Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you need to ring northants bulk and ask for a copy of the judgement and the claimform by email pdf. it is quite usual for them to not have a copy of the claimform. so you need to record the call and ask them to read out the particulars of claim and the address it was sent too.     old wives tales , if you have a debt owing that shows on your credit file or you know exists from say the last 7yrs you should NEVER move without WRITTING to the debt owner with your new address. never run from debt which falls within the above .     all mortgage style SLC loans that were not deferred with erudio following the gov't sale in 2013 and that did not have a court claim raised within 6yrs are SB'd.   drydens simply did this because they wrote to your old address, got no response, and knew they'd get a default roboclaim CCJ where no human checks anything.   shot yourself in the foot.      
    • yep.   if all these are still owned/with the original creditors and you are not paying any powerless DCA's  then little point in any CCA requests at this stage unless any (non OD A/C's) are say pre 2000 opening.   our pro rata letters are the way to go you'll find those in the debt collection section of our library.   get any income payments on going or otherwise moved into a parachute A/c.   it is most probable that whatever you do most A/c's will be defaulted once this is done if not already. bearing in mine your wish to re mortgage or move in a future, it is most probable that the quicker you do default , the earlier a DN will be registered thus the earlier these will not show following their 6th birthday. this might involve you thinking about stopping all payments now ensuring this does happen, then resuming payment under a pro rata scheme self administered , once this happens.   just be aware that no DMP providers will ever question enforceability, should that be relevant.     
    • LL would have Absolutely no chance of getting the smart meter changed back.....
    • slow down ...read what i'm asking , stating and trying to clarify.. it all might seem useless or totally irrelevant but it's important information moving forward with the whole situation and useful in the SPC claim moving forward     there was not 2 loans - the litigated OD is not a loan but it appears from your comment here..     sorry but then you did get scammed on many fronts... they allowed you to settle the loan exploiting your confusion over thinking it was the litigated account. they didn't tell you either and they would also have been aware of your statement filed response form:   The respondent had a junior account with the Bank of Scotland since a young age.  The Bank of Scotland offered the Respondent a loan of around £2500. This Respondent serviced the loan until losing her source of income and ran into some financial difficulty resulting in defaulting in servicing the loan.   they settled for a discounted sum... why? we usually find this is because they hold no enforceable paperwork at all. or was full of charges , charges could have been the discount or it could have been due to 'a business decision' ...   but sure as eggs is eggs there is no way 1st credit would not have raised a court claim for both the OD and the loan unless there was a very good reason. they didn't that smells...badly.   OD 's are notoriously difficult to litigate upon if defended properly...but with a loan in the same claim, with enforceable paperwork, they would have almost been guaranteed to win.   it's also a shame you didn't come where before you did anything but we are where we are.   now the above might seem harsh..even petty but our posts are not only for you and your issue they are also for future readers that find us via search engines or read like threads here alerting debtors to frequent pitfalls and innocent wet myself actions many do that all these dca's will and have exploited time and time again over the last +40yrs .   i'll try and get around to properly redacting all your pdf's tonight and get them back up. but before i finish and get on with the above........the status of the claim as it stands now.   From what i can gather the claim now hinges upon proving her ex at the time settled by a discounted payment to HBOS well before the sale to Intrum and the SPC Claim.   In all honestly and with regard to your comments in your previous posts upon his character, i seriously doubt this ever happened. the disclosures from Intrum contain all the OD statements , should that have happened, it would be detailed in those.   there is little point in the claimant hiding that info as they would be in far more legal trouble should they have doctored them than insuring a mere +£1k claim win. Even 1st credit wouldn't pull such stunts.   Sorry but there is little point in requesting HBOS to attend any future hearing, nor hoping the SAR shows anything different to the statements the claimant has disclosed . That will cost you more money , and more money in terms of the claimant attending another hearing.   there is one exploitation i see. that being the mention of a default notice. the claim states:  The respondent fell into arrears under the Finance Agreement. A Default Notice was Issued by the Original Creditor .   now default notices are not issued for OD A/C's (which ties in to the possible loan confusion and scam settlement i mentioned) . This tallies with a common mistake that many DCA's, including why i keep mentioning 1st credit, which is the previous name for Intrum, made on numerous claims and was one of the reasons for the name change. To Hide that They lost many Statutory Demand and court claims over the non existence of a DN or proof of it's issuance by the OC (a DCA can't issue a DN) .. No copy of a default notice is fatal to to successful  litigation.   even though in this OD case one was not ever needed. (Poor particulars of claim showing copy and paste, and never expecting a claim to be defended but responded to by a wet themselves response , which you did by settling a loan which you believed was the claimed debt when it never was)    other than that you indicate you made an OOC F&F offer in 09-20  have you advanced this option since ?   dx
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

PCN code 62 - parked with four wheels on pavement


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3784 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 3784 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...