Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

disabled badge holder - unfair ticket


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5379 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

Hey

 

My dad recently got a parking ticket whilst parked up in bolton (greater manchester). He is a disabled badge holder. he has his badge on the sun viser, then puts this down whilst parked so that they can see the badge clearly. Yet to keep the badge there he placed elastic bands round, one of these were over part of the serial number (over 1 maybe 2 numbers max).

 

Due to this they gave him a ticket as the serial number wasnt readable.

 

He has been given a ticket before under unfair terms, this was then over turned after he contested. Due to this, although being way back in 2001 they have now said that they can't waver any others.

 

He has been told that the fine is £25, when he called to get advise about contesting. They also then told him that they have to get his address from the dvla to send a letter to him to confirm that he hadnt paid any fine as of yet.

He did offer to give them these details over the phone but they wouldnt accept them.

 

Then due to him appealing it would go over the 14 days so would be £50.

 

I just want some advice on what he can do

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Old_andrew2018

Hi Kiptower,

You are almost certainly correct, I just wonder which of our friends has issued it, the CAG advice is don't phone and don't pay.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

The parking ticket was issued whilst he was parked up in a pay and display bay.

Also it was issued by the council (traffic warden) they wrote on the ticket that it was only due to the fact they couldnt read the full serial number.

 

Bolton has become well known for the ammount of tickets being given out now too.

 

As for them saying they cant waver any other tickets due to them doing this before in 2001 seems stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CONTEST IT , "could not read full serial no" , what a joke, so do they photographic evidence of this ???

 

Many disable drivers/blue badge holders have there badge on the sunvisor and just flip it down

 

whats the next excuse the sun was shinning and we could not read the badge

 

AND WRITE A LETTER OF COMPLAINT , to the CEO of the council in how disgusted you are in the way the wardens are [causing problems] DISABLED DRIVERS !!!

 

also if its a Motability car or you have zero road tax the warden should have also made a note of that , the worst you should have got was a Letter from the Council explaining the serial no was obstructed, dont do it again and penalty was removed on this occasion

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

They cannot refuse to consider his representations due to the previous incident but can decide upon consideration not to use their discretion if they have already done so before and warned him to display correctly. Whilst it may seem unfair many badges are stolen or forged and the only way to identify them is to check the serial number.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and if their anything like 2 london council i can name they issue the same number again on the replacement , with the DUPLICATE next to it , when i challenged this my councils answer was , its not a serial no , its a reference no for the HOLDER , to this day I still have not had an answer how they are going to check a stolen badge if it does not have a serial no unique to each badge, ( 2 years waiting so far for the reply ) other than that is the guidelines on how we issue badges

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

and if their anything like 2 london council i can name they issue the same number again on the replacement , with the DUPLICATE next to it , when i challenged this my councils answer was , its not a serial no , its a reference no for the HOLDER , to this day I still have not had an answer how they are going to check a stolen badge if it does not have a serial no unique to each badge, ( 2 years waiting so far for the reply ) other than that is the guidelines on how we issue badges

 

Since October 2007 every badge is in England has its own seral no. in addition to the Councils issue number. In your case if the badge was seen and did not have 'duplicate' on it, it would obviously be the lost/stolen one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as G&M said they do have a second number on them ( btw our council only started using them this year )

 

but to point out the flaws in the term Serial No could not be read

 

the Serial No: is your ID with the council ( clearly shown below )

 

the unique ID number is letters / numbers below , as you will see a line of X's in red the exact size they used, it does not say what that is , just numbers etc , their no's was in black , and you would have to get very close to read it,

 

so which part was the rubber band holding it blanking out

 

 

 

example of a badge issued this May , with the user bits removed

 

bluebadgeblank.jpg

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

as G&M said they do have a second number on them ( btw our council only started using them this year )

 

Any badge issued after October 15th 2007 (in England) MUST be the new format or it is NOT a valid Blue Badge. Therefore any badges issued by your Council that were not the new style are invalid. The easiest way to check is the hologram all valid post 2007 BB have a hologram. The one you show is the newest version with the tamper proof edging there was an interim one that had a normal laminate pouch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks ,

 

but the point i am making is regarding the SERIAL No

 

and the size of the actual second number on the badge

 

if only the second number had been covered up or could not be read in the OP case, then he can claim the offence did not ocure,

 

because the persons council id number clearly says SERIAL no, there is nothing in front of the second one to define what it is

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks ,

 

but the point i am making is regarding the SERIAL No

 

and the size of the actual second number on the badge

 

if only the second number had been covered up or could not be read in the OP case, then he can claim the offence did not ocure,

 

because the persons council id number clearly says SERIAL no, there is nothing in front of the second one to define what it is

 

I realise that but was just concerned you said that your Council had been issuing INVALID BB for over a year!! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

its seems a common problem , so i'm told a lot just used up what they had before using new type , typical Councils

 

Technically they are still invalid and incure a PCN.

LAs got sent a circular http://www.dft.gov.uk/transportforyou/access/bluebadge/bluebadgelocalauthguid/pdfcircular032007newregs.pdf which informed them of the new rules and that they should return old badges for disposal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe they should tell users that the second number is also SERIAL number and must not be obscured and INCREASE the font size of it,

 

I wonder just how many wardens actually know about 2 serial no's and actually are able to read the second 1 anyway,

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe they should tell users that the second number is also SERIAL number and must not be obscured and INCREASE the font size of it,

 

I wonder just how many wardens actually know about 2 serial no's and actually are able to read the second 1 anyway,

 

Most do unless not trained properly as it also tells the sex of the holder and it is perfectly readable to anyone with normal vision. The large usually hand written number is the issue number the smaller pre-printed one is the serial number. The holder is told to display it clearly so ALL details are visible, anything covered whether it be the date, serial numbers or hologram could result in a PCN.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we are still back to the point that the USER ID clearly has Serial No in front of it , and the actual serial number has nothing,

 

so if the actual SERIAL NUMBER NOT the user ID was obstructed , they cannot state the serial number was un-readable,

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

we are still back to the point that the USER ID clearly has Serial No in front of it , and the actual serial number has nothing,

 

so if the actual SERIAL NUMBER NOT the user ID was obstructed , they cannot state the serial number was un-readable,

 

What the CEO called the number is irrelevant he has issued for failing to clearly display a blue badge not for failing to display the serial number. What was and was not covered would be clear in the photos and probably his notes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...