Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I disagree with the charge and also the statements sent. Firstly I have not received any correspondence from DVLA especially a statutory notice dated 2/5/2024 or a notice 16/5/2024 voiding my licence if I had I would have responded within this timeframe. The only letter received was the single justice procedure notice dated the 29.5.2024 this was received on 4.6.2024. I also disagree with the statement that tax was dishonoured through invalid indemnity claim. I disagree that the licence be voided I purchased the vehicle in Jan 2024 from RDA car sales Pontefract with agreement to collect the car on the 28.1.2024. The garage taxed the vehicle on the 25.1.24 for eleven payments on direct debit  using my debit card on my behalf. £62.18 was the initial payment on 8.2.24  and £31 per month thereafter the second payment was 1.3.24.This would run from Jan 24 to Dec 24 and a total of £372.75, therefore the car was clearly taxed before  I took the car away After checking one of my vehicle apps  I could see the vehicle was showing as untaxed it later transpired that DVLA had cancelled my tax , without reason and I did not receive any correspondence from DVLA to state why it was cancelled or when. The original payment of £62.18 had gone through and verified by my bank Lloyds so this payment was not declined. I then set up the direct debit again straight away at my local post office branch on 15.2.2024 the first payment was £31 on 1.3.2024 and subsequent payments up to Feb 2025 with a total of £372.75 which was the same total as the original DD that was set up in Jan, Therefore I claimed the £62.18 back from my bank as an indemnity claim as this payment was from the original cancelled tax from DVLA and had been cancelled . I have checked my bank account at Lloyds and every payment since Jan 24  up to date has been taken with none rejected as follows: 8.2.24 - £62.15 1.3.24 - £31.09 2.4.24 - £31.06 1.5.24 - £31.06 3.6.23-£31.06 I have paper copies of the original DD set up conformation plus a breakdown of payments per month , and a paper copy of the second DD setup with breakdown of payments plus a receipt from the post office.I can also provide bank statements showing each payment to DVLA I also ask that my licence be reinstated due to the above  
    • You know hes had it when they call out those willing to say anything even claiming tories have reduced taxes on live tv AS Salmonella says: The Conservative Party must embrace Nigel Farage to “unite the right”, Suella Braverman has urged, following a disastrous few days for Rishi Sunak. The former home secretary told The Times there was “not much difference” between the new Reform UK leader’s policies and those of the Tories, as senior Conservatives start debating the future of the party. hers.   AND Goves replacement gets caught booking in an airbnb to claim he lives locally .. as of yesterday you can rent it yourself in late July - as he'll either be gone or claiming taxpayer funded expenses for a house Alongside pictures of himself entering a house, Mr McGuinness said Surrey Heath residents “rightly expect their MP to be a part of their community”. - So whens farage getting around to renting (and subletting) a clacton beach hut?   Gove’s replacement caught out on constituency house claim as home found on Airbnb WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Social media users quickly pointed out house Ed McGuinness had posted photos in was available to rent     As Douglas Ross says he'll stand down in scotland - if he wins a Westminster seat - such devotion.
    • I've completed a draft copy to defend and will post up here for review.  Looking over the dates and payments this all stemmed from DVLA cancelling in Feb , whereby I set up a new DD in Feb hence the overlap, why they cancelled when I paid originally in Jan I have no idea. Anyway now stuck with pending court action and a suspended licence . I am also firing off a letter to DVLa recorded disputing the licence revoke
    • Thank you both for your expert knowledge and understanding. You're fighting the good fight by standing up for people like me and others with limited knowledge of this stuff. I thank you. I know all my DVLA details are good. I recently (last year) renewed my license, and my car's V5 is current with the correct details; the same is valid for my partner. I'll continue to ignore the love letters 😂 and won't let it bother either me or my partner.  I'll revisit this post if/when I get a letter of claim.  F**k ém.
    • Please check back later on today for a fuller response and some edits
  • 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

Loading / unloading as a continuous process?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5761 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 clue is in the word "continuous". If you are loadind or unloading a vehicle

entailing perhaps several trips between the vehicle and the shop then I guess the

onus is on you to prove that each journey takes more than 5 minutes. Or one of

the loads necessitated that length of time because of its weight, awkward size

or obstacles in the way. Can you show that you were actually delivering or

collecting items at the time?

 

In London just recently there have been instances of those manning cameras in

cpz areas ticketing people who in their opinion, were shopping rather than

collecting from a business. The concession is for deliveries not for people

shopping since that does not constitute a continuous act. Sio their criteria is

that if you go into a shop and take more than 4 or 5 minutes to reappear, the

likelihood is that you were shopping rather than collecting.

 

Big brother really is watching you these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Yopu do need to be seen continuously loading, thats at least once every 5 minutes or you can get a PCN, you will not win if you were not seen loading within a 5 minute period

 

Sorry Amanda, but that is not true. Read the judgements referred above. This is set at such a level in the legal system as to form binding precedent.

 

It overrules anything a PA or local council may tell you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I worked in the job for 13 years in London as parking managament, and I was a trainer for PCFL, having trainer many PAs for different London Boroughs. I was Parking Attendant for many many years myself too. This is the way PAs are trained and work everywhere I'm afraid, continuous loading is to be seen once every 5 minutes. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked in the job for 13 years in London as parking managament, and I was a trainer for PCFL, having trainer many PAs for different London Boroughs. I was Parking Attendant for many many years myself too. This is the way PAs are trained and work everywhere I'm afraid, continuous loading is to be seen once every 5 minutes. :)

 

Proof that the people who enforce the rules don't know the rules. I succesfully defended a ticket whilst loading and the van was observed for seven minutes with no activity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently in a similar dispute as princess tiswas with Lambeth Council who ticketed me because no activity was observed in 2 minutes. I was collecting a rotary airer from a nearby store and the whole process was 7 minutes. I thought I was ok because the notice says maxmimum time allowed 20 minutes. Is 5 minutes of continuous loading the rule of thumb then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuous loading means that to be classed as continuous, the person has to be seen carrying from the car to the nearest drop off point of the place you are delivering to, once every five minutes, so if you are delivering to the 5th floor of a building for example and that will take you 8 minutes to do, you are only entitled to deliver to the entrance of that building and back to the car again, which you should be able to do within a 5 minutes period, once you have dropped of at the building, you must then move the car, legally park and pay, then return to the building to finish your delivery. I know this is impractical and ridiculous, but that is the definition in accordance with the Road Traffic Act I'm afraid and that is the rules that Parking Attendants go by. A lot of people make the mistake of parking on yellow lines when loading restrictions are in place (kerb blips and white time plate beside), no one is permitted to load here during the restrictions.

 

The maximum of 20 minutes means 'to be seen at least once every five minutes up to a maximum of twenty minutes'.

 

As for the person who wrote:

"Proof that the people who enforce the rules don't know the rules. I succesfully defended a ticket whilst loading and the van was observed for seven minutes with no activity".

You were lucky to get a reasonable admin assistant reading your letter, I'm sure she compasionately took into account your mitigating circumstances, not the norm, lucky you, usually they would push to the adjudication process.

 

The rules are the rules: there are lots of rules that motorists don't even know exist and would be shocked to know, so I'm afraid 'you' are the one who doesn't know the rules.

 

Twistedsista

A maximum of 20 minutes, means you must be seen at least once evry 5 minutes up to a maximum of 20 minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amanda, please read the .pdf file that Recycler posted above concerning judgements (i.e., cases that have actually been through court at a high enough level to set a precedent) on continuous loading/unloading. Your information may be what you have been told by your employer; sadly, it is often the case that employees are misdirected and even lied to for ease of operations.

-----

Click the scales if I've been useful! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

try this link http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/user_documents/LOADADJ.pdf and check the contents that describe sprake v tester although the fact that the vehicle in question was not a goods vehicle was not of itself fatal. “It means a loading or unloading for some commercial purpose, and I think there is a reason why it is not limited to goods vehicles. I can understand a private motor-car coming along with a load of things inside it; it might be a piece or two of furniture, it might be half a dozen pictures to be reframed or cleaned, I would not even exclude a heavy laundry basket. There may be many cases in which the motor-car would be used for something which it would not be reasonable for anybody to carry in his hand; and therefore it might be said persons putting such things into or out of the car were loading or unloading within the terms of this order.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are delivering to the 5th floor of a building for example and that will take you 8 minutes to do, you are only entitled to deliver to the entrance of that building and back to the car again, which you should be able to do within a 5 minutes period, once you have dropped of at the building, you must then move the car, legally park and pay, then return to the building to finish your delivery. I know this is impractical and ridiculous, but that is the definition in accordance with the Road Traffic Act I'm afraid and that is the rules that Parking Attendants go by.

The maximum of 20 minutes means 'to be seen at least once every five minutes up to a maximum of twenty minutes'.

 

As for the person who wrote:

"Proof that the people who enforce the rules don't know the rules. ".

The rules are the rules: there are lots of rules that motorists don't even know exist and would be shocked to know, so I'm afraid 'you' are the one who doesn't know the rules.

 

Got a link to those ‘Rules’ ?

As you admit responsibility for training a number of people who now adversely affect peoples’ lives on a daily basis – you are exactly the kind of person and culture I am fighting via my interest in these matters. I seriously believe you should be brought to account for this.

Exactly what gives you the right to ignore the DfT Guidance on the matter and to impose your interpretation on others

Edited by Ting
browser probs
Link to post
Share on other sites

"It must be stressed that the lack of any delivery /unloading activity at the vehicle does NOT automatically mean that delivery/unloading is not taking place - see above. Nor is it correct to follow a policy that “it was not seen therefore it could not have happened”. Local Authorities often state that “loading or unloading must be continuous” implying that there must be an uninterrupted movement of the goods to or from the vehicle for the exemption to apply. I can find no authority in these terms for this proposition - indeed in Macleod v 9 Wojkowska it was put forward in argument by the Crown and rejected by the decision of the court. It is ,of course correct to say that the exemption only applies whilst the unloading/delivery is taking place but as I have set out above these words cover rather more than simply moving the goods. It is of course up to Local authorities whether they lay down a particular observation period for their Attendants before issuing a PCN. However, for my own part I would have thought that in the case of any commercial vehicle or other vehicle showing signs of possible delivery/unloading activity a zero observation period would inevitably lead to unnecessary correspondence and appeals. Whereas an observation period of, say, 5 or even 10 minutes in these cases would in some cases save the issue of a PCN at all and in the remainder the Local authority would be entitled to take a stricter line when considering explanations given for longer absences - always bearing in mind that each case must be considered on its own merits." From jane packer flowers - compulsory reading in my view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we discussing a two year old thread??

 

But since we are....

 

Continuous loading

Does not mean that you have to be unloading at the vehicle for the entire time parked, as some Councils imply. What it means is that you must be parked for the purpose of loading for the entire duration of stay. You cannot as many builders try pop back to unload another 'tool' everytime a PA arrives, unload a flat pack piece of furniture then remain parked whilst you assemble it for the customer or take a ten minute tea break whilst unloading etc etc. The vehicle cannot be parked any longer than it takes to unload/load and complete paperwork.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...