Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments on your post in red
    • Thanks for your reply, I have another 3 weeks before the notice ends. I'm also concerned because the property has detoriated since I've been here due to mould, damp and rusting (which I've never seen in a property before) rusty hinges and other damage to the front door caused by damp and mould, I'm concerned they could try and charge me for damages? As long as you've documented and reported this previously you'll have a right to challenge any costs. There was no inventory when I moved in, I also didn't have to pay a deposit. Do an inventory when you move out as proof of the property's condition as you leave it. I've also been told that if I leave before a possession order is given I would be deemed intentionally homeless, is this true? If you leave, yes. However, Your local council has a legal obligation to ensure you won't be left homeless as soon as you get the notice. As stated before, you don't have to leave when the notice expires if you haven't got somewhere else to go. Just keep paying your rent as normal. Your tenancy doesn't legally end until a possession warrant is executed against you or you leave and hand the keys back. My daughter doesn't live with me, I'd likely have medical priority as I have health issues and I'm on pip etc. Contact the council and make them aware then.      
    • extension? you mean enforcement. after 6yrs its very rare for a judge to allow enforcement. it wont have been sold on, just passed around the various differing trading names the claimant uses.    
    • You believe you have cast iron evidence. However, all they’d have to do to oppose a request for summary judgment is to say “we will be putting forward our own evidence and the evidence from both parties needs to be heard and assessed by a judge” : the bar for summary judgment is set quite high! You believe they don't have evidence but that on its own doesn't mean they wouldn't try! so, its a high risk strategy that leaves you on the hook for their costs if it doesn't work. Let the usual process play out.
    • Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject. My original CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them. Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.
  • 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

Your advice please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5263 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

Good evening and a Happy New Year to you all.

A couple of days ago I received through the post a PCN with two nice photos of my car under the heading "Case Evidence Report"

The offence too place on the 17th December in a local nearby road.

I can remember the incident. When I'm not working I will occasionally drive my wife to work at the local school where she is a teacher - this avoids her havering to use her own car with difficult parking at the school. Usually I would drive straight into the school and drop her off there but on this morning, there was a Refuse lorry in the gateway so i judged it best to avoid it. Instead, I turned right intending to drop her off just a little way down the road in a safe place but found myself facing several cars trying to get down the road and heading towards me. I was fortunate that I could move over to my left to allow them to pass and whilst there suggested to the missus that she should get out here. She did - I moved off. All completed in the blink of an eye.

The first photo shows my car with the passenger door open and a foot emerging from the passenger seat. The second photo shows my wife alighted from the car and the passenger door shut. In both pics, the brake light is on (one was out of action - oh dear!) the time span between the two photos is 4 SECONDS.

The "offence or contravention quoted is 62J "Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway (Camera enforcement).

The photos do not show any markings, or footpath. In fact nothing on the roadway is discernible at all.

I've been back to the location and I reckon that for a camera car to have taken this photo, it must have been parked on the school crossing markings - is that allowed?

I wish to contest this ticket on the grounds that

1) 4 seconds does not constitute parking - it is certainly not in keeping with the Oxford Dictionary meaning of "Parked" and 2)

The photos give absolutely no indication of the location of the car in respect of the roadway or the footpath or any markings.

3). I had no alternative but to pull over to my left to allow other vehicles to pass.

What advice can you give me?

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

get pictures of the road with a clear view (no obstructions) and post them up. plus of the sign and lines (if any). Would help to see the pics you have of the alleged contravention - suitably washed of your personal details ! pics of the PCN as ell - also suitably washed but leave in the dates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll see what I can do about the size. I believe I was on School markings but had no choice as I had to let other traffic pass!

 

Unfortunately if your wife got out while you were stationary on the markings, you are considered to be 'parked' not matter what the duration of you being stationary was. This is a comon problem outside schools nation wide and as such certain local authorities are using cameras. (It may have not been a camera car by the way).

 

See if you can post the pics/PCN up so we can take a good look but I doubt if you will have a case for appeal.

 

__________________

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 professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But regardless of my wife being in the car - I would have been stationary in that position in any event to allow the oncoming traffic to pass!

 

It matters not my friend, the zig-zag markings have the same meaning as 'no stopping' (definition; to allow dropping off/picking up) so the moment a door is opened and someone gets out, you have 'parked' and therefore the offence has been commited. Had your wife not got out and waited until you were clear of the markings then all would of been fine.

 

It may still be worth looking at the markings/signage ect to see if they are compliant.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok its not for a school markings offence, its for parking partially on a footpath. The pics do not show this very clearly at all so I reckon we should see what others have to say. The pics could have been taken anywhere in my opinion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The wording on the PCN differs slightly from the wording on the list of contraventions I downloaded from newparkinglaws.co.uk where it says "parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking). Whereas on the PCN it reads "Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway (camera enforcement).

Is that significant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rear of the PCN under the heading Camera Evidence invites me to to be provided with, free of charge, such still images from that record as, in the authority's opinion, establish the contravention.

Does that mean they are holding other photos and if so could they use them in an appeal. Or would they have to rely on the two that they have sent to me and called "case evidence report" ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rear of the PCN under the heading Camera Evidence invites me to to be provided with, free of charge, such still images from that record as, in the authority's opinion, establish the contravention.

Does that mean they are holding other photos and if so could they use them in an appeal. Or would they have to rely on the two that they have sent to me and called "case evidence report" ?

 

Well the ones you have posted dont seem sufficeint to me. They do not show that your wheels are on the 'footway'. I reckon we should wait for other caggers to take a look.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The PCN is invalid. The council has failed to comply with Paragraph 2(a) of Statutory Instrument 2007/3483

 

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 (No. 3483) - Statute Law Database

 

The PCN must be posted on the date of the notice (23/12/2009) yet the council claim the date of posting is 24/12/2009. Therefore a procedural impropriety has occurred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The wording on the PCN differs slightly from the wording on the list of contraventions I downloaded from newparkinglaws.co.uk where it says "parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking). Whereas on the PCN it reads "Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway (camera enforcement).

Is that significant?

 

The wording in London was changed by the LLA act 2008 which made all roads enforceable not just urban ones and footpaths as well as footways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Green & Mean. I will certainly contest this PCN on the strength of the info given above by Blog Dollocks and as mentioned earlier by Sailor Sam - the photos do not show any supporting evidence as to the position of the car in relation to any road markings etc.

As a matter of interest I will re-visit the site tomorrow and stand at the spot where the photo was taken from (as determined by Google Earth using the coordinates printed on the Photos). I do not believe it possible to see road markings at that distance and I think there is a slight rise in the road making it impossible from that height and position to see markings on the far side of the junction. I'll report my findings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...