Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good news for me is that the Bounce Back Loan came through so I can pay the full car payment!  Thanks for reply.
    • Welcome. please follow the advice given above as to reading around the various stories and then monitor this thread for a full reply tomorrow  
    • Hi Everyone,  I am the seller in this case and want to thank the buyer for their support.  The bike was delivered to the local Hermes Parcel Shop really well packaged and sealed on the 3rd Feb with a receipt obtained.  Sadly the parcel was emptied on route to the buyer.   I had listed the bike for collection only however the buyer messaged and asked if we could arrange a courier to which I agreed and they organised that.  When the bike went missing I contacted the local police as the Hermes parcel shop said they would not release CCTV to me.  We got all this from the Police.  since then the buyer has tried his very best which I am grateful with Hermes and parcel2go but is struggling.  Any help is appreciated. 
    • Also, you should start a claim against Hermes. Post your story on the Hermes sub- forum. Give us a full breakdown – including dates and value et cetera. We will help you get your money back
    • We care, we are highly motivated – and we enjoy winning against Hermes – which we do on pretty well every occasion. Start reading the sub- forums so that you are familiar with all the Hermes stories and the way that the process normally goes. Make sure you understand the mediation process. Make sure also that you understand the steps involved in bringing a small claim in the County Court. It's very easy but you need to know the steps in advance so that you have confidence. Don't forget that this is a self-help forum   If you have CCTV footage then please post it here. I suggest that you put it up on youtube and then post a link to it on this thread.
  • 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
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3821 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

On Monday 6th Sept 2010, 7.10 pm I parked on a single yellow line in Charlotte Road round the corner from The Tram Shed Theatre, Shoreditch. I went back at 10,30 and my car was gone. Cut a long story short it had been towed away to Hackney pound. £260 release fee. Yes two hundred and sixty pounds! Unbelievable. And so inconsiderate and uncharitable.Pouring with rain, no tubes ( on strike) and I had to go back to Edmonton to collect my photo licence then go all the way back to Hackney again. I eventually got home at 3.00am. Digraceful on all accounts. Excessive release fee, unclear signs and no thought for a person stranded. Disgusting behaviour all round. Shameful.:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to appeal then the letter below seems to encourage councils not to contest when pushed to adjudication.

 

Dear Sirs

 

Prior to the removal of my vehicle a CEO served a regulation 9 PCN. Once a regulation 9 PCN is served then the law gives the recipient the statutory right to submit an informal appeal that must be considered and a statutory 28 day period in which to pay the penalty charge should they not want to appeal informally or formally.

 

When I collected my vehicle, the Council insisted the penalty charge be paid immediately. I do not consider that the regulation 9 penalty charge was “payable” at the time I paid it, since I wanted to informally appeal with the possibility, should my informal appeal fail, of paying it later at the re-offered discounted rate or proceeding to adjudication. Section 101A of the RTRA 1984 requires “any penalty charge payable” to be paid on recovery of a vehicle. If a person has no intention of appealing then a regulation 9 PCN is not immediately “payable” but can be paid at any time no later than 28 days from the date of service. This is a statutory provision. However, where a person does wish to appeal, then a regulation 9 PCN only becomes “payable” by virtue of regulation 4 of “the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007” once all appeal stages have been exhausted and an adjudicator has dismissed the appeal having found as fact that the contravention was “committed”. For clarity, below is what regulation 4 advises;

 

4. Subject to the provisions of these Regulations a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle where there has been committed in relation to that vehicle—

 

(a)a parking contravention within paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (contraventions relating to parking places in Greater London);

 

(b)a parking contravention within paragraph 3 of that Schedule (other parking contraventions in Greater London) in a civil enforcement area in Greater London; or

 

© a parking contravention within paragraph 4 of that Schedule (parking contraventions outside Greater London) in a civil enforcement area outside Greater London.

 

One of the "subject provisions" is that a person is given a statutory 28 day period to pay the PCN or otherwise appeal before service of an NtO. The law requires one or the other not both. This principle is commonly emphasised on many council PCN’s that warn the recipient that they must not pay the PCN if they want to challenge it. In other words the PCN is not considered “payable” if you intend to appeal; this is similar to being assumed innocent until proven guilty. Regulation 4 further advises that the penalty charge is "payable......... where there has been committed" a parking contravention. The PCN however only states an allegation of a parking contravention. If a person pays the penalty charge without coercion then this is accepted as admitting that the contravention was "committed" but if a person does not think the allegation is correct then they can appeal until ultimately an adjudicator finds as fact that the contravention was or was not "committed". Therefore I believe the Council acted ultra vires in demanding payment of the regulation 9 PCN immediately on recovery of my vehicle, contrary to what statute provides and contrary to what the PCN advised were my rights.

 

In addition, I was given no opportunity to submit an informal appeal. Being able to submit an informal appeal following receipt of a regulation 9 PCN is also one of the “subject provisions” and therefore a statutory right. The PCN confirms this right and the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance does under paragraph 83 make it clear that the loss of the right to an informal appeal is only applicable to regulation 10 PCN’s. I was served with a regulation 9 PCN.

 

83. The vehicle owner may dispute the issuing of a PCN at three stages:

· Owners may make so-called ‘informal challenges’ or ‘informal

representations’ against the PCN before the authority has served an NtO

(this does not apply when the PCN is issued by post as the PCN then acts as the NtO).

 

Although I was given information on how to appeal this was only in regard to a formal appeal. There was nothing given to me that advised that any right to an informal appeal as advised by the PCN was lost or had been revoked. At the pound, I was given both the PCN and formal appeal documents and these items gave conflicting information as to what my legal rights were. This was and is confusing and prejudicial.

 

It should also be noted that where a regulation 9 PCN is served then statute provides that any formal appeal against the PCN (not the removal costs) should be in response to receiving a Notice to Owner. The formal appeal document given to me was not a Notice to Owner but simply appeared to be a document served by virtue of regulation 11 of “the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007” informing me that I could make representations against removal (not the PCN). This gave me differing and more restrictive grounds for appeal than a Notice to Owner. Although my vehicle was removed it seems irregular and unjust to give me differing and more restrictive grounds for appeal than any other situation where a regulation 9 PCN is served. I believe such unfair restrictions and limitations to be contrary to the general principles of law.

 

The Traffic Management Act 2004 and its associated regulations as well as the RTRA 1984 do not stipulate that the statutory rights, provisions and procedures relating to the service of a regulation 9 PCN are revoked and void where that vehicle is later removed by virtue of s.99 RTRA 1984. Therefore I believe the Council has acted ultra vires and is guilty of procedural improprieties.

 

In addition “The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986” (S.I. 1986/183) do not prescribe the method of removal used in regard to my vehicle.

 

With the commencement of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the introduction of Civil Enforcement Officers, S.I. 1986/183 was amended by “The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (Amendment)(England) Regulations 2007” (S.I. 2007/3484) to include new regulation 5C.

 

However, regulation 6 of S.I. 1986/183 has not been amended to take into consideration the newly inserted 5C regulation. As such there is no prescribed method of removal for vehicles that are removed by arrangement of a Civil Enforcement Officer. Without the methods of removal available to Civil Enforcement Officers being prescribed it cannot be certain that the method used was lawful and therefore the Council needs to establish that the method of removal was lawful.

 

Under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 I am entitled to a submit an appeal that you have a duty to consider and to which you have a duty, should you reject my appeal, to provide me with clear and full reasons in reply to my points of appeal. This duty is set down in the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance and the Traffic Management Act 2004 under section 87 clearly advises that local authorities must have regard to this statutory guidance. Therefore should you fail to reply specifically to each point and substantiate any reason for rejection then I will bring this failure to the attention of the adjudicator.

 

Yours with love, hugs and kisses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed - my post was written before I saw yours, DB. Definitely worth a try.

 

Thought that may be the case J. I firmly believe my arguments are strong ones. The TMA 2004 was rushed and as a result there is much contradiction. My argument if successful will have serious repercussions nationwide and it seems that councils would rather refund a few tows rather than risk an adjudicator ruling the current process unlawful. Common sense in my view makes it obvious that you cannot have a PCN stating one procedure and then have removal documents stating another.

 

My personal view is that the penalty charge appeal should be separate and independent from the removal appeal until the law is changed so that the two are compatible. I can't quite gather whether the legislators intended the two to be seperate or whether they attempted to unite the two. Whatever their intention they made a right pigs ear of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree - I think you are right about this. It stands to reason that if you are compelled or coerced into paying a PCN at once then your right to challenge it has been at the very least compromised, and in effect withdrawn. I believe you can appeal retrospectively in tow-away cases, but you shouldn't have to for the PCN element of the charge.

 

Hope this succeeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...