Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's better to keep advice on the open forum for everyone's benefit. Maybe you could post up the correspondence in a single pdf document and cover up your personal details, reference numbers and so on? HB
    • Hi on the notice of disqualification it lists the 2 speed offences and marks offence withdrawn? This is for both offences and then the other 2 is the MS90s which I’m fined for and the additional costs. R
    • Hi,    It has taken a while, but I have received an email from Auxillis -  hello, we are not dealing with this claim all we do is log accident for you isnurance - the claim has been passed to your underwriter markerstudy 0344 873 8183 as they are deal with fault cliams ion behalf of adrian flux. thankyou auxillis   I have made repeated attempts to phone Markerstudy in between working from home, struggling for energy and trying to find a cheap car so that I can keep my job (community support worker). Thankfully I have a supportive team and I am being given phone calls to make but it cant last too long. I had a severe migraine over the weekend and also have quite bad whiplash in my neck and back.    I found this in my insurance policy booklet -    Protection and Recovery If the insured vehicle cannot be driven following an incident leading to a valid claim under this section, we will pay: • the cost of its protection and removal to the nearest approved repairer, competent repairer or nearest place of safety; and • the cost of re-delivery after repairs to your home address; and • the cost of storage of the insured vehicle incurred with our written consent. If the insured vehicle is damaged beyond economical repair we will arrange for it to be stored safely at premises of our choosing. You should remove your personal belongings from the insured vehicle before it is collected from you. In the event of a claim being made under the policy we have the right to remove the insured vehicle to an alternative repairer, place of safety or make our own arrangments for re-delivery at any time in order to keep the cost of the claim to a minimum     I do about 20-25000 miles a year with the work I do, I have been getting quotes and putting that I have now have one accident and no no claims bonus and the cheap quotes from similar companies to markerstudy are more than double what i paid last year at 8-900 and aviva is offering 2600 which is simply out of my price range and more than the car i am looking at.  I am starting to wonder if it is even worth going ahead with the claim as i have no one to claim from. I have had no information from any of the enquiries I have made.  I have a full tank of vpower diesel in the car in the impound, i can strip it for parts and probably make what I will be offered by the insurance payout and get the money quicker.  As I have made contact and started the process can I back out, still keep my NCB and a claim free history? Also what happens with my injuries? I don't think there is any permanent damage but my dr refused to see me and just gave me a boat load of naproxen and codeine. What happens in the future if things don't get better and I cancelled this claim? Can you claim injuries off your own insurance because the other guy ran and you cant find him? I have tried to ask these questions off markerstudy but they keep me waiting for nearly an hour then end the call.    Thank you for your time and help.  It is really appreciated.  I am quite honestly on the floor, I have been really ill, in hospital, had nearly 6 months off work and only been back full time a few weeks and now this.  The fact the company you pay large sums of money to look after you in a time of need is also behaving criminally just makes you want to give up.    
    • Thanks for the response. Am I able to send you the documents I’ve received or can you message via instant message and I’ll send these? Reece
    • Regretfully it does. Have you actually seen any papers which show what you were charged with (rather than what you were convicted of)? It is unusual not to be “dual charged” but if you were not charged with both, you are where you are. If you had been charged with both offences and providing you were the driver at the time, you could, after performing your SD, have asked the prosecutor to drop the “Fail to Provide” (FtP) charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the speeding charges (you cannot be convicted of speeding unless you plead guilty as they have no evidence you were driving). You will have difficulty defending the FtP charges. In fact, it’s worse than that – you have no chance of successfully defending them at all because the reason you did not respond to the requests is because you did not receive them and that’s entirely your fault. No it’s not correct. Six months from 18/11/23 was 18/5/24 so, unless they were originally charged, the speeding offences are now “timed out.” There is one avenue left open to you. If you perform your SD you must serve it on the court which convicted you. You will then receive a date for a hearing to have the matters heard again. Your only chance of having the matters revert to speeding (and this is only providing you were the driver at the time of those offences) is to plead Not Guilty, attend court. When you get there you can ask the prosecutor (very nicely, explaining what a pillock you know you were for failing to update your  V5C) if (s)he is prepared to raise “out of time” speeding charges, to which you will offer to plead guilty if the FtP charges are dropped.   This is strictly speaking not lawful. Charges have to be raised within six months. Some prosecutors are willing to do it, others are not. But frankly it’s the only avenue open to you. There is a risk with this. I imagine you have been fined £660 (plus surcharge and costs) for each offence. The offence attracts a fine of 1.5 week’s net income and where the court has no information about the defendant’s means a default figure of £440pw is used.  If the prosecutor is not prepared to play ball you can revise your pleas to guilty. A sympathetic court should give you the full discount (one third) for your guilty pleas in these circumstances but they may reduce the discount somewhat. The prosecution may also ask for increased costs (£90 or thereabouts is the figure for a guilty plea). So it may cost you more if you have a decent income (I’ll let you do the sums). But MS90 is an endorsement code which gives insurers a fit of the vapours. One such endorsement will see your premiums double. Two of them will see many insurers refuse to quote you at all meaning you will have to approach "specialist" (aka extortionate) brokers. So you really want to exhaust every possibility of avoiding MS90s if you can. One warning: do not pay solicitors silly money to defend you. Making an SD before a solicitor should attract just a nominal sum (perhaps a tenner). That’s all you should pay for. You have no viable defence against the FtP charges and any solicitor suggesting you have is telling you porkies. The offer to do the deal is easily done by yourself and you can save the solicitor’s fees to put towards a few taxis and increased insurance premiums if you are unsuccessful. In the happy event you find out you were "dual charged", let me know and I'll tell you how to proceed. (Seems a bit odd hoping you were charged with four driving offences rather than two, but it's a funny old world!).    
  • 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

Is this PCN enforceable?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5442 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

Interesting.

 

In my opinion, it's invalid - based on the scan, that is. It has to state certain things and it appears not to - for example the description of the contravention is not legible.

 

There is nothing to lose by appealing it. The worst that can happen is they say no. If you appeal within 14 days, then you should be given the option of paying at the reduced rate - so nothing to lose bar a stamp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

 

In my opinion, it's invalid - based on the scan, that is. It has to state certain things and it appears not to - for example the description of the contravention is not legible.

 

There is nothing to lose by appealing it. The worst that can happen is they say no. If you appeal within 14 days, then you should be given the option of paying at the reduced rate - so nothing to lose bar a stamp.

 

Thank you. What could i perhaps write to say the above mentioned, that looks like i know what im talking about? Is there any acts i can quote etc? There was a disabled badge in the car aswell, although i now realise, it didnt mean anything, but the parking attendant said it would be fine and then when i turned the corner, slapped it on, but id rather quote stuff that i know will work, rather than rely on them giving me the benfit of the dougbt. And yes, the actual copy is as bad as the scan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe (and someone can correct me here) that the format and wording of a PCN is not strictly defined by an Act of parliament - it is prescribed by the Department of Transport as a "guideline". Hence, PCNs vary a little from authority to authority, but all should adhere to the same basic principles - or the authority would be open to challenges.

 

With this in mind, and unless anyone knows different, a draft letter would be as follows:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

On xxxxx I was issued a PCN, a copy of which I enclose [NB enclose a COPY - keep the original, unless they specifically ask you to submit it].

 

I consider that I have a case for challenging the PCN, and initially intended to do so. However I believe this may be unnecessary since the condition of the PCN is such that it is legally invalid on several counts, and so I consider it unnecessary to appeal the particulars of the case, which I will not go into here.

 

The PCN falls outside of the Department of Transport's guidelines, since it omits several key pieces of information. Similarly, as you will be aware, a stream of adjudication rulings over the years have served to define what must be accurately printed on the PCN.

 

As served, this PCN does not include:

 

- A statement clearly indicating whether the date visible near the top is the date of contravention or the date of issue

- A clear statement of the time of the alleged contavention

- A coherent desciption of the nature of the contravention

- A description of the make, model and colour of the vehicle

- A clear statement instructing me as to the relevant timescales for payment

 

It seems likely that the PCN is in this unenforceable condition due to the failure of the issuing officer's equipment; however this does not imply that such a document becomes valid, and the issuing officer could have elected to issue a valid one had he been inclined.

 

I trust you will agree with me that the PCN may not be enforced, and agree to revoke it on the basis that it is invalid.

 

Thank you in advance,

 

Regards etc...

Edited by Jamberson
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

you are incorrect, it is defined by statutory instrument. This then gets included in the statutory guidance (and the Operational Guidelines) Start with this http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tmaportal/tmafeatures/tmapart6/betterprkstatutoryguid.pdf and you can chase the S.I.s here UK Statutory Instruments and Explanatory Memorandum also see this Department for Transport - Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You should appeal on the grounds that "There has been a procedural impropriety by the council" as this is one of the recognised grounds for appeal according to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, (Parking PCN issued by a Civil Enforcement Officer after 30 March 2008 - Traffic Penalty Tribunal), and then go on to state why you think the PCN is flawed.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As per Lamma's links (cheers), you could insert "I refer you to sections 8.40 and 8.41 of the Department for Transport's Operational Guidelines on Parking Policy and the TMA, 2008" - perhaps after sentence which starts "The PCN falls outside of the..."

 

You could also use the wording from that document for the bullet points, rather than my own wording.

 

Re: Matts Dad's advice, it certainly would do no harm to add that statement in as well for clarity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would use the statutory requirements then the statutory guidance and then the operational guidance in that order. (that why I posted the links in that order, it a hierarchy) be aware of where in the latter two it says ''must' and 'should' - huge difference. of course in legislation the word 'may' means 'must'. If all you have is a a 'should' in the Operational guidance that isn't backed up by a firmer statement on the higher level documents then you may be on thin ice. If the PCN goes against the musts in the S.Is then its much much stronger. Another very useful document http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/documents/ParkingandTrafficAdjudicatorsatPATASPracticeGuide-February_2009.doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another very useful link.

 

To be clear though, this case is at the informal stage. I would hope that whoever deals with the appeal will realise it's a no-hoper from a legal point of view and agree to cancel.

 

If they don't then all the legal and procedural matters can be cited and brought to bear, but I would hope it won't go that far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you to everyone thyat has participated, i drafted a letter earlier on and sent it off. Rep left for everyone that participated in this thread. Thanks.

Wasnt there a tribunal on an ilegable PCN, failure to convey the required statutory information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As per Lamma's links (cheers), you could insert "I refer you to sections 8.40 and 8.41 of the Department for Transport's Operational Guidelines on Parking Policy and the TMA, 2008"

 

Traffic Management Act 2004 - there is no TMA 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct but the date was intended to refer to the date the guidelines were published, rather than to the Act itself - but it's not clear the way I worded it.

 

The regulations were published in 2007

 

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 No. 3482

 

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 No. 3483

Link to post
Share on other sites

Superceded by 2008 guidelines? Lamma's link above goes to a page which says "published 25 March 2008", and links to a pdf of the document also dated 2008 on the cover.

 

Anyway, I'm sure it won't affect the outcome of this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

guidelines do not supersede the regulations, the guidelines were updated in 2008. you need to get the hierarchy right in your mind. As an ancillary for the general reade rmany of the words you see in 'law' documents do you mean what you think they mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers. I realise that. Pat commented that the regulations were published in 2007, in response to my comment about the guidelines being 2008. So I inferred from that, that guidelines were published at the same time as the regs - 2007.

 

What I originally said was to quote guidelines dated 2008, which is correct. Guidelines don't supercede regulations, but updated guidelines suprecede earlier ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello,

 

im just wondering if it is possible to challenge the PCN on the basis that the PCN is not signed. Looking at the scans it is clear, that the parking officer has not signed the ticket, so could he not appeal/challenge on that basis?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

im just wondering if it is possible to challenge the PCN on the basis that the PCN is not signed. Looking at the scans it is clear, that the parking officer has not signed the ticket, so could he not appeal/challenge on that basis?

 

Nope, no requirement for it to be signed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...