Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

PCN 27 - Dropped curb


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5073 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

I received a PCN for parking in the suburbs of Leeds adjacent to a dropped curb yesterday (11:17, Sunday 24th Jan). Until now, I did not even realise this was an offence, as there were no other restrictions on the road.

 

My main problem with this PCN is that there is no purpose for the dropped curb. There is no adjacent dropped curb on the other side of the road, which I believe contradicts the definition of a dropped footpath from the Traffic Management Act 2004, which states:

 

(1) In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—

 

(a) the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—

 

(i) assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

 

(ii) assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or

 

(iii) assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; or

 

 

As there is no adjacent dropped curb, I do not believe that this dropped curb is there for the purpose of assisting pedestrians. The road was also closed a little further up at the time of the offense. The road itself is on an industrial estate, where the only business is a garage, which was closed as the offence occurred on a Sunday. This is an area where I have never seen a pedestrian and the only people that use it, use it to park their cars, as it is near to a new flat development.

 

Also, when I arrived at my car (shortly after it was ticketed) , I found that there was another vehicle parked completely obstructing the pavement, which did not have a ticket.

 

Is there any way, or any point, of fighting this? I have uploaded some images of my car and also of the road, found on Google Street view.

 

My car

2aaka2u.jpg

 

No adjacent dropped footpath

x23uol.jpg

 

30u7i3n.jpg

 

Dropped footpath 2m away

2gtw6zr.jpg

 

Only entrance to the road (end not closed)

mske3l.jpg

 

The PCN:

 

xpnjs.png

 

2edmasj.png

 

2a50n5.jpg

 

2eg5y8l.jpg

 

As you can see from the pictures, there is another dropped curb less than 2m away. This is for the entrance to a private car park, which is also closed on a Sunday.

 

Also, can someone help me by explaining what a Special Enforcement Area is? I was under the impression that you can only get fined for this offense if you are within one of these. As I was parked outside the city centre, is this included as a SEA?

 

The information on the Leeds City Council website is very poor on this. They do not once mention obstructed a dropped curb as an offence in any of their documents online:

 

http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Page.aspx?pageIden...e8-7e67122bb02e

 

http://www.leeds.gov.uk/files/Internet2007...31a77118085.pdf

 

http://www.leeds.gov.uk/files/Internet2007...eac3f86250e.pdf

 

Any help would be appreciated as I would like to appeal straight away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Did you manage to appeal? I got a fine for parking on the opposite corner of the entrance to the museum car park. The traffic wardens seem to be having Xmas all around thanks to us. Pity no one gives a damn about the multiple break-ins and thefts from cars. The people from my office call the place 'glass alley' and it has nothing to do with the glass factory around the corner but the broke windows debris all around the pavement...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

After a long wait for a reply for from my appeal (2 months), they decided to drop the fine. I can post my letter of appeal if you think it would help you, I focussed on a few aspects, including that there was no adjacent dropped footway, if there was planning permission for the dropped footway, the lack of restrictions on the road and the time of the offence (11am on a Sunday). Let me know of you'd like to see the letter and good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I just thought I'd mention, this was the reply I got. The appeal was sent via email on 4/2/2010. This reply was received on 17/3/2010.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Traffic Management Act 2004

Penalty Charge Notice (PCN): LS********

Date of Issue: 24/01/2010

Location of Contravention: SAYNER LANE - HUNSLET

Nature of Contravention: 27 PARKED ADJACENT TO A DROPPED FOOTWAY

 

 

Thank you for your email which was received on 05 February 2010in regard to the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Please accept our apologies for the delay in our reply.

 

The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) issued the PCN because the vehicle was observed parked adjacent to a dropped footway.

 

I would advise that the Highway Code states “Do not park your vehicle on the road where it would endanger, inconvenience or obstruct pedestrians or other road users. For example, do not stop: where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users”.

 

It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they park their vehicle in accordance with the Highway Code, as failure to do so may result in the issue of a PCN.

 

On this occasion, I am prepared to cancel the PCN. You should hear no more about this matter but the Parking Services department may not be able to cancel future PCNs issued in similar situations.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Appeals Officer

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...