Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • With regards to paragraph 1, having re-read what I believe to be the relevant exemptions for data disclosure, being subject to a civil action is not one of them. In fact I think as it is written the legislature leans in the opposite direction to your suggestion. It indicates that data controllers may only restrict access to a data subject in order to avoid obstructing a legal enquiry. (I find it difficult to imagine such a scenario but it has clearly been considered as a possible one). If you believe you are aware of such an exemption it would be useful to provide the basis for this in a post that everyone can see.
    • I'm struggling with the wording of my statement then.   So far I got:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. ← do i need this? The Claimant wrote to the Defendant in August 2018 admitting they were unable to produce a copy of the Credit Agreement which they noted in paragraph 1 of their particulars of claim, and therefore the account they had on record was unenforceable, after the Defendant requested a copy. I have reason to believe the Claimant would only file a claim if the Defendant was unable to respond in order to win the judgment by default. The Claimant filed a claim using the Defendant’s previous address, and the Defendant was only made aware of the judgment after checking their credit file. The Claimant sent a letter dated 27 October 2021 to the Defendant’s current address only twelve (12) days after filing the claim to Defendant’s previous address therefore showing they were aware the Defendant had changed address.   Any tips?
    • I accept the point you have made in paragraph 2 and I am aware of the risks I will incur at any hearing. However the opposite side of the same argument is that Lloyds will have to claim they have no liability whatsovever as the card services provider in a scenario where clearly there was a breakdown of payment services between themselves and the merchant.   The Court may decide against me for not exhausting all options or it may accept that myself and this particular merchant are in dispute and there was no reasonable prospect to recover the money. Regardless of those options (which is exactly what I consider them to be options - not obligations), I am of the opinion Lloyds Bank is still liable as a card services provider and if I am successful it will have wide reaching implications on their policy of attempting to fob their customers off whenever they induce preventable mistakes and refuse to correct them.   To put it another way, if you have a dispute with an energy company you can use the Ombudsman Service, or you can forgo it and proceed to court. I have forgone my option of a section 75 claim and wish to hold Lloyds liable. I believe I am only afforded the option of a section 75 claim as a result of the Consumer Credit Act - although this could be an error on my part. And that banks prefer their customers to pursue merchants in full knowledge they are equally liable. After a lengthy discussion with HSBC regarding the same issue they attempted to fob me off with a similar excuse that I am subject the conditions of Master Card or Visa or whichever company it may be. They attempted to do this by simply referring me to a webpage that does not form any contractual agreement or present itself as terms and conditons to be accepted by me. I totally disagree with the positions of both banks, if I have entered into agreement and hold an account with Lloyds, I believe all my dealings are be conducted with them and whatever agreements they have with another payment service they intertwine with is a matter for them. My credit card agreement is with Lloyds not Master Card.   Both myself and Lloyds will be risking something if this proceeds to Court. I have accepted that and there are few causes worth pursuing that do not carry inherant risk.
    • Hi, thanks for replying. Your help would be really appreciated. The arrears are 4 months worth of payments. I haven’t received the defence form as yet.
    • So the dealers aren't interested It doesn't matter, as you already understand the liability rests fully with the finance company and frankly I think that you are probably waited long enough because nobody seems to be committing themselves to sorting the problem out. There are a couple of technical problems that you need to understand. A quick of English law is that you must actually have suffered a financial loss in order to bring action. Although clearly the damage the engine represents a substantial amount of money – it isn't actually money. Normally speaking if you're suing for breach of contract you would have to demonstrate a pecuniary loss and that means that you would actually have had to spend the £8000 to repair the vehicle and then claim it back. I think that the county courts are sufficiently modern-minded that they may run with it anyway but I would be surprised if your hire purchase company objected in the first place to bring an action for the value of work which had been carried out. The second thing though is that if you are not actually out-of-pocket then you won't be able to claim interest. The County Court rate of interest at the moment is extremely high comparatively speaking – it is 8% simple. You won't get that rate of interest anywhere else. If you simply sue for the value of the repair without having spent the money, then assuming that nobody raises some technical legal objection, then all you will be able to recover is the £8000 for the repair and no interest. If you spend out the £8000 now and have the car repaired then you will be to recover that money +8% until the money is repaid to you. Of course the hire purchase company won't actually want to go to court about this and eventually they will pay. However they will simply try to pay you your net sum – but if you have actually started proceedings then my advice would be that you should stand your ground and tell them you want every last penny including the interest – as well as your court fees. There may be other losses which you are incurring why this car is off the road. Presumably you are paying insurance. Presumably also you are paying road tax. You have an alternative vehicle so you aren't really in a position to claim for alternative transport but on the other hand if the loss of this vehicle is costing you anything else then we need to know about it. You certainly need to calculate a daily rate for the insurance which is basically money thrown away and also a daily rate for the road tax which is also money thrown away. If there are storage fees then they should be recoverable as well. My recommendation to you is that you get the work done after having given proper notice to the hire purchase company that this is what you going to do and that you are then going to see them to recover the money. Let us know what you think about this. Have you asserted your right to reject?  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

PCN - Failing to comply with a no entry sign in Rye Lane SE15


 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4332 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

Hello.

 

:confused: Newbie to this particular forum but hope you can help/advise.

 

On my first trip to Peckham armed with my Google directions it seems I went through a no entry sign. To my recollection I did not why would I, yet if I did, it was definately unintentional. The picture they sent with the PCN shows my car and the date that I was in Peckham but not much else. The PCN does state that the contravention has been recorded on video tape, so am going to ask for a copy to be sent to me as I don't fancy risking a trip to Walworth Road, which again is unfamiliar territory to me.

 

I have uploaded the PCN so those with the knowledge/experience of these can advise me as to whether or not it is worth challenging. Having said that, I guess without the video evidence there may not be much you can advise at this stage? (Pic is quite dark and grainy, hope you can make it out)

 

Thanks in the meantime.

PCN Peckham 1.pdf

PCN Peckham.pdf

PCN Peckham 3.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mam62,

Sorry to advise you, whether it was intentional or not, the wrongful act has been done. Although your driving offence is classed as a crime, you dont have to have a guilty mind; as in other crimes. Your only hope really is that the video does not show the sign that you allegedly went through. Write to them and ask if you can have a copy of the video evidence. Just one other thought, have you reveived a Notice of Intended Prosecution. Sctn 172 statement of driver at the time of the offence declaration. If you havent thenm in my humble opinion the ticket is unlawful. If you fail to comply with a regulatory traffic sign , you have ti be NIP'd. If they havent done that the offence is out of the window. I live up north and someone else may advise me of some special local law which states they don't have to NIP you, but until then my advice stands.

 

Hope this helps - Cheers - Scousegeezer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mam62,

Sorry to advise you, whether it was intentional or not, the wrongful act has been done. Although your driving offence is classed as a crime, you dont have to have a guilty mind; as in other crimes. Your only hope really is that the video does not show the sign that you allegedly went through. Write to them and ask if you can have a copy of the video evidence. Just one other thought, have you reveived a Notice of Intended Prosecution. Sctn 172 statement of driver at the time of the offence declaration. If you havent thenm in my humble opinion the ticket is unlawful. If you fail to comply with a regulatory traffic sign , you have ti be NIP'd. If they havent done that the offence is out of the window. I live up north and someone else may advise me of some special local law which states they don't have to NIP you, but until then my advice stands.

 

Hope this helps - Cheers - Scousegeezer.

 

 

Ignore all the above in most London moving traffic offences are decriminalised and dealt with outside the Court system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:confused: Sorry for the delay, internet connection is hit and miss today.

 

Many thanks for your reply's.

 

No I came from Barry road, then on to Peckham Rye. Is Rye lane off there somewhere? I am totally unfamiliar with the area (I guess that's obvious).

Link to post
Share on other sites

:confused: Sorry for the delay, internet connection is hit and miss today.

 

Many thanks for your reply's.

 

No I came from Barry road, then on to Peckham Rye. Is Rye lane off there somewhere? I am totally unfamiliar with the area (I guess that's obvious).

 

barry road peckham - Google Maps

 

How about here...look familiar? There are so many no entry in the area you need to see the cctv I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi green_and_mean.

 

:confused: It does look somewhat familiar but I remember I had to do a right into Copeland road because of the 'buses only' signs to the left.

 

I turned right down Consort road, then onto Clayton road.

 

I think things started getting more confusing after that. I remember doing a left into Peckham High street. Could that have been where I went wrong? I did not see any signs to say I couldn't turn left but admittedly, there were buses stopped on the left just before the traffic lights. Maybe there was a sign where the buses were?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Just received one of these - I can't spot a no-entry on rye lane except for the one at the top of the 'high street'

 

Of course, the PCN is no help as to where this was supposed to have occured.

 

I'll be appealing - if only to find out where they are talking about!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received one of these - I can't spot a no-entry on rye lane except for the one at the top of the 'high street'

 

Of course, the PCN is no help as to where this was supposed to have occured.

 

I'll be appealing - if only to find out where they are talking about!

 

You are entitled to view video before making an appeal and should do so or you will be appealing blind with no idea of what took place,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

I've just spent the last 30 mins examining the area in question on Google and there seems to be at least one 'no entry' (except buses) where the signage seems a little iffy to me. For eaxmple here;

 

Barry Road Southwark, London SE15, United Kingdom - Google Maps

 

the signs should be in a line on both sides of the road, but here the one on the right is further back than the one on the left. Plus the blue 'turn left ahead' sign appears to be too high up so in my opinion, they are unenforcable. Waht do the rest of you guys think?

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

OK - I appealed on this basis:

 

The PCN does not state the precise location of the alleged contravention. There are a number of no entry signs listed in the document attached to this letter (from http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_26911.pdf) it is unclear from the PCN which of these have been contravened.

The PCN states "A penalty charge of £120 is payable and must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice" I contend that the wording of this PCN is invalid, as it gives 28 days from the date of service of the notice. This is incorrect. This wording mis-states my legal position and does not comply with the relevant statues (The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, Section 4 (8) iii and iv), which clearly states the 14 and 28 day periods begin with the date of notice, not the date of service of the notice. I refer you again to a recent PATAS case 2070445427: Pulp Faction Recycling v Islington which found that the relevant wording on a PCN to be mandatory. I attach this for your convenience.

Got this in the post:

ZxdLvl.jpg

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice result, Well done!

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...