Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would suggest also that you telephone the ombudsman tomorrow and ask them for details of the complaint that they have received from you and tell them that you want it in writing.  You will be amazed how scant The records of which are kept by these people. Read our customer services guide and at least actually give you some idea of how you should deal with customer service people or any call handlers on the telephone.  It is very important that you get a written summary of the report which you made to the ombudsman so that you can see exactly what they are investigating. The complaint to the ombudsman should have been very carefully considered over a period of time rather than simply made in a phone call
    • You should start putting everything in writing. Even the ombudsman, to begin a serious complaint by telephone is quite frankly crazy. I hope you have taken a copy of at least the advertisement that you have posted above.  I don't suppose that you kept a copy of the original AutoTrader advertisement.  How much in writing have you got of anything?    
    • Funnily enough the ad is still available online Range Rover 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography LWB Previously Sold | Clinkard Performance Cars WWW.CLINKARDCARS.CO.UK Performance, Prestigious and Specialist cars Dealers in Romsey, Hampshire but the autotrader version isn't which was probably slightly different potentially with more information. Reported to FOS over the phone but essentially gave them the same information I've stated here, updating them that I'm paying for a car I haven't had for nearly a month now etc I'll certainly come back with an update. Fingers crossed they will realise it's not worth taking to court. So the inspection among other things found a hairline crack across a load bearing section of the chasis which at the minute to the naked eye looks tiny but could turn out to be catastrophic and has had some filler chucked on top of it but we'll see what Clinkards inspection comes back with. Distance wise I believe they're around 165-170 miles away from me. Also I'm sure many people will have PCP agreements as it's the most common way to buy cars under 5 years old but they just forgotten the terminology or name for it. Pay deposit, choose a length then pay the difference between value today and guaranteed future value at the end of that agreed term   Whole experience has scarred me and moving forward I'd be tempted to pay for a pre purchase inspection myself because these guys are bigggg traders with a lot of top end cars. I just hope they don't make any more silly offers
    • Strange final response. They say that they are still investigating but they are giving you their final response anyway. Seems like a load of nonsense. Have you got a copy of what you then sent to the ombudsman? Anyway, for the moment although would like to know – it really is all for curiosity because as you have put it into the hands of the ombudsman it's probably not worth doing anything more until you have a reply. I would suggest that when you decide to spend this kind of money in future on a used car, that you understand exactly what your rights are before you make the purchase. When you buy anything – and maybe especially used car you should realise that you aren't only paying for the car, you are also paying for a bundle of consumer obligations which are intended to bind the dealer. You are paying for a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality and remains that way for a reasonable period of time and you are paying for any defects which emerge to be addressed and repaired at the expense of the dealer. We've already pointed out that by purchasing the warranty, they have effectively persuaded you to pay for something for which you have already paid. Very decent of you not to want to cause trouble in respect of defects which manifested themselves within the first few weeks. I have no idea why. For £78,000…. This you say that they were age-related problems – that is still no reason why those defects should have been there or why the dealer should not have been responsible for them. It seems to me that you have a clear case against the dealer/the finance company. We don't have many or any PCP purchases on this forum. However, it seems to me that the finance company is probably responsible for the condition of the vehicle because effectively you have bought it from them and to that extent it should be the same as HP. With a hire purchase agreement, it is as if you bought the vehicle directly from the finance company not from the dealer and it is the finance company which bears all the consumer obligations. I think the only thing you can do is to monitor the situation. Update us when you hear from the financial ombudsman and if you need to take the matter to court then we will help you. In principle it should be straightforward – but certainly there is a risk of a serious bill for costs if you lose. I don't see you losing. Did you say somewhere that the report suggested that the vehicle was unroadworthy? Have you got the advertisement for the vehicle? Does it make claims for the vehicle which are clearly untrue? And by the way, four hours away from you is what kind of distance? Have you read our used car guide? Have you looked at the video?
    • there's one in this thread.. i wonder if its the same, they seem to be identical regardless each time we have a thread with one Vehicle Control Services Privacy Notice, Brooke Retail Car Park, HA4 0LN - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group  
  • 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

single yellow in restricted street


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5429 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

Aaaargh, I have just been issued a ticket for contravening: 01 Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

My confusion is that although the signs do indicate 10:00AM- 4:30PM Mon-Sun they do not specify that single yellow's are included (Everywhere else I have come across excludes these from the resident parking restrictions and they are OK when pay and displays are no longer in operation). I couldn't find a pay and display within a block of where I parked and assumed bank holiday meant they wouldn't be in operation anyway.

On Richmond Upon Thames website it states that the CPZ covers yellow lines, not much use when you're reading signs on the street!

Has anyone contested a similar PCN.

 

ps Car Make on PCN is incorrect, does this make a difference?

 

Thanks in advance for any thoughts/help

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a CPZ controoled zone the times of the single yellow lines are the time of the zone unless there are different times shown on the line itself. Generally they are similar times to the 'time plated' bays in the street but this is not always the case. If in doubt its always best to assume you cannot park on a SYL if you cannot find the time rather than assume you can. The make of car is unlikely to get the PCN cancelled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for kinda confirming what I thought. Pretty boring!

Had 3 cancelled on make of car alone so yes I would inculde this on your appeal. I will pm paperwork if need be with permission of course to prove the point. Read the jbourdon thread here where you will find a suitable letter

 

wrong car make for PCN + Misleading Signs - Penalty Charges Forum

 

 

It also appeared on this site

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/181290-wrong-car-make-pcn.html

 

Many will say that the info does not have to be there by law which is correct, however if they choose to include it then they must correctly identify the vehicle

 

The cpz signs have to conform to legislation and so do syl's. Are there any problems with the lines and were there cpz entry signs on both sides of the road.

 

It maybe worth scanning in the ticket front and back without personal stuff.

 

Do you have your v5 form handy.

Edited by nero12
Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you say the make is wrong when both the PCN and Log book say its a range rover?? :confused: What car is it??

 

The make on the V5 is Land Rover - which is correct. The model is Range Rover.

 

It's like a CEO putting down the make of vehicle as Focus instead of Ford

Link to post
Share on other sites

The make on the V5 is Land Rover - which is correct. The model is Range Rover.

 

It's like a CEO putting down the make of vehicle as Focus instead of Ford

 

I guess he should have put Tata that would have cheered the OP up, lol. I guess it would be much easier for CEOs just to have half a dozen 'makes' to choose from but no doubt mini owners would claim it was not a BMW and Volvo drivers object to having a Ford. I suggest that he appeals if he feels he has a case you never know the Adjudicator may be up for a laugh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlikely to get the PCN cancelled on car make.

 

Doesn't matter though as the wording about timing is all over the place. See Al's Bar vs Wandsworth

 

Turning to the next element, the prescribed period for payment is 'before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice'. The PCN says 'within 28 days'.

 

The general rule is that where a period is fixed for the taking of some step, the day of the act or event from which the period runs is excluded in calculating the period. Mr Pitt-Payne conceded that 'within 28 days' fell to be construed in accordance with this rule as excluding the date on which the PCN was issued. The wording does not literally comply with paragraph ©, but does it substantially comply?

 

Mr Pitt-Payne referred me to Trow v Ind Coope (West Midlands) Ltd [1967] 2 All E.R. 900, which he conceded was against him. This concerned the interpretation of the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 6 rule 8(1), which provided that a writ was valid 'for twelve months beginning with the date of its issue'. The Court of Appeal held that 'beginning with the date' included the day on which the writ was issued and ousted the general rule.

 

Mr Pitt-Payne urged me to construe this case narrowly; to treat it as authority for the meaning of 'beginning with' only in the context with which the Court was concerned and as not applying to a penal or quasi-penal administrative penalty. This is a most unappealing proposition. If the term's meaning is dependent on context, it would mean that in every context where the term appeared there would be likely to be uncertainty as to its meaning. I would in any event have decisively rejected it, but in any case it seems to me to be inconsistent with the decision in Trow.

 

Furthermore, another authority, Hare v Gocher [1962] 2 Q.B. 641, is to the same effect as Trow: In Hare, where the words in question were 'beginning with the commencement of this Act' and 'beginning with the date on which it is passed', Winn J concluded that the phrase 'beginning with' was especially used to avoid equivocation and to exclude the ordinary rule.

 

In Trow, Harman LJ said 'I see no escape from the conclusion that where the word "with" is used, the first day is included'; and Salmon LJ said that 'Any period of time to be calculated as commencing or beginning with a certain day must include that day.' I emphasise: 'Any period'. This makes clear that this is a matter not of context but of the ordinary meaning of the language.

 

Mr Pitt-Payne argued that if the draftsman had intended the first day to be included, he could have made that clear by including words such as 'including the day of issue of the notice'. The answer to that is that given that the meaning of the phrase chosen by the draftsman is well established, any such embellishment would have been verbiage.

 

Mr Pitt-Payne also argued that if the wording of the PCN differed from the language of the statute, the effect was to give an extra day for payment to be made. If there was an error, it was in favour of the person liable to pay; so nobody was prejudiced by the error. This argument might well be relevant to the second substantive question - the effect of non-compliance - but it does not support the argument that the PCN is compliant. The Local Authority has no power to extend the statutory period as a matter of law. The fact that it may as a matter of administrative practice allow longer than the prescribed periods (an issue I will return to) is a different point and cannot justify a misstatement of the legal position, which is the purpose of the requirements of section 66(3).

 

The PCN therefore fails the compliance test in this regard also.

 

The PCN is invalid - they can't even decide whether to use 'within' or 'after', so they've shot themselves twice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments and the decisions referred to. Given that I have time I am going to appeal both points;

 

1- that it is a land rover (not a rover, nor land cruiser....etc) esp given the car was observed for 16mins until a PCN was issued (plenty of time for the CEO to read the badges on the car)

2- that the conflicting references to the periods of payment (specifically that "The Local Authority has no power to extend the statutory period as a matter of law." the PCN become noncompliant itself.

 

Before I mail this I will try and locate the statutory limits for Local Authorities on the OPSI site pointed to by Nero12 (although finding a specific clause may prove tricky having skimmed through them already)

 

I really appreciate everybody's comments and do realise that my situation is a bit of a stretch, but having suffered badly in the past am keen to run it up the flagpole anyway!

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments and the decisions referred to. Given that I have time I am going to appeal both points;

 

1- that it is a land rover (not a rover, nor land cruiser....etc) esp given the car was observed for 16mins until a PCN was issued (plenty of time for the CEO to read the badges on the car)

 

What like the badges on this 1995 land/range rover vogue se??

 

zwmblk.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The trademark green oval/gold lettering Land Rover badge is clearly visible.

 

And to take it a point further; what if this were related to an early Jaguar XJ6. Nowhere on the exterior of the vehicle does it say Jaguar - there is only the Jaguar head badge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The trademark green oval/gold lettering Land Rover badge is clearly visible.

 

And to take it a point further; what if this were related to an early Jaguar XJ6. Nowhere on the exterior of the vehicle does it say Jaguar - there is only the Jaguar head badge.

 

If Land Rover is the make and range rover the model what is a 'vogue SE'? The make at this point of its history was BMW anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Land Rover is the make and range rover the model what is a 'vogue SE'? The make at this point of its history was BMW anyway.

 

Vogue SE would be the model "specification" :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi all,

 

Just posting an update to tie this thread up. SUCCESS !

 

I received a letter today informing me that the PCN has been cancelled. I've attached the letter I sent and the reply I received. Once again thanks to everybody for your advice and thoughts and of course to the site which facilitates these forums.

parking ticket letter.doc

reply.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Just posting an update to tie this thread up. SUCCESS !

 

I received a letter today informing me that the PCN has been cancelled. I've attached the letter I sent and the reply I received. Once again thanks to everybody for your advice and thoughts and of course to the site which facilitates these forums.

Nice one mate well done, cant read the cancellation letter tho.

 

BY the letter sent tho, wrong make strikes again along with the other stuff LOL

Edited by nero12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks nero12,

 

Here's another attempt at the reply!

 

Please let me know if you're unable to read it still and i'll type it out in full.

 

Boblit

888.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks nero12,

 

Here's another attempt at the reply!

 

Please let me know if you're unable to read it still and i'll type it out in full.

 

Boblit

Nah still cant. Thumbnails a bit fuzzy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...