsecured over 5 years, 28 payments remaining, he wanted to extend it back up to 5 year.........the bank offered him £6700 to clear his credit card and the bank loan, £135 per month from the original figure of £121    One debt of two years old and one debt of 15 months        
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Wife issued with a PCN while collecting children and loading


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4742 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

My wife had been issued with a PCN on 4/12/07 while she was collecting the kids from their school and also loading their musical instruments into the car for their private lessons as they also play in their school's music group. Children need help to carry the instruments and also school will not allow them to leave except when handed over to an appropriate adult as they are only 7 yrs old. She was issued with a PCN within 2 minutes. Contravention code is 01 as she parked on a single yellow line within a close proximity of the school. Her first appeal rejected and I am now served with a notice to owner. i will challenge them (L B of Enfield - NCP).

Your comments will be appreciated.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will need to check where she stopped to see if loading is permitted at the time the PCN was issued.

 

Contrary to the belief of many Councils, loading does not need either a commercial vehicle nor invoices/delivery notes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You will need to check where she stopped to see if loading is permitted at the time the PCN was issued.

 

Contrary to the belief of many Councils, loading does not need either a commercial vehicle nor invoices/delivery notes.

 

If it was not permitted it would have been an '02' not an '01' ;)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me as if boarding and alighting was also involved.

This is permitted even when loading is not.

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

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
Sounds to me as if boarding and alighting was also involved.

This is permitted even when loading is not.

 

The vehicle is not meant to be left unattended for dropping off/picking up passengers. There is some leeway for disabled and young children but only from adjacent property I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not really sure whether or not collecting kids from their school mentioned anywhere in the law when school will not allow them to leave except when handed over to an appropriate adult.

 

Without sounding rude picking up kids from school does not exempt you from the law. Unless disabled there is nothing to prevent you from parking legally and walking to the school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The vehicle is not meant to be left unattended for dropping off/picking up passengers. There is some leeway for disabled and young children but only from adjacent property I think.

 

And isn't that what is going on here? Besides, there's also the loading going on!

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

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 vehicle is not meant to be left unattended for dropping off/picking up passengers. There is some leeway for disabled and young children but only from adjacent property I think.

 

I think that BtB has unintentionally diverted attention here.

 

The major point is that the OP's wife was loading (musical instruments that the kids can't carry for themselves. This does not require the vehicle to be attended.

 

Alighting is a red herring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet another case of inconsiderate and lazy parents. These children are 7yrs old and have legs, let them make use of them.

 

I think this a bit judgemental approach if not constractive. The car is being used for this purpose only once a week and there is a valid reason for that. Musical instruments need to be collected on every Tuesday, and also legally speaking children will not be let to leave the school on their own because of their age (Child Protection Act).

 

And, Fortunately this country is still being ruled by law & order not by parking attendants and their managers and, I believe existince of this forum/actiongroup linkes itself to this fact.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet another case of inconsiderate and lazy parents. These children are 7yrs old and have legs, let them make use of them.

 

:rolleyes: Aaaand... now we have Chester's inevitable and useless sarcasm as well. Sigh. D'you know how much musical instruments cost? and how heavy and awkward the larger ones can be? A seven year old would find it difficult to carry a guitar or a cello, and even the smaller ones get bumped about in the cases. What's wrong with loading musical equipment into your car in a valid loading zone? It has nothing to do with 'laziness', and the ticket seems to have been issued by an operative who doesn't understand what 'loading' means.

-----

Click the scales if I've been useful! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to scan the PCN, remove all identifying details, and then post it here, along with any other correspondance you've received about appeals - then people can work out what stage you're at and how to proceed. Have you been back and double-checked the restrictions on the road? It would help your appeal if you took pictures of the area, or applied for the traffic regulation order on that road, to prove that loading is allowed, and then stated that you were loading musical equipment on the day in question.

-----

Click the scales if I've been useful! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was away for a couple day just managed to reply.

 

I will write to them tomorrow to make my representation on the basis of "contravention did not occur". Any useful info would make my case stronger.

 

Thanks

 

 

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/6117/pcn002xs5.th.png

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6268/pcn001zy7.th.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that the amount of the Penalty Charge has to appear on the PCN above the tear off strip for it to be valid.

 

Can you put a scan of the back of the PCN up as well so that it can be checked?

 

Also I think they may have the two date rule wrong. I think the notice must contain the correct wording which is Date of Issue: and

Date of Contravention.

 

Could be another nail in their coffin. Can someone please comment on the above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dates are fine on the PCN,

 

However pin1onu is absolutely correct about the amount of fine having to appear on the PCN. The tear-off slip does not form part of the PCN.

 

RTA 1991 S.66

 

(3) A penalty charge notice must state—

(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.

 

Unless the specific amount is written on the back of the PCN, then it is void. The Council will not admit this; you will have to take it to the adjudicator.

 

As to the letter, it specifically does not rebut your assertion that your wife was loading at the time. Again, a matter for the adjudicator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It contains HOW TO PAY and HOW TO CHALLENGE details on the back of the PCN. There isn't any other information stated.

 

Then you have definite grounds for an appeal to the adjudicator. The PCN is invalid under RTA 1991 S66 3b. Stick it to them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...