Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.  
    • Hi DX, Sorry, fell asleep as I was up all night last night writing that statement. Yes, I attached the rest of the witness statement on post 50, bottom of webpage 2. That's the important part.  It looks like the lawyer who wrote Erudio's Witness statement does not work for them any more. So, I'll have another lawyer representing instead. Not sure if I can use Andy's hearsay argument verbally if that happens.... I did not put it in writing. Apart from not sending deferral forms, my main argument is that in 2014 Erudio fixed some arrears mistake that SLC made and then in 2018 they did the same mistake, sent me confusing letters. What is the legal defence when they send you confusing material?
    • Chinese firm MineOne Partners has been ordered to sell land it owns near a US nuclear missile site.View the full article
    • That isn’t actually what the Theft Act 1968 S1 actually says, BTW. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;   The difference between what you’ve said and the Act? a) intent to permanently deprive rather than  just depriving (which is why the offence of “taking without consent” was brought in for motor vehicles, as otherwise "joyriders" could say "but I intended to give it back at the end") b) dishonesty : If I honestly believed A's pen belonged to B, and took it and gave it to B - B might be found guilty of theft but I shouldn't be. 
  • 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

PCN for Residents Permit area with no bay markings


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5725 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

Hi, I was hoping someone could offer me some advice. I got a PCN for parking in a residents permit area in Leeds yesterday but the area where we parked didn't have any bays marked or anything on the road itself. The road that we turned off had large signs saying 'Permit Zone' and there were yellow cones and yellow lines all the way up the street but when we turned off on to a smaller street we couldn't see anything so we parked up figuring that it was alright. When we came back and found a parking ticket we had a look up the street also found that there were small blue signs saying 'Permit zone' ever 15 metres or so on alternate sides of the street (there wasn't one by our car) so I accept that we were in fact in a permit zone but do you think we have any chance of appealing it? We only parked there because we were avoiding the area with the large signs, yellow cones and yellow lines and thought that we were parking legally. Also, most other resident permit areas that I know of in Leeds have white bays marked out as well as the signs. Do you think I've got a case?

 

Thanks in advance for your help,

 

Andrew

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely!

 

Got pics?

 

Scan of the PCN - All of it, always useful.

 

Leeds notorious for duff bays - but none at all ? wow.

-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok, that sounds good, I've got a few good pictures but I can't seem to work out how to post them in the message at the moment (it says I'm not allowed to under posting rules, maybe because I only joined today?), I'll try and stick them up in the morning once I've figured out how to go about doing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you have to make 5 posts before you can do that.

Here's how;

 

Scan it into your computer and open it in Paint or similar program. Edit out the personal information and save it

 

Open an a/c on Photobucket, (here: Image hosting, free photo sharing & video sharing at Photobucket ), download the file of your scan from your computer onto Photobucket and then post the link from Photobucket in your thread here.

 

See how to in section 1.16 (Attach Documents) here:

How Do I....? A Dummies Guide to the Forum

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Michael.

 

So basically, the first two photos show where we parked (if you look up the street in the first one you can see a lamp post, which was where the nearest 'permit holders only' sign was on our side of the road) and the second one is just from the other side to show that there was no sign there.

 

Image017-1.jpgImage020-1.jpg

 

And then I took these other two just to show the contrast between the area we parked and got a ticket and the road next to it which was so clearly signposted and marked which we avoided:

 

Image023-1.jpgImage022-1.jpg

 

The PCN itself claims it's a Code 12 for parking in residents or shared parking place without a valid permit. Just looking at these pictures now makes it all seem a bit more ridiculous...haha, i probably shouldn't think about it, it just makes me a bit more annoyed about it!

 

Thanks again,

 

Andrew

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooerr.

 

The signs are irrelevant if there are no markings on the road. You haven't actually shown the sign but if it's as expected then can only be used with the relevant bay marking on the road. This is specified in the Traffic Signs General Regulations and Directions 2002.

 

There are a few cases, normally preservation areas, where this does not apply and special dispensation is granted. Even then, the need to make restrictions clear has been succesfully argued. I'm thinking specifically of Edinburgh. Can't see anything like that applying here.

 

Get a pic of the sign for me if you can. Then I'll link you to the specific part of legislation.

-

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a great pic but there's the sign... it basically is just a white 'p' on a blue background and says 'Permit Holders Only'.

 

Image019.jpg

 

That would be great if you know of any legislation specifically related to it, since all the official websites keep stressing that 'I didn't see the sign' is not a valid excuse, so it'd be good to have something to back it all up. And I think we can be fairly sure this isn't a preservation area, and there's definitely no sign posts around if it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see anything in that tiny picture!

 

From your description it's a basic 660 sign.

One of these.

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/02311354.gif

Sorry funny borders, IT numpty trying to paste!

 

Ok, from The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

Direction 24 (1) below. Item 14 of the table.

 

Items a, b, c on the right hand side of the table are all basic parking bay markings. Yours seem to be, errr, missing?

 

24. - (1) Except where it is placed to indicate the effect of a temporary statutory provision and subject to paragraph (2), a sign shown in a diagram specified in column (2) of an item in the Table shall not be placed except -

 

(a) on or near the side of a road; and

(b) in conjunction with, and on the same side of the road as, a road marking which is shown in a diagram and is in the form (if any) indicated in column (3) of that item.

 

14. 660 (a) 1028.3 (when varied to indicate "LARGE OR SLOW VEHICLES ONLY");

(b) 1028.4, 1032 or 1033 in each case when indicating "DOCTOR" or when no legend appears; or

© 1028.4 when varied to indicate "PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY"

Edited by Ting
Link to post
Share on other sites

Road markings are signs.

Not seeing the signs is a valid excuse if the signs are not there.

I would tick that the contravention did not occur, the penalty exceeds the relevant amount and that there has been a proceedural impropriety.

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

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 sent my appeal off yesterday so I'm just waiting to hear the result now, thanks for your help both of you, especially you Ting. To be honest I really think that since I've included all the relevant sections quoted from the legislation, I don't see how they could get away with not rescinding this ticket. Thanks again, I will let you know how I get on!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...