Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for your advice. They didn't really reduce her bill when putting her on the rolling contract. She's emailed BT to complain as well about £800 fee. She will have to check where she stands with her mobile contract given she is still paying each month as she still needs to have a mobile phone for emergencies. A lesson on how careful you have to be when changing providers
    • forget CAB you might as well phone bt back as thats about as useless as they'll be.   you can't have a rolling 24mts contract', bt rolling contracts are month to month only, thats an industrywide accepted definition of what rolling means.   what happened here is she earlier changed her 'package' removing skt to reduce costs. as with all providers that invoked = means she entered into a new 24mts contract.   she latterly phone to cancel that contract, and thus bt charged her the cancellation fee/loss of revenue over the raining months of the contract.   the fact that she owes them 'this money' but didn't pay it, then entitled them sadly to cancel the mobile contract, which sadly again they allowed to do.   rock and a hard place if she wants to keep the same mobile number.   Or as long as her phone is not imie blocked by bt (in otherwords she purchased from BT under the mobile contract) but simply locked to BT (which is easily gotten around for a small fee at many shops/market stalls or if someone is tech savvy follow the guides on youtube to unlock the phone for an even smaller fee. and wack a new sim in it.   as for the £800 bill simply ignore them. they'll sell the debt on  and if anyone like Lowells or anyother powerless DCA debt buyer wants to do court, it's easily defended we've not lost one case like that here.        
    • The 1st 2 calls were the normal scam calls. get a truecall box   the PDC stuff you ignore their letter States our client three whom if you wanted too you deal with directly.   Until/unless whenever it gets sold on too and they eventually send a letter of claim you maintain radio silence    
    • hi all. bit of advice please. I had a Three contract up until November last year. At £11pcm for 24mths. Paid every month on time via their online portal. When I ported over, I received a letter from Three thanking me for being a customer blah blah blah.. It also said IF I owed anything a final bill will be sent. No final bill ever received - I get a phone call around the first week in December form an Indian sounding man who was extremly difficult to understand. Said he was calling from Three, and wanted me to confirm my details - something of which I didnt as something didnt sit right. He said I could log into my account and review my bill as I owed money and then hung up. After the call I thought I'd best log into my account just in case.  Couldnt log in. Account access denied. Logged on to chat - they said as I ported over and I was no longer a customer my access was suspended. Couple of weeks later I had another call from a local area number and answered again it was some Indian guy telling me I owed money, wanting me to confirm details. I refused and he said details will be sent out to me to my email on account and my home address as it was important. Once again nothing.. 15th Dec I received an email from PastDue in my name RE Three. Email stated they were contacting me about Three an I should receive a letter soon regards to this matter. Says about visiting their website.  22nd Jan another email form Pastdue. Stating they have yet to receive a response to the letter, and they had already sent me an email about this. We will continue to contact you until this matter is resolved. Again asks me to login. 23rd Jan letter received dated 13th Jan. Titled "We are here to help keep your Three Services"  Claiming I owed "Airetime Balance £201.43" and contract period was 26/11/2019 to 25/11/2020 States "We have been appointed by Three to recover the amount of £201.43. If you pay this amount in full Three may be able to waive the cancellation fee and reconnect their service for you" - what cancellation fee / re connection??? I ended the contract giving the 30days notice and paying the last bill.. Then the normal crap about its important to pay. If I'm experiencing difficulties etc. Now both December and  January Credit reports from ClearScore, Credit Karma, Credit Expert, Totally Money and Equifax all show Three as Closed and balance as Zero. (Date Satisfied /closed 17th Nov, bal 0, last updated 30th Nov) I've had nothing from Three. As far as I'm concerned I owe nothing as no final bill and no access to the portal. Should I email PastDue and do a prove it & attach proof of Credit Reports being £0 or do I do something else?  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

PCN code 62 - parked with four wheels on pavement


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3786 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

Guest fuzzy6988

Hello there,

 

I was given a PCN code 62: "Parked with one or more wheels parked on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway".

 

My car was parked with all four wheels on a pavement, just beside a sign which permits drivers to park on the pavement.

(See http://www.kingston.gov.uk/pavement_parking.pdf page 2, third column to see what this sign looks like)

 

As a result I appealed on the grounds the code was null and void based on the presence of this sign. In addition, the sign does not say you may ONLY park half of the vehicle on the pavement.

 

However my appeal was rejected based on "The sign indicates that parking with 2 wheels on the footway is permitted. As you were parked with all 4 wheels, the ticket was issued correctly".

 

Clearly this is unfair. Does anyone have any advice? Could I win a further appeal?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Others may see this differently, but in my view the Council are wrong here; either pavement parking was allowed in that area or it wasn't. The Council seem to want it both ways. The signs are merely a visual indication of an exempted area.

I personally would take this 'all the way'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where you are allowed to park on the pavement, as well as the signs the permitted area is usually marked on the ground and you must be inside that area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where you are allowed to park on the pavement, as well as the signs the permitted area is usually marked on the ground and you must be inside that area.

 

Agreed and the sign does indicate two wheels on the footway if it meant 4 wheels it would have the appropriate sign ie http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/02311363.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

wrong contravention - you probably were parked 'outside the bay'. The signs says you can park on the pavement, you did and now they say that is a contravention !! CEOs are not the brightest which is good for us :) I haven't checked against the prescribed descriptions but of this is one where the prescribed descriptions/codes don't cover these circumstances thats their tough luck. There are quite a few holes in the signage/regs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wrong contravention - you probably were parked 'outside the bay'. The signs says you can park on the pavement, you did and now they say that is a contravention !! CEOs are not the brightest which is good for us :)

 

Some contibuters here are just as dim! Its a contravention to park on the footway unless in a marked bay so if you are outside the bay the contravention is correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you take photos of the signage and bay and upload or if google streetview shows the signage as it currently is then link us to the location explaining where you were parked.

 

I would advise getting from the council the traffic order or council resolution that confirms where and where not paking on the footway is permitted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some contibuters here are just as dim! Its a contravention to park on the footway unless in a marked bay so if you are outside the bay the contravention is correct.

 

I have noted for some considerable time that you appear take the greatest perverse pleasure in your confrontational posting style where opinions may not be in accord with your own.

 

I sincerely hope that your gratuitous juvenile remark was not directed at me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have noted for some considerable time that you appear take the greatest perverse pleasure in your confrontational posting style where opinions may not be in accord with your own.

 

I sincerely hope that your gratuitous juvenile remark was not directed at me.

 

It wasn't aimed at you neither is it an opinion its fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

fuzzy6988, were there bay markings painted on the road and even with four wheels on the pavement were you wholly within the bay markings?

  • Haha 1

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

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
wrong contravention - you probably were parked 'outside the bay'.

 

Disagree. Footway parking is allowed according to the sign.

 

 

:confused: Can both quotes be correct?

 

BLUE Text is of topic and not aimed at any fellow poster's

 

There are poster's on CAG who I like to refer them as being ORACLE'S

their knowledge base is quite extensive,

sometimes when they post they sometimes appear arrogant.

Occasionally more than 1 appears in a thread with a different slant on the topic.

Sparks fly but more information is revealed about the topic at hand.

 

:)

 

dk

  • Haha 1

:welcome::rofl::welcome:

 

 

 

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

:tea:

 

 

 

most of my knowledge is from the school of hard knocks

 

not based on any legal background

 

As quite a lot fellow caggers state seek Legal Advice

 

 

:ranger:

Link to post
Share on other sites
The sign refers to the bay not the entire street.

 

As you know full well it is the Order that counts, the signs merely indicate. Highlighting the sign is misdirection in my opinion. The words (and the authority) the LA used to 'opt out' of the no footway parking regs are what matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have noted for some considerable time that you appear take the greatest perverse pleasure in your confrontational posting style where opinions may not be in accord with your own.

 

I sincerely hope that your gratuitous juvenile remark was not directed at me.

 

I'm not the only one then! :rolleyes:

 

To the OP; according to the booklet in your link it sates that there are two signs, one showing the start of the exemption and the other showing the end. I'm assuming you were parked between the signs and not 'outside' them?

 

__________________

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 useful.

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
I'm not the only one then! :rolleyes:

 

 

 

If some people would refrain from posting clearly incorrect factual advice then I would not need to disagree would I? I do not know on what your advice is based but 9 times out of 10 it just seems to be made up!

However I will finally give in to the wishes of those who never seem to actually help but prefer just to give opinons and moan and leave this forum.

You can carry on giving your incorrect advice and constantly wrong information I have better things to do with my time than constantly correct the rubbish you post and get slagged off for it.

I have given up a lot of my time over the last few years to help people on here and have had countless PCNs cancelled and for what a contstant barage of abuse and insults...thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hi-jack

 

mean and green

 

I have found your postings to be quite correct and openly support your posting.

ie:- no flannel just advice. In other threads certain posters in their field come under attack as you get.

 

:)

 

regards

dk

:welcome::rofl::welcome:

 

 

 

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

:tea:

 

 

 

most of my knowledge is from the school of hard knocks

 

not based on any legal background

 

As quite a lot fellow caggers state seek Legal Advice

 

 

:ranger:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic

 

 

Hello there,

 

I was given a PCN code 62: "Parked with one or more wheels parked on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway".

 

My car was parked with all four wheels on a pavement, just beside a sign which permits drivers to park on the pavement.

(See http://www.kingston.gov.uk/pavement_parking.pdf page 2, third column to see what this sign looks like)

 

As a result I appealed on the grounds the code was null and void based on the presence of this sign. In addition, the sign does not say you may ONLY park half of the vehicle on the pavement.

 

However my appeal was rejected based on "The sign indicates that parking with 2 wheels on the footway is permitted. As you were parked with all 4 wheels, the ticket was issued correctly".

 

Clearly this is unfair. Does anyone have any advice? Could I win a further appeal?

 

the following is QUOTED from Kindston's PDF Link

 

"There are two exceptions to the pavement parking ban.A vehicle may park in an area which has been marked out and signed as being exempted from the ban. Where a section of footway is exempted itwill be marked by signs as below:-

 

you find signs in the OP's PDF link

 

The exempted area may also be marked out by additional white lining.

Exceptionally, a vehicle may also stop briefly on the footway to allow the continuous loading of a large quantity of bulky goods to adjacent premises.

This exemption only applies in these circumstances and only if:-

 

- The vehicle is not causing an obstruction to pedestrians;

- There is no loading restriction in place on the road;

- There is no alternative to parking on the pavement in order to reach the premises (i.e. stopping on the road would cause an obstruction); and

- The vehicle is never left unattended."

 

fuzzy6988

The link that you refer to leaves nothing to debate.

You parked with all 4 wheels on footway when you could only park with 2 wheels on the footway.

 

According to your own evidence you where parked in contravention to the Road Signs.

 

If you re-read you own thread starter post,

it contains all the evidence that the PCN was issued correctly.

 

My own opion is that:-

you parked, you received PCN,

you appealed, it failed, you pay it.

 

:)

 

dk

 

ps I can hear the cannon's being loaded for a broadside

:welcome::rofl::welcome:

 

 

 

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

:tea:

 

 

 

most of my knowledge is from the school of hard knocks

 

not based on any legal background

 

As quite a lot fellow caggers state seek Legal Advice

 

 

:ranger:

Link to post
Share on other sites
fuzzy6988

The link that you refer to leaves nothing to debate.

You parked with all 4 wheels on footway when you could only park with 2 wheels on the footway.

 

According to your own evidence you where parked in contravention to the Road Signs.

 

Do you think that would still be the case if fuzzy6988 was parked wholly within the marked area?

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

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

yes

the sign he refered too only allowed two wheels on the footway.

look at the link in OP's post

 

:)

 

dk

 

dk

:welcome::rofl::welcome:

 

 

 

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

:tea:

 

 

 

most of my knowledge is from the school of hard knocks

 

not based on any legal background

 

As quite a lot fellow caggers state seek Legal Advice

 

 

:ranger:

Link to post
Share on other sites
yes

the sign he refered too only allowed two wheels on the footway.

look at the link in OP's post

 

:)

 

dk

 

dk

 

I can't see any where it states that. If you are referring to the actual sign dipicting the 'car' with 2 wheels on the footpath then I think you will find that is for the benifit of emphasizing a car being parked on a footpath and not necessarily meaning you can only have 2 wheels on it. If you were correct, then the contravention would not be "Parked with one or more wheels parked on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway" would it because you can park with 1 or more wheels on the footpath providing you are within the area of the exeption and not causing an obstruction.

 

__________________

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.

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
yes

the sign he refered too only allowed two wheels on the footway.

look at the link in OP's post

 

:)

 

dk

 

dk

 

The sign indicates an exemption to the ban on pavement parking. I saw nothing that restricts it to two wheels only.

 

Did I miss it?

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

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
you cannot contravene a sign. Signs merely indicate.

 

Ooo, I think you've left yourself wide open with that statement Lamma!

 

It would depend on the type of sign whether it can be contavened or not. In this case, the sign merely indicates the start and end of the exemption if thats what you mean. In my opinion, just because it shows an image of a car with 2 wheels on the footpath, it dosn't necessarily mean you cannot park with all foiur wheels on the footpath (according to the booklet the OP posted). I do note that the OP hasn't said whether he was parked in or out of the exemption area indicated by the signs. Also its interesting to note that the booklet was published in 2002 so perhaps there is one more current?

 

__________________

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.

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

:confused: The funny thing about this post is,

it is the first ever post the O P

has made to the forum, and not offered further

info.

 

will post again later

 

:)

 

dk

:welcome::rofl::welcome:

 

 

 

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

:tea:

 

 

 

most of my knowledge is from the school of hard knocks

 

not based on any legal background

 

As quite a lot fellow caggers state seek Legal Advice

 

 

:ranger:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3786 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...