Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Under the consumer rights act 2015, if a defect manifests itself within 30 days and you have a right to return the vehicle for a full refund. If any defect manifests itself within the first six months of ownership then you have a right to return the vehicle for a full refund subject to the retailers right to carry out a repair. If the retailer declines to repair or if the repair fails then you have the right to return. The problem here is that you have to assert their right. It's a bit ridiculous – but you have to do let them know preferably in writing that you are asserting your rights under the consumer rights act either the 30 day right or the six month right. I suppose that you haven't done this – which would be quite understandable because most people don't know that these rights exist and that they are subject to these conditions – the condition that the right must be inserted. It is frankly ridiculous. The dealers know it and we have lots of instances of this company delaying appointments et cetera and our strong suspicion is that they are simply trying to run their customers out of time. On the basis that you haven't asserted your rights, we now have to look to ordinary contract law. You are entitled to purchase a vehicle which is of satisfactory condition and which remains that way for a reasonable period of time. Clearly it is in satisfactory. They are blaming you. Has your independent inspection identified the reason for the defect? This will be important because as you have seen BMW are already saying it is down to your driving and you are going to have to produce evidence that it wasn't down to your driving and the you drove it absolutely reasonably and it was simply the condition of the car. Have you been without the car for any period of time. Is it driveable now? If the car was off the road for a substantial amount of time and was still off the road then you would be able to argue that this is a fundamental breach of contract and that you have been deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract and therefore you will be entitled to treat the contract as breached by Big Motoring World and insist on cancelling the contract. It may be that you will eventually be obliged to keep the car but have the repairs paid for. Have you had any quotations for the work that needs doing? I asked you questions about the MOT – but you haven't responded.
    • A 'violent left wing mob', comprised of a chap in a red hoody with a damp polystyrene coffee cup and a bit of wet cement, gets nowhere near cowering frightened farage some distance away on top of his double decker bus .. as farages security and support seem to film the incident grinning     Farage bravely flinches, grimaces and seems to almost burst into tears as the 'objects managed to travel a part of the way toward his position on top of his bus. His reactions honed by having a bit of milk splash him at a prior incident allow him to swiftly fall into a protective cower and grimace .. .. Sometime after, once the mob of 1 had been safely bundled away, farage apparently wipes his eyes of tears, and rising from his cowed and frightened pose, bravely shouts “I will not be bullied or cowed by a violent left-wing mob who hate our country.” .. however few they may comprise of.   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/nigel-farage-cement-barnsley-reform-uk-b2560501.html  
    • According to Parkopedia parking is limited to two hours.  I don't know how accurate this is though. What were you doing there for four hours?
    • no its friday 21st by 4pm if you'd done it properly and read the sticky in post 2 it clearly says: ^^^^^ NOTE : WHEN CALCULATING THE TIMELINE - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DATE ON THE CLAIMFORM IS ONE IN THE COUNT [example: Issue date 01.03.2014 + 19 days (5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 19.03.2014 + 14 days to submit defence = 02.04.2014] = 33 days in total Date of issue XX + 19 days ( 5 day for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = XX + 14 days to submit defence = XX (33 days in total)  if your defence filing date falls on a W/End, you must file by friday @4PM  
    • Have had a read up just to double check last day to file defence is 24 June (claim form date is 22 May)
  • 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

Scottish Law - Parking on Private Land


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5203 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

So whilst I cannot comment on the advice to ignore a PPC letter, as that would be biased, the fact still remains of the responsibility of all parties to follow and should a party not comply then the possible financial implications that may follow by not doing so.

 

Noted. However, all the defender need to is advise the Sheriff (or Judge) of the ongoing practice of fleecing motorists by the use of sustained speculative correspondence in order to make them pay up, and has a ready-made justification for not responding or entering into any correspondence.

 

The PPC's are their own worst enemy for this - they created this 'vertical' market of a rather 'seedy' business model, and use all their powers to weaken the resolve of the letter recipients. As there is no independent arbiter (as there is with Local authority decriminalised appeals) a motorist receiving an invoice unasked has no obligation to treat it with any more respect than junk mail. I believe no judge would hold any motorist liable to a wasted costs order on the premise you outlined, but if you can quote case law where it pertains to a PPC pursuer, I would be interested in reading it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Everyone that disagrees with Perky or has a different opinion is a "fool". Some things have not changed. When are you taking up the Pepipoo Challenge Perky? Surely you are not too yellow to stand up and face a proper opponent? You have shirked the Challenge for 8 months now, isn't it time you stood up for what you say you believe in? Or do you only take cherry picked cases with clueless defendants?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Noted. However, all the defender need to is advise the Sheriff (or Judge) of the ongoing practice of fleecing motorists by the use of sustained speculative correspondence in order to make them pay up, and has a ready-made justification for not responding or entering into any correspondence.

 

The PPC's are their own worst enemy for this - they created this 'vertical' market of a rather 'seedy' business model, and use all their powers to weaken the resolve of the letter recipients. As there is no independent arbiter (as there is with Local authority decriminalised appeals) a motorist receiving an invoice unasked has no obligation to treat it with any more respect than junk mail. I believe no judge would hold any motorist liable to a wasted costs order on the premise you outlined, but if you can quote case law where it pertains to a PPC pursuer, I would be interested in reading it.

 

In Scotland the CPR does not apply, I am only referring to England/Wales.

 

The main thing to remember is the paperwork that is sent out beforehand, the PPC will fall down if they try and suggest the keeper is liable (directly or indirectly) but if they do it correctly then all will be OK.

 

Case Law, I can refer you to some English county court references, these are not case law in the way I think you mean and I do not have any transcripts of these hearings so a case number will not give you anything except a number and parties involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone that disagrees with Perky or has a different opinion is a "fool". Some things have not changed. When are you taking up the Pepipoo Challenge Perky? Surely you are not too yellow to stand up and face a proper opponent? You have shirked the Challenge for 8 months now, isn't it time you stood up for what you say you believe in? Or do you only take cherry picked cases with clueless defendants?

 

I know I shouldnt but I will.

 

'Cherry Picked Cases', when paperwork is issued against a defendant how does anyone know how it will go, who they are up against ?

 

Lets take Thomas for example, yes he admitted to being the driver but then came on the forums and got advice from experts on how to come up with a defence that would see the PPC off.

At this, if the case were cherry picked the PPC would have backed down as a formidable force such as anonoms on the net were involved.

The PPC continued the case, it went to an initial hearing where the judge was not happy with the POC and ordered the claim as written (submitted via MCOL so 24lines or 1080 characters) was not sufficient and that it be resubmitted within 14days.

The POC was rewritten and submitted - it then went to a full hearing and Thomas went along with 'Mr Large' (who I suspect you know very well) and put all the arguments over (penalty/signage and the likes) and after due consideration Thomas lost.

So we get back to the fact the ONLY difference here was the identity of the driver was known, but that aside if the other legal arguments stood then the identity of the driver is not important.

 

I would still like to know how you define 'Cherry Picked'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy! THEY cannot understand the difference themselves! Mind you, that letter was worthy of an MP's redaction. I cannot establish if the double yellow lines they refer to are on a public highway, in which case, a PCN would ne the correct description.

 

Does this help any? The vehicle was parked on private land.

 

*DVLA EDIT REMOVED*

 

Edited by Fright-Flight-Fight
*DVLA EDIT REMOVED*
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn, same old, same old from our "loopy" friend. Nowt changes - Perky Groundhog Day. With an added touch of paranoia - I am apparently now "Mr Large". Tell you what Perky I'll play along - we can form a double act, you be Mr Little. Oh no sorry you're not exactly the right profile for that are you? Far too many pies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Non conclusively. Councils do empower private firms to run parking and enforcement (Like Glasgow's 'City Parking'). Similarly without the shopping centre details my local knowledge is useless - Sauchuehall Street SC? Silverburn SC? The fact is the DVLA treat the transgression in the same terms as decriminalised parking and do not distinguish between public and private parking. Perhaps they should?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn, same old, same old from our "loopy" friend. Nowt changes - Perky Groundhog Day. With an added touch of paranoia - I am apparently now "Mr Large". Tell you what Perky I'll play along - we can form a double act, you be Mr Little. Oh no sorry you're not exactly the right profile for that are you? Far too many pies.

 

More insults, you know they do say that once a person resorts to personal insults then the argument is lost.

 

I wouldnt know your profile as you are hiding behind your internet name, should you wish to reveal your real identity then we can decide if we can form a double act but I doubt that will ever happen when we can hide behind tghe internet and throw insults, world of difference insulting someone you know face-face, I mean that would take a real man.

 

Wow, in 3 messages you have once again taken this way off topic so I will bow out now - BTW you still have not responded to the PM I sent yesterday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, our friend has resported to throwing his toys out of the pram again. For someone who has registered bogus IDs which must run into three figures by now to attack others for staying low profile is a good laugh. Then the playground bully talk, all very familiar MO for The Ego. He may have gone back to Planet Perky for now but no doubt we will see him again soon claiming some bogus or fantasy victory in some other fictitious court case. And BTW Perky I did receive your PM but am very picky who my penfriends are. I draw the line at ****** PPC bosses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"'Some' PPCs also like to refer to the 'pre-action protocols' of CPR. More rubbish from them. the disclosure provisions (31) don't apply to the small claims track. Who would have thought that PPCs would get is so wrong . . . . . . . . they need better consultants." Where does this mention Scotland ? Maybe it it was the "they need better consultants" that caused loopy to vent. Self control is an asset. And still 'the challenge' is not picked up. QED.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'the challenge', Ah this is the one where a person from another site wants to get a setup parking charge and not pay it so they get taken to court.

If the parking company win the driver will then complain to the court that the parking charge was a setup and the case was a sham. This could then get the parking company classed as a Vexatious litigant and cause major problems, thus playing into the hands of the site and members.

Many people come on here after getting genuine parking charges, why dont you take it up on their behalf, Oh I forgot you already did .. Thomas and Purdy spring to mind, and you lost.

Then comes the 'spin' by certain members of the community stating it was a dumb Judge, defendant never knew the law, cherry picked case or even silence and "We never helped" followed by 'next time we will' and the saga goes on.

The challenge is no challenge because it is legally flawed and quite obvious a setup to entrap whatever PPC is silly enough to do it.

 

As for Scotland, the thread is called "Scottish law - Parking on private Land", the clue is in the title where scotland came from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go, the Pepipoo Challenge sidestepped again by Perky. On the normal spurious grounds. We know how losing would affect you Perky. The loss of face would be a bitter blow for someone who has convinced himself lhe is the next Perry Mason. Don't worry about it. Not everyone has the courage of their convictions when it comes down to the wire. You are not alone in that. BTW is there anything the experts can help you with again while you are on here? Like your missus getting done for carrying a dangerous load perhaps? Do tell, we are here to help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure the challenge would be taken up if it were legal, but it is clearly NOT legal.

A person can not take a case to court to prove a point (not sure what point it would prove anyway as its only the county court).

If a person wanted to do this correctly they would have to get leave from the court to do this (ask permission).

If the person who is challenging does this then it will be taken up, 100% guaranteed, but it needs to be with the approval of the court so nothing can backfire.

Simple as.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check PM's :)

Thanks

 

Gottit! This SC is less straightforward than most - as you probaby know, the controls were put in place late last year and were pretty well flagged with advance signage, followed by the erection of substantial (and highly visible) signs within the car parks themselves. But herein lies the complication.

 

This SC straddlles two county boundaries, and traffic regulation (that is, the physical movement of vehicles from the traffic lights that control most of the entrance poits is/has become a serious problem. I'm only aware of DYLs on the access roads to the car parks themselves, there being no other barriers, charges and I don;t think there are even time limits either, so If it went to court, you would need to be careful as these roads may well have been adopted, or accepted by the council as 'public'. This could be a minefield!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure the challenge would be taken up if it were legal, but it is clearly NOT legal.
Your logic is about as sound as wet tissue paper.

 

The challenge is entirely sound - Perky states a location in which his company has been employed as agent to enforce parking restrictions. A person parks there, in direct contravention of whatever "terms" are in place. All further play invoices and daffy letters are ignored, up until court proceedings are issued, at which point the claim is defended.

 

Which of these steps is not legal?

 

A person can not take a case to court to prove a point (not sure what point it would prove anyway as its only the county court).

If a person wanted to do this correctly they would have to get leave from the court to do this (ask permission).

If the person who is challenging does this then it will be taken up, 100% guaranteed, but it needs to be with the approval of the court so nothing can backfire.

Simple as.

Poppycock. If the point is to settle a point of law, then court is absolutely the place to do it.

 

The challenge is that Perky et al. have no basis in law to make their claims, not that they will not attempt to make a claim anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the bank charges case if not a pre-arranged test case? It's OK Perky, we know you are afraid you will lose it. Don't sweat it. Being a coward in some circumstances is human.

 

You will find that BEFORE the test case happened, they obtained leave from the court to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look it up, others have also issued the same challenge. people are still waiting for him to follow up on his famous "Now to sue Andy Foster and that other bollox Glacier" post. But why are you re-hashing Perky's old tat ? Oh yes, I see why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only aware of DYLs on the access roads to the car parks themselves, there being no other barriers, charges and I don't think there are even time limits either, so If it went to court, you would need to be careful as these roads may well have been adopted, or accepted by the council as 'public'.

 

I personally (nor the driver) were aware of any signage nor any change in policy re: use of PPC's to enforce arbitrary parking penalties.

 

Correct no barriers, no charges & no time limit. Car was not parked on any access road but within the Car Park. As I say soon as I get a chance I'll get some photo's. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstand, it is quite possible for PPCs to be contracted to issue Parking Tickets as agents for the council - and in these cases they are not arbitrary. Furtehr to your picture, this wasn;t an access road, but wholly contaiined within the 'car park'. As such there is no requirement for signage to explain the DYL prohibitions.

 

This then opens a fresh argument, why should a PPC have any less responsibility to explain the requirements of their particular DYL than a council has.... unless it is simply for their own entertainment and enjoyment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that PPC's may be contracted. I lived in Brighton for a while .. jesus wept I got a PCN at 09.04 on a Sunday morning for £60. Parking is prohibited after 09.00 (I didn't as yet have my Residents Permit). In any case wouldn't any PCN or Notice to Owner be identified as such and follow the standard guidelines and detail the offence etc. This was clearly not the case.

 

I as a driver have received numerous tickets (NTO's) at times and on numerous occassions I've argued that DYL were not clear i.e. under water etc. but that's another story. The fact remains that I understood clearly this was not a civil matter but Council/Police/Traffic Warden or PPC contracted by the Local Council. With the Official Bodies I had the right to defend and with satisfactory results in several cases. I never had debt collectors hassling me as a RK.

 

The Notice to Owner (RK) didn't even stipulate the 'infraction' or 'Offence' .. it was merely an invoice.

 

Ok if this is a PPC contracted by Local Council or whatever then fair play but if not then the DYL's cannot be enforced on private land nor can they require me to detail who the driver was.

 

You know far more about this than me and I did ask advice but I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at at times. This is my lack of knowledge not your advice.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're opening up the debate, and as such I have to mention the other issues you raised to avoid a misunderstanding. :) In the situation you describe, the lines could be made of toffee for all the use they are, they neither prove a transgression or impose any oblgation on the parker.

 

It is contract law, and at this SC, I have seen no signage that states what its 'lines' are for. Decoration? Amusement? Take your pick. Your agreement to their contract terms is paramount, if they don't have this - and can PROVE it, they've got a big problem collecting on their 'invoice'.

Edited by buzby
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...