Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 'they' dont send court letters. only a sheriffs court can do that if the debt OWNER is brave enough to request they raise a court claim......... unlike E&W the scottish legal system is far more geared toward empowering the consumer and always put claimants to strict 1000% proof they are the legal owner of a debt, are legally due payment and hold the all the correct enforceable paperwork. just read a few Nolan SPC threads... dx  
    • you would most probably have to raise a court claim naming the dealership and the finance co as joint defendants. you'd win hands down. @BankFodder is best for confirming this. you don't 'contact them' you WRITE expressly exercising your right under CRA, etc as above.
    • Thanks for the reply do you think it’s just a threat for the 14 days or they will send court letters 
    • That’s great, thank you so much. We will contact Doves and the finance company again and hope they will resolve it. Out of interest, where would we stand if we did pay the costs? Would we then be able to claim that back or should we just wait for a response from them before we take the car back from Mercedes?     
    • As I'm off on holiday on Wednesday and won't be around I'll bring things forward and be pessimistic and decide that Iceland won't cooperate.  There are two things to ponder. The private parking companies have a lot in common for obvious reasons.  But also some differences. Excel and its sister company VCS are by far the most litigious.  They take large numbers of motorists who don't pay them to court - perhaps the majority.  That's not because they have a good case.  Indeed their case is rubbish.  It's because, sadly, enough people are terrified of the idea of going to court and just pay up when the court papers arrive.  It's a numbers game to Excel/VCS. In cases where the motorist is in it for the long haul, Caggers win 85% of the time in court against Excel/VCS (yes, I did once go back and counted all the court cases over the previous 30 months).  But Excel/VCS take the odd defeat because of the mugs who just panic and pay.  So take this into account when deciding what to do. Secondly, without boring you with the reasons, I know about the world of local journalism.  Papers have great difficulty in filling their column inches.  If you do contact the local media there is a 100% chance that they will publish something and embarrass Iceland - and maybe get them to back down. Again, have a think if this is a road you want to to go down. If you don't win by Wednesday!  
  • 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

PCN for an upside down pay and display ticket


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5451 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

Hi all,

 

Just wanted a quick bit of advice. My Wife parked in a pay and display bay in Westminster last night and mistakenly put the pay and display ticket on the dashboard upside down (so you could only see the back of the ticket.

 

She paid for the ticket by credit card and we still have the pay and display ticket. Will proof of payment and the ticket be enough to use in an appeal?

 

Kind Regards..

 

Karl

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that the contravention just relates to not displaying. Whether the ticket was valid and whether there is proof isn't really relevant because your penalty is for not showing the ticket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that the contravention just relates to not displaying. Whether the ticket was valid and whether there is proof isn't really relevant because your penalty is for not showing the ticket.

 

The contravention code is 11U "Parked without payment of the parking charge - Mobile Phone Parking"

 

There is a credit card machine and also a mobile phone option. My Wife paid via Credit card so that reason is invalid, surely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the ticket number is visible. Is it that hard to look up the ticket number to see if the ticket was in date?

 

I know my Wife has made the error here but it means she's paid £1.50 for the privilege of a £80 fine!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the ticket number is visible. Is it that hard to look up the ticket number to see if the ticket was in date?

 

 

Is it that hard to display it correctly and avoid the PCN in the first place? Some Councils will cancel the PCN if you produce the ticket with the same serial and it is valid but until you appeal you will not kbow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The contravention code is 11U "Parked without payment of the parking charge - Mobile Phone Parking"

 

There is a credit card machine and also a mobile phone option. My Wife paid via Credit card so that reason is invalid, surely?

 

Right. So contravention is for non-payment, not non-display.

 

Am I right in thinking you paid by card, but not through your mobile phone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The contravention code is 11U "Parked without payment of the parking charge - Mobile Phone Parking"
As you paid, and can demonstrate that fact, then surely the contravention never happened.

 

G&M - Are the council then allowed to claim that the ticket was not displayed correctly - surely that would be a different contravention code?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. So contravention is for non-payment, not non-display.

 

Am I right in thinking you paid by card, but not through your mobile phone?

 

Quite correct. She paid by credit card.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you paid, and can demonstrate that fact, then surely the contravention never happened.

 

G&M - Are the council then allowed to claim that the ticket was not displayed correctly - surely that would be a different contravention code?

 

We need to see the signage and location if she failed to display there is a chance she parked in the wrong bay to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, correct bay. It was an error on her part with the ticket. Mistakes happen, are you not allowed mistakes anymore? I'll post the pics up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://karl.bennett.googlepages.com/7.jpg

 

http://karl.bennett.googlepages.com/8.jpg

 

http://karl.bennett.googlepages.com/9.jpg

 

Note the supsension notice, it was originally suspended but they posted a Westminster sticker over it to say that normal rules now apply as the suspension was cancelled, or words to that effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see why they have issued the PCN under that code because you cannot display a mobile phone ticket so anyone paying by phone would be in contravention if you issued 'failure to display' PCNs and there is no other contravention that covers this 'shared' type of payment bay. I would appeal on the grounds you had paid and provide the ticket and see what they say as it seems that they assume you have not paid if the ticket is not visible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...