Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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 
        • 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

Fixed Penalty notice (code 117) and PG9


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5409 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

keep the 'suspect' tyre at all costs !! many of these offenses are mistaken. the regs are more complex than that and a lot of police don't really know them.. check out the MOT rules.

 

 

dont look at mot rules look at road traffic act constrution and use this is what police/magistrates use and for some cases they vary from mot rules. (although i do think it is the same for tyres)

Link to post
Share on other sites

tyres_4.1_page6.gif

This is for a car tyre.

 

M/cycle tyres is 1mm. It has to be the central 3/4 of the usable tread.

Sometimes the tyre will have what looks like tread all the way to the edge, this is for cosmetic reasons and is not usable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to challenge this there should be a part of your FPN which invites you to plead not guiilty. Fill this in and send it back within your 28 day time limit (send it recorded).

 

You will then get a summons fron the local magistrates. This will also include disclosure from PC plod in the form as his statement. That will tell you which tyre you are being done for and the reason youre getting done, ie " i examined the tyre and found the tread to be less that 1mm in depth. The nice officer should also tell you what device he used to measure the depth and its reference number. The gauges they use have to be calibrated at regular intervals by an approved testing house and you can if you so wish ask to see the calibration certificate. If they didn't use a calibrated device and cant evidence its accuracy they wont bother turning up to court.

 

For car tyres they would measusre depth at several location across an imaginary line through the centarl 3/4s.

 

Most modern motorcyle tryes have very limited tread groves and if you draw that imaginary line through the width of the tyre the chances are you will only draw it across one grove.

 

Just before we go any further you are sure you are being done for "defective tyre tread depth less than 1 mm" and not for "defective tyre tread not visible" any tyre is defective if any part of the original teard is not vsible. this is something that happens quite often on modern bike tyres with a soft compound. the outside tread looks fine but lots of m/way miles will soon wear out the cetral grove.

 

Like every one else has said you need to recover the tyres and keep them safe and take them to court if it gets that far.

 

If PC plod is any good he will have recorded the deatils of the tyre on his part of the ticket. Every tyre has its make and size and other bits and pieces but each and every tyre also has a unique serial number on it so they can prove if you bring in a ringer.

 

good luck and keep us posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It,s worth bearing in mind if PC plod was pushing his gauge into the tread it would have given a false reading, but it would have been false in your favour!!!!!!!!!!!

 

What are you using to measure your tread?

 

The ones that you get off the RAC or ATS, they look like a small metal pole with a pen clip attached , are a good guide but not necessaraly accurate.

 

You need to get a ture accurate reading before you defend yourself. (an engineering shop may well have an accurate dial gauge you could borrow)

 

You need to make sure you've got

 

a. 1 mm or more of tread depth and

 

b. its that depth or more in the central 3/4s of the useable width of the tyre and

 

c. that is ture all the way around the tyre.

 

If your 100% sure of all these things and you can show that to the court then go for it.

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

My understanding is that he needs to use an accurate gauge, that would be something which is regularly calibrated by an accredited testing house. The ones I have seen look like an anolog cwatch face with a bit stickiing out the bottom. The single hand goes round as the sensor goes in to your tread.

 

There are digital versions as well.

 

But what everv they use would give a reading of say 0.97mm. They need to be saying what the depth was not just that it was less than 1 mm.

 

A simple tool that you and i can get from ATS or RAC as part of an advertsing campaign is not good enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...