Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Designer Anne Sophie Cochevelou decorates her face coverings with anything from Barbies to Pokemon toys. View the full article
    • Notice Before Action Dear Sir/madam You have lost the following items. 1)      P2G72688861 2)      P2G73791631 3)      P2G74330511 I understand you eventually accepted liability for these lost items and have agreed to reimburse the postage costs but not the values. You suggest this is due to my failing to take out additional insurance.   I am not prepared to accept your position and shall be issuing a summons on 18th August for £180, should you choose not to reimburse the values allocated to the items you have lost. In particular: Item 1) This parcel was damaged by your courier and rejected by the addressee. It appears rather than return the parcel and contents to me, your courier decided to throw the item away. Thus the item has become lost, and therefore (due to my not paying extra for insurance against loss), you have chosen not to compensate. Do you seriously expect to ‘lose’ an item on purpose by throwing it away, and then claim it has been lost and therefore not covered? Item 2) This parcel was lost and I made a claim. During the period of claim, the parcel was found and began to track. Ultimately being delivered (according to an email to the addressee, at 1.41 am 19 July 2020). Clearly the parcel was not delivered at such a time. You have subsequently suggested delivery was at a different time. Despite these suggestions of proper delivery, you have been unable to prove delivery at all, the addressee has confirmed he has not received the item and you have accepted the item is lost.  I do not accept you can be so careless as to lose an item twice. When I purchased this sending through P2G, I selected Parcelforce 48 as the courier. This service has a compensation value of up to £100 for loss. This is why I selected them. It appears however, you chose not to purchase this service from Parcelforce, but an alternative service purporting to be Parcelforce 48, but excluding the standard compensation.  This is not what I had purchased. I do not accept your claim that I should have paid extra for insurance for you to insure, when I had already purchased a service which carried automatic insurance. Further, the service was supposed to be a 48 hour service. The parcel was not collected within the 48 hour period, let alone delivered within it.  I consider the delays in ensuring delivery within the expected timeframe would have contributed to the loss of this item. I hold you responsible for the loss.   Item 3) This item was also subject to a claim for loss. During your investigations, this item was also found and started to track. Messages advising  "Enquiry resolved", "INT Hold" and "Out for delivery”, suggest the item had eventually been found. I do not accept you can be so careless as to find a lost item and subsequently lose it again, regardless of whether I had purchased additional insured. Indeed, the option to purchase such insurance was not available as the item appears to have been excluded from such insurance.   Yours faithfully
    • A new way to produce tiny speakers promises more robust headphones with high quality sound. View the full article
    • Hi. DX, I'm not at home and relying on a photo of the document which states: Prior to the hearing the parties are expected to liase to agree the key documets required by the judge essential for that hearing. In default of agreement the parties may identify their own key documents but will need to justify the absence of agreement to the judge, who may make costs orders consqeuent upon the failure to agree.  
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
        • Thanks
      • 9 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
        • Like
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
        • Thanks
      • 16 replies
s_i

Westminster PCN - misleading sign

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4008 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

Last time I posted on here the advice I gained resulted in my appeal being granted and a refund of £250 from Wandsworth council, so thank you in advance for any help here!

 

So 1 year later and I've been stung again..

 

This is an outline of what I am planning on sending, please advice on a)does it make sense and b) do you think I'm in with a chance?

 

"I am appealing the above PCN on the following grounds:

 

The core issue with the above PCN is with the parking sign, which is misleading and confusing. I was parked no more than 2 meters from a parking sign which clearly stated the parking restriction was until 6:30pm [ I parked about 8:20pm]. The sign for the bay I actually parked in was not placed on the edge of the bay, but was about 20 meters up the road and was illegible from the position I was parked.

 

It was impossible to tell that the sign nearest to my bike was for an adjacent bay as the end of bay markings were obfuscated by a parked car.

 

This was a genuine mistake and I had nothing to gain from parking my scooter one side of the bay or the other as there was adequate space. However, if the parking sign had clearly indicated to which bays it was applicable, I would never have parked there.

 

If you do wish to pursue the PCN then please enclose with your response a copy of the relevant Traffic Order and consider this a request under the freedom of information act.

 

 

I am shocked that such an aggressive policy towards issuing PCNs is practiced by Westminster Council, especially when it was clear to see that the sign was misleading and placed right on the edge of a bay, making drivers believe the regulations relating to the bay were for the sign it was closest to by a significant margin. I don’t think it would be unreasonable to think that the signs had been placed deliberately to mislead and confuse drivers. "

 

 

It does sound a bit convoluted, but I honestly think the signs are placed to deliberately confuse. I've been unable to find and rules on placing signs near to other bays etc, but please do let me know your opinions.

 

 

Thanks

Si

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wroing with it but I'll give you my own personal view. (By the way, I think "obfuscated" is wrong. You mean "obscured".)

 

If it were my appeal, I would drop the second half of the letter. Everything after "...I would never have parked there."

 

Why? Because I assume you've not yet had an NTO, and so this is an informal appeal. In my experience the people who deal with these get fed up with reading hectoring letters all day. At the moment I think it would be better to remain in friendly tone and appeal for some leniency rather than openly accusing them of deception. That may be your view (and may even be true!!), but I don't think it helps to put it in writing.

 

Likewise the TRO request - they will go find it, copy it for you and then what? Cancel the PCN? I doubt it. Having done the work proving the PCN is legal, they will then be inclined to tell you to pay it. So I would scrap the last two paragraphs and round off with something like:

 

"I appreciate the restrictions are there for good reason and that using an incorrect bay can cause problems for other road users, but I hope you will appreciate that a genuine error occurred on this occasion. As I explained, there was no advantage to me in parking the wrong side of the line, and I can assure you that I am now fully aware of the bay layouts and positioning of the signs at that location."

 

Also, in keeping with this approach I personally would not say "It was impossible to tell the sign nearest my bike was for an adjacent bay..." as the person reading it, who has heard claims like this a thousand times, will immediately think to themselves "no it wasn't - there are signs and lines telling you". Instead, I would say "I did not realise that the sign nearest my bike..." which reitterates that it was an honest error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for your response! That's exactly the kind of advice I needed. Here's the final draft:

 

" I am appealing the above PCN on the following grounds:

The core issue with the above PCN is with the parking sign, which is misleading and confusing. I was parked no more than 2 meters from a parking sign which clearly stated the parking restriction was until 6:30pm. The sign for the bay I actually in was not placed on the edge of the bay, but was about 20 meters up the road and was illegible from the position I was parked.

 

I did not realise that the sign nearest my bike was for an adjacent bay as the end of bay markings were obscured by a parked car.

 

This was a genuine mistake and I had nothing to gain from parking my scooter one side of the bay or the other as there was adequate space. However, if the parking sign had clearly indicated to which bays it was applicable, I would never have parked there.

 

I appreciate the restrictions are there for good reason and that using an incorrect bay can cause problems for other road users, but I hope you will appreciate that a genuine error occurred on this occasion. As I explained, there was no advantage to me in parking the wrong side of the line, and I can assure you that I am now fully aware of the bay layouts and positioning of the signs at that location."

 

Fingers crossed. I'll keep you posted.

 

p.s. is there any advantage to posting this or is an online appeal just as effective?

 

Thanks again!

 

Si

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far as I am aware it makes no difference whether you send it on paper on online. However don't forget to include the PCN number and your name and address - or they will not consider the appeal.

 

Best of luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I've gone with the online option and you have to fill in your personal details and PCN etc in order to submit the form.

 

 

Thanks again!

 

Si

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Just wanted to report back that I got a letter from Westminster saying they will let me off on this occasion, due to the fact that the end of bay markings were obscured by a vehicle.

 

:-)

 

Nice one!

 

Si

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always nice to hear about a successful outcome. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...