Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Blame Apple for completely changing how macOS apps needed to be written and verified overnight with Catalina.
    • Oh yeah... So there is. ..    Hopefully it won't try to upgrade 😂😂
    • There's the ability to download origin for macOS Mojave and older right on the EA Website. www.ea.com/origin-for-mac      
    • Hello All, I was hoping for some help with a  Claim Form received yesterday 15h May 2024.  I have read lots of threads but I just want to check what I am doing. I have acknowledged service noting my intention to defend all of the claim and I have left the contest jurisdiction un-checked. I will today/tomorrow issue a CCA request with a £1 postal order to the claimant and a CPR 31:14 to the solicitor.  For the CCA which section should I use? I am not sure which section Paypal Credit would come under. If the claim was issued on the 9th May am I correct with my defence filing date of the 11th June? Is there anything else I need to do? Thanks in advance   Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business Centre, Northampton Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio I Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self (just 1) Date of issue –  9th May 2024 Defence filing date: Tuesday 11th June?? Particulars of Claim What is the claim for  The claim is for the sum of £255.69 due by the Defendant under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a PayPal account with an account reference of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)  The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 15-09-21, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £0.00. The Claimant claims the sum of £255.69 What is the total value of the claim? £340.69 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? Not applicable Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? PayPal credit account When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After April 2007  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, shows as defaulted.  Registered when it was bought by Lowell Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Debt purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Cant find a letter that say so Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ?  Not sure Why did you cease payments? Financial difficulties and mental health issues What was the date of your last payment? ? Mid 2019 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No
    • In addition to the advice and questions asked by my site team colleague above, where did you get the template from which you used to reply to the letter of claim?
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

is this council parking ticket legal


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4635 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

the question from OP in simple words was: CEO continued with the issue and serving of PCN after OP returned back to the vehicle and no contravention occured (same like someone decided to move car) thereafter. Is CEO right to continue with the service of PCN?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK understood now. But the question still is How is OP's circumstances different?

 

In the OP's case the CEO was not prevented from issuing the penalty notice so there is no connection with s.5(1) LLA 2000 or any similar later legislation.

In the High Court case you refer to the decision of the judge was the definition of the word 'issue' in respect of the relationship between s66. RTA 1991 and s.5(1) LLA 2000.

The word 'issue' is not in s.66, RTA 1991 nor is it in s.9 or 10, The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions 2007.

Edited by Raykay
Link to post
Share on other sites

the question from OP in simple words was: CEO continued with the issue and serving of PCN after OP returned back to the vehicle and no contravention occured (same like someone decided to move car) thereafter. Is CEO right to continue with the service of PCN?

 

 

The contravention did occur, the driver did not set the clock at the time of parking. The CEO saw that contravention and decided to serve, and subsequently did serve, a PCN. The fact that the driver returned and then set the clock during that process does not make any difference.

 

As others have said, the OP can appeal, but cannot say that the contravention did not occur.

Edited by Raykay
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting discussion on the meaning of issue and I would just like to throw in this thought.

 

Beyond the specific circumstances of 'issue' noted from the High Court ruling as previously posted, surely the pcn is not issued until the button is pushed for the handheld device to print, or for the ceo to append their signature if hand written, because up until that time the details can be amended? Whilst the details are being inputted or written, it can only constitue 'preparation to issue'? Service is when the driver removes the pcn from the windscreen, is handed it by the ceo or receives it through the post (proof of posting being sufficient).

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we debating the way the PCN was 'issued'? The contravention occured, the CEO issued the ticket, the OP corrected his clock. In a nut shell, the OP closed the stable door after the horse had bolted... its as simple as that IMO.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Service is when the driver removes the pcn from the windscreen, is handed it by the ceo or receives it through the post (proof of posting being sufficient).

 

Service is when it is affixed to the vehicle not when it is removed, the PCN must state date of service how can the CEO possibly know when the PCN is going to be removed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess every one is guilty then.

 

when you go to the ticket machine your car is failing to display a valid ticket.

 

ceo can just take a photo of your car as you at the machine

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess every one is guilty then.

 

when you go to the ticket machine your car is failing to display a valid ticket.

 

ceo can just take a photo of your car as you at the machine

 

Sorry, but thats a ridiculous comparison. As already been suggested, why don't you try appealing. Being as you are a BB holder may get you some sympathy but technically, you broke the rules.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks sam

i,m just grieved about it

 

he pounced as soon as i went in the door. if you look at the street view it like parking outside a house

i have got an appeal going so just waiting

 

the receptionist said its a hotspot with the warden because you don't expect a time limit disabled space outside the city

she said it always guarantees him a ticket. that's why she keeps a watch outside the surgery and the warden does not like her because of it.

 

the warden has it pretty well sewn up. because he know the receptionist watches him he takes pictures first and in my case i came straight back out as he was still taking the photos. i could have just drove off. but it would have been served by post

he had a chose not to start issuing the ticket.

instead he decided to issue it and breed contempt against traffic wardens

 

last year i stopped a warden getting a slap by a irate motorist. i just said if you do it you will be done for assault. at which point be calmed down

now i think i would just video it

 

anyway weekend here and thats my rant. back to normal life

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how you feel but maybe you should of simpy sorted the clock out when you parked. My mom also has a BB and religiously sets her clock when parking. The CEO was simply doing his job. I mean had a non-BB badge holder had parked in the disabled space and got a PCN, what would you think of the warden then?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess every one is guilty then.

 

when you go to the ticket machine your car is failing to display a valid ticket.

 

ceo can just take a photo of your car as you at the machine

 

This is a very good example for discussion. Technically yes the vehicle is in contravention. In Bexley borough, there's no observation time and do get PCN if stayed a longer at machine to get ticket (maybe short queue, ground or 1st floor machine not working, machine at other end in big car park etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very good example for discussion. Technically yes the vehicle is in contravention. In Bexley borough, there's no observation time and do get PCN if stayed a longer at machine to get ticket (maybe short queue, ground or 1st floor machine not working, machine at other end in big car park etc).

 

Its not in contravention because the requirement is to 'pay and display' upon leaving the vehicle at rest in the parking place if you at the machine you are in the process of doing so. If you have left the vehicle at rest and gone to get change or carry out some other activity (that is not an exemption) only then would it be in contravention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically yes the vehicle is in contravention. ).

 

i'll see how the appeal goes. but yes people have received parking tickets while in queue to buy a ticket and yes it is open to abuse. ceo will just say no one was at the ticket machine. and your appeal would you was.

i leave on the birmingham border with sandwell.

in birmingham city centre all the disabled spaces are without time limit

sandwell have a time limited space out of the city centre with no parking issues. thats how its easy to to no set the clock.

thats way the receptionist says its a hotspot for tickets, and the warden lays in wait.

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess every one is guilty then.

 

when you go to the ticket machine your car is failing to display a valid ticket.

 

ceo can just take a photo of your car as you at the machine

 

You are "guilty" - which is to say liable - if a CEO believes you were in contravention and then issues a PCN which is served on you or the vehicle. It is then up to you to absolve yourself through the appeals route.

 

In this scenario, an appeal would succeed. However it would be most improper for a CEO to issue one without waiting a couple of minutes to see if you returned to the vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...