Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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
      • 160 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

Are COUNCIL issued parking tickets enforceable?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5810 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

Firstly, I have followed the advice from this website re parking on private land and replied as registered keeper and refused to provide the details of the driver. They have gone away with their tail between their legs and I have saved myself £350!! Thank you!!

 

My current question is that surely the same tactic could be used for any council issued ticket IF parking has been decriminalised? I am aware that for a speeding ticket etc, the registered keeper must provide the details of the driver of the vehicle at that time. But if parking is now a civil matter handled by the local council and not the police, then can a council department force the registered keeper to reveal the private details of the actual driver if that driver refuses them permission to do so for example?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that apply to all council areas, does the fact parking has been decriminalised make a difference?

 

It only applies to decriminalised parking. Where parking is still a criminal offence, then legislation does exist to require the RK to name the driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful. I stay in Glasgow where it is decriminalised! That is a very important point then for people to understand the difference.

 

If parking is a civil offence in the relevent council area then the registered keeper can refuse to name the driver of the vehicle but if it isn't then they would have problems if they refused to name the driver.

 

Is there a way to tell what the situation is based on the format of the ticket I wonder?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last two comments are above my level of understanding, Michael, I assume you are saying that owner liability is not correct in this case and perhaps that Geral has another agenda maybe??? What is PPC? Logic says to me that it should not be correct legally or otherwise to hold one person responsible for someone elses actions???

Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion of "owner liability" though not inscribed in law, also applies to tickets issued by independent enforcement agents.

 

At the severe risk of troll feeding...

 

How in the hell can you assert that somebody who is not present to read PPC 'signage' can be a party to any implied contract?

 

It is absolute nonsense. Your only (very slight) possibility would be to prove that the driver (who is unknown) was acting as a agent of the RK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is there a way to tell what the situation is based on the format of the ticket I wonder?

 

Yes.

 

Decriminalised Parking Enforcement = Penalty Charge Notice; Notice to Owner: etc.

 

Criminal = Fixed Penalty Notice or Excess Charge Notice

 

Private = an endless confetti of 'invoices' threatening all sorts of dire consequences that won't happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely. It happens alot more often than you might think. If you lend your car to someone, then you obviously trust them not to park it in the wrong place. You are thus accepting that any consequences of their inconsiderate parking will be coming your way.

 

No, that in no way makes the driver an agent of the RK.

 

Toddle off and find the definition of an agent, there's a good fellow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do not feed the troll, once it realises it is not getting any attention, it will hide back under the bridge where it came from.

  • Haha 1

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

am not surprised it gives a headache.

 

'Enforce' - yeah right, its a mirage they try to 'enforce' without ANY authority.

Laughable terms to go with the rest of their paperwork.

 

'Enbeg' maybe, or 'Ensteal', or even ' Encheat'...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have enough knowledge of contract law to know that one person cannot be held responsible for another persons actions in this context at least, I am happy with that. I will let you all know how I get on with the council, should be interesting.

 

Pat, Michael, lamma and Guido, thank you for the advice, Geral, thank you for showing me that the 'IEAs' are running scared. I'm off now to find a very hungry, unfed troll to drive my car, let him pay the ticket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Old_andrew2018
I know precisely what an agent is, more specifically how it refers to parking. And more and more IEAs are aware of it.

 

The Trolls are back, really to change your handle and post on this site try to avoid using same words etc, as last time

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

PPCs invoices are a contract issue (or in reality a non-contract unenforceable load of claptrap issue) but AIUI council parking enforcement flows from the RTA 1991 and the powers of the RTA were officially handed over to local authorities by the Secretary of State in 1994.

the backing is legislative not contract.

Worse in London, lend your car to someone and they drive down a camera covered bus lane who do you think is liable...

Link to post
Share on other sites

then can a council department force the registered keeper to reveal the private details of the actual driver if that driver refuses them permission to do so for example?

 

Why would they want to know who was driving?? The owner is legally responsible by law for any parking contraventions unless the vehicle had been taken without consent or hired to someone under a hire contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The councils just want your money and legislation gives them a target.. even if the ticket is non compliant, the bay markings illegal.. once the payer is identified the machine is engaged.

 

NOT the case for PPCs of course - their issues are very different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they want to know who was driving?? The owner is legally responsible by law for any parking contraventions unless the vehicle had been taken without consent or hired to someone under a hire contract.

This is true for a PCN.

 

However, where DPE is not in place and Councils are enforcing off street parking using the RTRA 1984, they do have the legal authority to demand the identity of the driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...