Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ffc1991_
      Driving disqualification through x2 MS90 was unaware of - failure to identify but not the org speeding? sent Statutory Declaration to the court? - help

      By ffc1991_ · Posted

      Hi on the notice of disqualification it lists the 2 speed offences and marks offence withdrawn? This is for both offences and then the other 2 is the MS90s which I’m fined for and the additional costs. R
    • OldVWMK1
      Markerstudy - Other driver fled the scene

      By OldVWMK1 · Posted

      Hi,    It has taken a while, but I have received an email from Auxillis -  hello, we are not dealing with this claim all we do is log accident for you isnurance - the claim has been passed to your underwriter markerstudy 0344 873 8183 as they are deal with fault cliams ion behalf of adrian flux. thankyou auxillis   I have made repeated attempts to phone Markerstudy in between working from home, struggling for energy and trying to find a cheap car so that I can keep my job (community support worker). Thankfully I have a supportive team and I am being given phone calls to make but it cant last too long. I had a severe migraine over the weekend and also have quite bad whiplash in my neck and back.    I found this in my insurance policy booklet -    Protection and Recovery If the insured vehicle cannot be driven following an incident leading to a valid claim under this section, we will pay: • the cost of its protection and removal to the nearest approved repairer, competent repairer or nearest place of safety; and • the cost of re-delivery after repairs to your home address; and • the cost of storage of the insured vehicle incurred with our written consent. If the insured vehicle is damaged beyond economical repair we will arrange for it to be stored safely at premises of our choosing. You should remove your personal belongings from the insured vehicle before it is collected from you. In the event of a claim being made under the policy we have the right to remove the insured vehicle to an alternative repairer, place of safety or make our own arrangments for re-delivery at any time in order to keep the cost of the claim to a minimum     I do about 20-25000 miles a year with the work I do, I have been getting quotes and putting that I have now have one accident and no no claims bonus and the cheap quotes from similar companies to markerstudy are more than double what i paid last year at 8-900 and aviva is offering 2600 which is simply out of my price range and more than the car i am looking at.  I am starting to wonder if it is even worth going ahead with the claim as i have no one to claim from. I have had no information from any of the enquiries I have made.  I have a full tank of vpower diesel in the car in the impound, i can strip it for parts and probably make what I will be offered by the insurance payout and get the money quicker.  As I have made contact and started the process can I back out, still keep my NCB and a claim free history? Also what happens with my injuries? I don't think there is any permanent damage but my dr refused to see me and just gave me a boat load of naproxen and codeine. What happens in the future if things don't get better and I cancelled this claim? Can you claim injuries off your own insurance because the other guy ran and you cant find him? I have tried to ask these questions off markerstudy but they keep me waiting for nearly an hour then end the call.    Thank you for your time and help.  It is really appreciated.  I am quite honestly on the floor, I have been really ill, in hospital, had nearly 6 months off work and only been back full time a few weeks and now this.  The fact the company you pay large sums of money to look after you in a time of need is also behaving criminally just makes you want to give up.    
    • ffc1991_
      Driving disqualification through x2 MS90 was unaware of - failure to identify but not the org speeding? sent Statutory Declaration to the court? - help

      By ffc1991_ · Posted

      Thanks for the response. Am I able to send you the documents I’ve received or can you message via instant message and I’ll send these? Reece
    • Man in the middle
      Driving disqualification through x2 MS90 was unaware of - failure to identify but not the org speeding? sent Statutory Declaration to the court? - help

      By Man in the middle · Posted

      Regretfully it does. Have you actually seen any papers which show what you were charged with (rather than what you were convicted of)? It is unusual not to be “dual charged” but if you were not charged with both, you are where you are. If you had been charged with both offences and providing you were the driver at the time, you could, after performing your SD, have asked the prosecutor to drop the “Fail to Provide” (FtP) charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the speeding charges (you cannot be convicted of speeding unless you plead guilty as they have no evidence you were driving). You will have difficulty defending the FtP charges. In fact, it’s worse than that – you have no chance of successfully defending them at all because the reason you did not respond to the requests is because you did not receive them and that’s entirely your fault. No it’s not correct. Six months from 18/11/23 was 18/5/24 so, unless they were originally charged, the speeding offences are now “timed out.” There is one avenue left open to you. If you perform your SD you must serve it on the court which convicted you. You will then receive a date for a hearing to have the matters heard again. Your only chance of having the matters revert to speeding (and this is only providing you were the driver at the time of those offences) is to plead Not Guilty, attend court. When you get there you can ask the prosecutor (very nicely, explaining what a pillock you know you were for failing to update your  V5C) if (s)he is prepared to raise “out of time” speeding charges, to which you will offer to plead guilty if the FtP charges are dropped.   This is strictly speaking not lawful. Charges have to be raised within six months. Some prosecutors are willing to do it, others are not. But frankly it’s the only avenue open to you. There is a risk with this. I imagine you have been fined £660 (plus surcharge and costs) for each offence. The offence attracts a fine of 1.5 week’s net income and where the court has no information about the defendant’s means a default figure of £440pw is used.  If the prosecutor is not prepared to play ball you can revise your pleas to guilty. A sympathetic court should give you the full discount (one third) for your guilty pleas in these circumstances but they may reduce the discount somewhat. The prosecution may also ask for increased costs (£90 or thereabouts is the figure for a guilty plea). So it may cost you more if you have a decent income (I’ll let you do the sums). But MS90 is an endorsement code which gives insurers a fit of the vapours. One such endorsement will see your premiums double. Two of them will see many insurers refuse to quote you at all meaning you will have to approach "specialist" (aka extortionate) brokers. So you really want to exhaust every possibility of avoiding MS90s if you can. One warning: do not pay solicitors silly money to defend you. Making an SD before a solicitor should attract just a nominal sum (perhaps a tenner). That’s all you should pay for. You have no viable defence against the FtP charges and any solicitor suggesting you have is telling you porkies. The offer to do the deal is easily done by yourself and you can save the solicitor’s fees to put towards a few taxis and increased insurance premiums if you are unsuccessful. In the happy event you find out you were "dual charged", let me know and I'll tell you how to proceed. (Seems a bit odd hoping you were charged with four driving offences rather than two, but it's a funny old world!).    
    • theoldrouge
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By theoldrouge · Posted

      Just the sort of people you despise eh Jugg  You would be much happier among your mates in that room with Rayner begging for votes 

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Off street Council owned NON PUBLIC PCN

chipbutty
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4980 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

chipbutty

chipbutty

Posted
Posted

Hi all,

Got past history with this one. But new developments.

Briefly :-

 

Council own only 6 parking spaces in our street. They charge £264.00 per year for a permit to park. Only between the hours of 8.00 a.m to 5.00p.m..

Not one of our local residents have bought a permit in the last 12 years since the council took these spaces over from a private developer."

 

Problem, ...local council have now issued PCN's (code 85) to over 4 residents.

We are challenging of course. Their sign says :-

Image see attached if possible.

It says ' these spaces are for permit holders only. failure to comply may result in a penalty charge notice being issued.'

I have tried to find out if the local council ever obtained an original Traffic Regulation order, but they say they don't know.!! I contacted the dept. for transport direct and asked if this was public information, they confirmed it was.

Does anyone know:

1. Is the sign legal.

2. Where could I search public records for a Traffic order.

3. How to word our challenge.

 

I do know that the council has to have a Road traffic order for their off street parking from the govt guidlines here... Operational Guidance

to Local Authorities:

Parking Policy and Enforcement

 

2.3 Discussions about parking tend to concentrate on enforcement. But all

local authorities need to develop a parking strategy covering on- and offstreet

parking that is linked to local objectives and circumstances. They then

need Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) to put it in place and appropriate

traffic signs and road markings to show the public what the restrictions

mean. This strategy needs to take account of planning policies and transport

powers and consider the appropriate number of total spaces, the balance

between short and long term spaces and the level of charges

 

P.S one of the ticket receivers is disabled but was not showing their blue badge. But they checked the tax disk which clearly states 'disabled'.

Cheers and thanks,

The chipbutty.

 

My comment would be "Well we MAY PAY if we want to" !!!!!

will try and put in the image. here...Imag0002.jpgpencil.png

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

TheBogsDollocks

TheBogsDollocks

Posted
Posted

You say the 6 parking spaces are in your street but a code 85 PCN is an off street contravention. Please clarify whether the bays are on street or off street.

 

There must be a traffic order to enforce the bays whether on or off street. Demand a copy of the order that regulates those bays from the council's legal department. If there is no traffic order then there is no contravention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
chipbutty

chipbutty

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi,

Thanks for a speedy reply.

 

Forgive me for not being so clear.

 

I'll try..

Our street is a cul de sac, there was an old school developed on land at the bottom of the street.

The development is for social housing privately tenanced by Guinness heritage trust. the private residents have their own allocated spaces. A small area inside the development was taken on by the council as Guinness didn't want it, they gave the excess 6 parking spaces to the council for (on the original plans) as parking for residents. However the council decided they would try and sell these spaces to residents as off street parking at the rates I mentioned.

It didn't work out their way, as no one paid but have still parked there for 12 years now without problem.

It is only recently that a local councillor has moved into the development and has taken offence.!!!

And is now reporting the locals for parking there.

 

Guinness own the access road to the 6 spaces and allow the council access.

It has been a nightmare it all came to a head when the councillor convinced Guinness to introduce a private parking firm to police their allotted spaces. We are still fighting that but now the 6 council spaces are always full there is a vendetta against us.

 

Hope that helps. I can send you a google reference map if you need.

Cheers and thanks again.

chip.

Link to post
Share on other sites
chipbutty

chipbutty

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Thanks a million,

This shows the schedule of charges for the site but what I'm really after is the original proposal to

allow these to go forward. I'm talking tweve years ago for the TRO.

I have an appointment to see the original development plans but they have told me that wont cover TRO's.

cheers and many thanks. I note the charges are now £340 for hours 9am -6pm.

The site for everyones info is COTTEY MEADOW kingsteignton.

Cheers

the chip

Link to post
Share on other sites
buzby

buzby

Posted
Posted

I've seen a similar situation where a developer provides X number of spaces to the council in axchange for some (unspecified) service. The council can then - as part of their Off Street parking arrangements - enforce those bays and issue PCNs are required. To be valid, they will need a TRO that stipulate the number, location and size of the bays, providing distances from a point of reference. Assuming they can do this, then you need to roll over and pay, or take it to an adjudicator to query it on accuracy and validity. Even if on private land, Council can and do use Off-Street orders to legitimise these spaces that are not otherwise of the 'public road'.

 

If these Council spaces are 'always full' I'm assuming they display valid permits? The Council doesn't sell these spaces, they rent the ability to park there on an annual basis, and payment does not guarantee any particular space, or any right to park if there are no spaces available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
chipbutty

chipbutty

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Grockle, et al,

 

That's the baby. Yes it is a GLOBAL order. thanks.

However i'm not putting a spanner in the works but after looking at the ministry document " Operational Guidance

to Local Authorities:

Parking Policy and Enforcement

2.12 Whether or not they have CPE powers, authorities should make sure that

their parking policies are not only appropriate in terms of place and time,

but are properly underpinned by valid, up-to-date Traffic Regulation Orders.

The restrictions need to be made clear to motorists through appropriate

and legal traffic signs and road markings. A parking contravention is

nearly always a breach of a provision of the TRO, which must have been

made under the correct section of the RTRA. A flawed or inadequately

signed order may be unenforceable and can significantly damage both

the aims of enforcement and the public perception of its management.

2.13 Authorities should consult the public on their parking policies as they formulate

or appraise them. They should seek the views of people and businesses with a

range of different parking needs as well as taking into account the views of the

police. Once they have finalised their parking policies, they should make them

available to the public. Explaining the context and the purpose of parking policies

can increase public understanding and acceptance. It can even help public

acceptance of enforcement. Where possible, neighbouring authorities should

work together to ensure a consistent approach to parking policy and its enforcement"

 

I thought they would have to publicise these changes.

I dont think they have at all.

 

However I am most gratefull, I now have the name and contact of their legal section and can ask

probing questions.

I am so grateful to you all.

thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
buzby

buzby

Posted
Posted
Looks like there is a TRO in place,

 

http://tro.parking-adjudication.gov.uk/default.aspx

 

Click on T101

 

Cottery Meadow is in the list at the bottom of the page.

 

 

grockle

 

Ta Grockle - got it that time. Yep, a quick glance at the Regulations and Schedule (Enforceable from 5th May 2008) appears to give them the right to charge. However, what distirbs me is that as a TRO it is hardly specific, in that it names the Street and the cost, but from a reading it appears that they claim ALL parking at this locus requires a Parking Permit, not the '6 Spaces' mentioned previously. If there are indeed only 6 spaces available for the Councl to use, these need to be marked and shown as part of the TRO, so that the non-spaces owned by the council can be identified. However, if they actually control all the patking at this locus, then they will not need to, as it will be deemed simply enough to state that all parking in this area requires a Permit, and that the signage on entering this area clearly identifies this. One entering the off-street area. or one each for every bay the order applies to (or a start and end sign if in a line).

 

As for the Disabled user who didn;t show their Badge, it would be easier for them to claim they forgot and ask for the ticket to be cancelled, than try to challenge their right to issue a PCN.

 

As to the 'consultation' this can simply be a small ad in the paper, nothing more, ands do remember they've had these powers for oner 26 months, so the fact they've not ticketed during this period is most unusual!

Link to post
Share on other sites
chipbutty

chipbutty

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi, err not sure how to do a standard size image??

 

I just linked to the .jpg file.

 

I will try and resize my jpg but may need more than a couple of images.. hope thats ok.

trying now.. cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBogsDollocks

TheBogsDollocks

Posted
Posted
Hi Thanks a million,

This shows the schedule of charges for the site but what I'm really after is the original proposal to

allow these to go forward. I'm talking tweve years ago for the TRO.

I have an appointment to see the original development plans but they have told me that wont cover TRO's.

cheers and many thanks. I note the charges are now £340 for hours 9am -6pm.

The site for everyones info is COTTEY MEADOW kingsteignton.

Cheers

the chip

 

You will need to contact the council's legal services dept as they will have responsibility for drafting any off street traffic order. Originally, when the land was first included in an order there should have been a public notice in the press similar to this one linked below. Ask the council to confirm the date the land became regulated by the council and to provide full copies of any orders or amendment's since this date that concerned this land.

 

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=24836&p=0

Link to post
Share on other sites
chipbutty

chipbutty

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi, reply to all you super dudes out there,

You are fantastic for helping so much. I cannot do the image resize in paint shop pro without creating a massive Mg file, so I will try and take photos and do it that way.

I have looked at the legal requirements placed on the council regarding correct PCN and it appears

within stat. limits.

I will try doing the photos now. But fear time may be against me. so I will post tomorrow.

Cheers. and great respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...