Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • total charges is approx £96 out of £1680   but actual amount they are claiing is £2k    
    • Part of the Hermes' business model – they sell you a delivery service then botch it and then try to deny responsibility. They sell you an insurance – and then try to renege on it but keeping the money – they then make you work for nearly 5 months to get your money – and then in the end they pay you out but they try to keep back the money you spent trying to get your money back – which is really just enforcing their so-called insurance policy. This is dishonest. It is very clearly cheating their customers. I don't believe that the senior executives don't know about it. But hey, what do they care?
    • Excellent. Well done. I'm pleased for you. Yes they always try to claw back something – to satisfy their sense of pride. The money should get to you pretty quickly – they obviously don't use Hermes to deliver it.   Thanks in advance for any donation – but wait until you get the cash before you start chucking it around!
    • Well done and thank you for coming back to update us.   Thank you also for the donation, much appreciated.   HB
    • Delighted to report back that I have won my money back.    Minus the £25 claims fee but I did try (I pointed out that this amount is negligible to a huge company but a lot to me).    The whole mediation process was completed within 30 minutes, with a bit of back and forward between mediator, Hermes and myself.    The mediator was excellent and didn't put any pressure on me.    I am really pleased, it's been a long slog and very stressful, but I'm glad I persevered.    Thank you so much to everyone here for their help in getting through this! I'll be making a donation as your support is much appreciated, particularly @BankFoddermany thanks 
  • 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

Application of the de minimis rule in council PCNs


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3682 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

Green and Mean provided a link to this case in another thread:

 

Suzanne Campbell –v- London Borough of Camden PATAS Case No 2090523567

 

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Campbell%20v%20Camden.doc;%20Suspension%20of%20controls.doc;%20signage.doc;%20requirement%20for%20compliant%20sign.doc

 

On many occasions we see the de minimis rule being applied or anticipated in the case of Council PCNs.

 

This rule has been used for example to say that the absence of a "T-Bar" at the end of a double yellow line is of no consequence. It also appears to be in conflict with a rule established in the old case of Davies v Heatley [1971] RTR 145 in which it was established effectively that:

 

. . . since the traffic marking did not conform strictly to the sign as prescribed by the regulation, no offence had been committed, and the conviction would be quashed

 

However, as as often been pointed out this is under a different legislative framework and under criminal law so is merely persuasive.

 

But, the Adjudicator's decision in the case cited at the beginning of this post provides us with things we can directly refer to and quote. Key are the following:

 

The only way in which this sign could conceivably be saved is by the application of the de minimis principle. No doubt the Council would urge me to do so, but in my view this is not an appropriate case. This is not an instance of some minor error in the size or capitalisation of the letters, or the border of the sign, or even of a single misplaced word. The fact of the matter is that the Council has simply used a non-prescribed form of wording; and indeed one which is specifically pointed out in the TSM to be not permitted
(TSM = Traffic Signs Manual).

 

and

 

The Council's position - and I have to say I have some sympathy with the Council - is, in summary, that the sign indicates the suspension perfectly clearly. This is undoubtedly true and indeed is not disputed by the Appellant. However the fact that a sign is clear does not make it correct (see, for example, Davies v Heatley [1971] RTR 145) The Council in its TMO has specifically required itself to erect not a clear sign but a compliant one, and it is only the presence of a compliant sign that creates the contravention at all. In the absence of a compliant sign the vehicle in this case was not in contravention and the Appeal must be allowed.

 

So this gives us a clearer view on when Adjudicators may feel that signage issues are de minimis and when they are inadequate.

 

I hope this is of help to you if you are faced with this issue.

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

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

The point the case makes is a minor variance to a 'legal' sign is acceptable, but making up your own signs is not. A yellow line is a proper TSRGD sign even if painted a bit wrong a parking suspension sign to suspend a parking bay is not shown in the TSRGD so is not a legal sign simply applied incorrectly as it doesn't exist even in its correct form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would not be de minimis if the lack of a T-bar was relevant to your specific case.

 

One reason a ticket I had was quashed the other year (amongst many) was that there was an old T-bar in the centre of the line for no reason. It has been extended but not properly erased from earlier.

 

I didn't pick it up, but the Adjudicator was on to it straight away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The point the case makes is a minor variance to a 'legal' sign is acceptable, but making up your own signs is not. A yellow line is a proper TSRGD sign even if painted a bit wrong a parking suspension sign to suspend a parking bay is not shown in the TSRGD so is not a legal sign simply applied incorrectly as it doesn't exist even in its correct form.

 

I think it goes a bit further than that. It's not just about making up signs it's about the need for compliant signs to be present. 'Legal' signs can be non compliant if it can be shown that the error does not fall into the realms of "some minor error in the size or capitalisation of the letters, or the border of the sign, or even of a single misplaced word".

 

Of course, each Adjudicator makes up their own mind in any event.

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

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...