Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
  • 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

Advice re Daughters Accident


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5322 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

Thanks andie, so far my mail list now includes 5 local councillors, 3 MPs, 5 MEPs, HSE, CAPT, RoSPA and the CAB.

 

So far 2 councillors have responded and want to be kept up to date with progress.

 

I will await the HSE and RIDDOR findings with interest.

 

Cheers

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Things moving quite nicely now with this and most of the MPs making the right noises and referals to HSE etc...

 

Best response so far being:

 

Dear Mr Meese,

 

Thank you for your email of 7 August, regarding the terrible accident involving you daughter and the lack of First Aid assistance. I am sorry to hear of the incident and hope that your daughter is recovering well.

 

As you suggest at present the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 do not require organisations to provide first aid assistance to anyone on premises apart from actual employees. However, many organisations do provide such service for others, and I note the Health and Safety Executive strongly recommends that employers include the public and others on their premises when making their assessment of first aid needs.

 

I understand this advice is the result of a review conducted by the HSE into provisions for non-employees. This review noted that the majority organisations do consider members of the public when assessing their first aid needs especially those with a large public presence, for example airports, shopping centres and places of entertainment, with many rightly feeling they have a 'moral obligation' to cater for the first aid needs of the public. In England and Wales, certain public entertainment venues may require a license from a local authority and where appropriate, the local authorities can make it a condition of granting a license that adequate first aid cover is arranged for all those in attendance.

 

I am surprised and disappointed the establishment takes the view not to assist those injured for fear of litigation; (especially in light of the fact it issues hot drinks with no lid with little thought for the possible consequences – an issue in which MacDonald’s have faced a number of high profile suits).

 

Under Article 137 of the EC Treaty the European Union has implemented a number of measures in the field of safety and health at work which primarily deals with matters relating directly to employees. In light of your experiences I have written to Commissioner Spidla, EU Commissioner for employment and social affairs, and Lord MacKenzie the UK Minister responsible for the Health and Safety Executive. I will be pleased to revert to you when receive replies.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Graham Watson MEP

Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament for South West England and

 

will keep you posted on any further developments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

brilliant response, lets hope more people start to think like this. What a turn up eh? Hot drinks without lids....

 

Well done Tony, keep this going you're getting real support here!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I would start by asking the pub to produce their risk assessment for 1st aid? It is recomended in legislation that 1 1st aider should be provided for up to 50 people unless the risk assessemnts requires more due to the type of enviroment i.e. a childs play area should be provided with some form of first aid. Also was this ever entered into their accident book or did they refuse to do that also?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Things still moving on, all be it a little slow for my liking.

 

The Local Council HSE Safety Officer has performed an inspection and is investigating as there are number of concerns. I can't say more as I am awaiting update from them. It was interesting to hear from the Inspector however that they claim to have a policy insisting on Lids and produced some poor quality CCTV footage of the day before my daughters accident and footage from the day after that appears to show lids being issued but they have mis-laid the CCTV tape for the day in question!!

 

I have also recieved a further reply from Graham Watson

 

Dear Mr Meese,

 

I write further to my email of 12 August regarding your daughter’s accident in a fun-pub and the lack of first aid assistance.

 

I have received an interesting reply from Commissioner Spidla, the EU Commissioner for Employment and social affairs, and I attach a copy for your perusal. The Commissioner notes under Europe wide legislation on health and safety (Directive 89/391/EC) that when employers conduct a health and safety risk assessment they must take the presence of other people into account with a view to determining the first-aid measures required in such situations. It appears that UK legislation which may only recommend first aid for non-employees on premises may fall short of this legal requirement, and I am pleased that the Commission are now investigating this matter further. I will of course be happy to update you more when I receive any further information.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Graham Watson MEP

Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament for South West England and Gibraltar

 

Will keep you posted of any further developments.

 

Cheers

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tony, I'm dismayed at the delays you're facing here, but glad to hear you're still chasing them.

 

Its odd that the video evidence is missing isn't it? But since it's required to prove their point it's absence doesn't exactly help their defence.

 

Hang in there, you've got them on the run!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would start by asking the pub to produce their risk assessment for 1st aid? It is recomended in legislation that 1 1st aider should be provided for up to 50 people unless the risk assessemnts requires more due to the type of enviroment i.e. a childs play area should be provided with some form of first aid. Also was this ever entered into their accident book or did they refuse to do that also?

 

I'd start by learning the law if I was you.

 

THERE IS NO, REPEAT NO legislation that forces a company to have first aid for customers, nor do they have to do a risk assessment for the public. What you are quoting is for employees, the OP was NOT an employee but a customer.

 

Do not confuse recomendations and suggestions with what the law actually says.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

My GP was successfully sued by an accident victim as the doctor had to cut the patients jeans in order to treat his leg, which had an artery slashed in an accident. Blood was pouring everywhere, as you can imagine.

 

In cutting the jeans (in a hurry), the GP nicked the skin of the patient and that is what she got sued for, as well as the jeans.

 

She could, of course, just left him, and she told me of a number of health care professionals who do just that because of litigation.

 

When I was a student nurse, we were told that the first thing to do when you see an accident is let someone else deal with it.

 

 

Agree mate, I am a student nurse now (already have army med training, long story) ... and we are told, if you are identifiable then help... if not, walk away.... inform 999 but do not get involved.

 

I have personally helped at a lot of RTC's, and been lucky. Had to do some very borderline things, being on the street as well.... but the patients been grateful.

 

 

We had a nurse sued for giving cpr, chest compressions and broke two ribs.... patient sued them ... had cpr not been given patient would be dead ! go figure !

 

Luckly for us, Royal College of Nursing membership Royal College of Nursing (RCN) : nursing news, professional issues and advice for nurses We are covered for upto £3 Million for professional negligence

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...