Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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

Locked in car park


Patma
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4652 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

Here's something that I've been wondering. The trial now seems to be little about the actual claimed "damages" done, but "costs". Could the court make a decision that Fred only did 50p damage, order him to pay that, but because Fred has "lost" the case, award costs against Fred?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

This is something that has been bothering me as well. My son got a caution a few years ago. Im nearly sure that the caution was not for what he actually did but for his future conduct and if he got into any more trouble then he could get prosecuted for that offence as well. The police have no power to convict, just to put evidence before a court. Even if it had gone to court at the time, there is no guarantee that it would have led to a conviction especially with the lack of evidence.

 

I'm no lawyer, but as far as I can see, section 11 of the act only talks about convictions before a court being sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. Unless that conviction has been quashed, or can be disproved with other evidence.

 

I would vaguely guess, that means that the caution is not sufficient in itself to serve as proof that Fred committed criminal damage. However, I don't think that means that the caution is not admissible, or can't be used as evidence. Just that it is not the very strong evidence that a conviction in front of a court would be.

 

Aren't civil cases judged on the balance of probabilities?

Link to post
Share on other sites

He either damaged it or he didn't AT & they have to prove that he did & that whatever damage they claim he did warranted an expensive repair or new barrier. Even the DJ can't turn round & say 'well, you only removed the manufacturer's label ;)from the barrier so you owe PCAD 50p & BTW they want trillions in costs'. That's not what was on the POC.

 

As I said, I'm no lawyer. But, costs can be awarded in cases. And the judge can decide to award a lesser amount of damages than is claimed in the POC. As far as I know, it's not just a case where the DJ has to award the damages claimed on the POC, or nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be amazed if fred was ordered to pay any costs, traditionally that burden falls upon the loser.:cool:

 

Aha, but the whole point of a Devil's Advocate is to assume the opposite of the "good" outcome!

 

As Roy says, if there's a reduced, even severely reduced, award, who is judged as the loser in terms of costs?

 

Yes, I do know that the judge can decide not to award costs, but I think it's worth considering various eventualities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocking waste of public funds.

 

Those responsible for this blatent misuse of authority should be held personally responsible and have their assets sequestrated to cover the waste.

 

Those senior public servants who have made this a personal vendetta against fred should suffer, personally.

 

I suspect that they will soon be spending more time with their families.

 

Isn't it only £80 that the college has to pay? Surely anyone else involved is a private company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the police were of the opinion that Freds behaviour was entirely reasonable and thus any caution issued upon the facts presented within the video would be unjust. But getting it expunged isn't going to be very easy.

 

Wouldn't strong enough evidence that the caution was undeserved and that Fred was not guilty of criminal damage be, for the purposes of the current court case, as good as having it expunged?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, the lawyer who advised Fred to accept the caution is now most embarrassed to have done so. Would it be possible to approach them and see if they will give a statement saying that had they seen the full unedited version of the footage, that they would never have advised Fred to accept the caution?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Release of information from DVLA records : Directgov - Motoring

I just discovered that LD have sent enquiries to the DVLA shortly after a particular car drove by Fred's home.

I've checked the DVLA's list of when it's proper to reveal the information and they've no right to obtain it as far as I can see, so a request to the DVLA will be sent tomorrow for a copy of the V888 form

 

Sections 4 & 5 from the V888 form.

 

What information you want and why.

 

How you intend to use the information.

 

This could be very interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you have nothing to fear from that lot, but just to be awkward, I would ask Admin to change the permissions on this thread so that (like the Library templates), only registered users can access it. No more guests. Ok, so "they" would then have to register, but I think maybe avid watchers would soon spot a pattern of... :razz:

 

Like I said, no massively obstructive, but I believe in being as awkward as possible at all times in cases like these. :-D

 

I think that's a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poetry is nice, but there's a long term war going on here. After all, it's not guaranteed that anything that comes out at the hearing will immediately be disseminated everywhere. What if someone is embarrassed and doesn't want to draw attention to major booboos?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now is there not something odd in my stating that documentary evidence which was originally offered in suppport of the claimant has now been withdrawn by the claimant and is being used by the defendant?

 

I think this is both odd and rather telling.

 

What I'm saying is that any half decent firm of solictors would be walking out of Court next week straight into their clients office and demanding to know why they weren't told 'this', they weren't told 'that', this fact was witheld, they were told 'this' was true etc. etc.

 

A number of people have said they'd really like to be at the hearing. If it wasn't difficult, I would too. But if I could choose just one place to be the fly on the walol, it would be at the first meeting between LD and PCAD post hearing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

TLD so are you saying that LD could just walk away, claim their expenses from PCAD (due to misinformation et al) get on with their lives and forget the whole event. So everything would fall in PCADs lap & LD carry on as if nothing had happened.

 

Assuming that Fred wins the case (I'm getting carried away in the victorious spirit too, but counting chickens before hatched and all that), then I think that arguments between PCAD and LD could get very complicated. Who was misinformed? Did one side continue ratcheting up costs after it should have been clear what the situation is? All sorts of questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4652 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...