Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

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

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

HELP! I'm desperate!

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5009 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Reading the different threads on this topic I'm still not sure whether writing the "code 62" as "code 622" on a PCN invalidates it or not.


I have received a pcn which has the following wording,


.....(description/details of the car) was logged at 09:17 Issued at 09:23 on 02/10/2010 by Civil enforcement officer ......(number & sign) who had resonable cause to believe that the following parking contravention had occured.


Contravention Code 622


Parked with one or more wheels on or overa foothpath or any part of the road other than a carriageway (2wheels on footway)


Please can somebody help me on this.


P.S can somebody also tell me whether this code 62 is enforceable on Saturdays!


Thanks in advance.

Bobo Myseen

Link to post
Share on other sites

depends on the signs etc


post google street view link to the road so's we can look.


there is also a good thread here on the subject of wheels on footway parking a few weeks back



please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Signs are not necessarily needed for "footway parking". Where it is prohibited by law eg London it can be enforced at any time.


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

Agree with Bernie signs for footway parking are not needed. Footway parking is in basic terms the opposite of parking on the road, on the road you can park unless its restricted where as on the footway you cannot park unless its permitted. Signs should therefore indicate parking on the footway is permitted (its a small blue sign with a white car on it) if there is no signs there is no parking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your guidance. I could not get the exact zoomed in link of the street view so I printed it and have attached the pdfStreet view.pdf (please read the notes on the pdf)


As Bernie rightfully said and what I now understand that no signs are required within M25 (london) to prohibit footpath parking. Signs are required to allow parking.


If the pdf can be viewed you will see there is no such sign BUT It is a closed street where everybody parks on this particular pavement to allow plenty of space for cars to pass by. This is done to prevent any inconvenience to the passing cars which are mostly neighbours. Parking this way does not obstruct traffic in any way. But this seems to be a very weak grounds of appeal. I have actually been seeing cars being parked this way for atleast the last 6 years i.e. since I moved here. No warden has ever come in the street and it now seems being considerate has costed me.


Michael Brown - Yes Michael, you are correct the last "2" of the "622" is most likely for the number of wheels on the footpath and this is probably what the rejection of appeal might say. But it is actually the way it is written that causes the ambiguity.


Contravention Code 622


All in one line, no dash (62-2) or slash (62/2). Other examples of the same kind of PCNs on various other websites clearly only write code 62.


So if is there is no code 622 how can it be contravened (sounds strong grounds of appeal?) unless this is an acceptable way of writting the contravention in which case this would also be a weak ground of appeal. Any information guidence on this point?



Link to post
Share on other sites

The code is for convenience it is not even required on the PCN the required info is the description of the contravention ie parked on a part of a road that is not carriageway or on a footpath. The '2' is a suffix in the same way as 62g is parked on a grass verge there are never any dashes used between nor does there need to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...