Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you!    It was bought on my debit card    
    • Hi. Welcome to CAG. How was the car purchased?  
    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. 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 as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. 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 £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
  • 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

PCN Code 07: Meter Feeding in Camden


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4633 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

Hello

 

I received a PCN for making two separate payments whilst parking my car. Apparently, you are only allowed to insert payment once, and any subsequent ticket purchases are invalid. Here are some details of the PCN:

 

Issued by Camden

Contravention: Parked with payment made to extend the stay beyond initial time

Code 07

 

Firstly, it just doesn't make sense to issue a PCN whilst a valid pay and display was visible. I understand there was a sign stating "Maximum Stay: 2 Hours" and for this reason I assumed it would be ok to park within this time frame. The pay and display tickets were for:

 

First ticket: 1 Hour 1 min, Second ticket: 37 mins (Total parking time 1Hr 38Mins)

 

Because I parked within the maximum permissible time frame, and a valid pay and display was shown, is there anyway I can get this PCN cancelled? I have already appealed this decision, but they maintain the small prints on the machine stated their rules.

 

This seems to be a money making scheme for local councils, I see no purpose of this rule and would only make sense if I had exceeded the maximum stay of two hours. Surely they can't get away with this? I genuinely paid around £4 to park the vehicle, and it seems unfair for them to issue a PCN!

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a shame you din't ask advice before making your informal appeal if you had asked for all the relevant information regarding the contravention from the Council there may have been grounds for appeal, have you still got the discount period or are they asking for the full amount?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have extended the discount period by 14 days - But I plan to make a formal appeal in which case the normal charge of £80 applies. Can you provide any further advise?

 

There are two ways to issue a 07 PCN a wrong way and a correct way...

 

Wrong:

CEO wanders down street sees car with 2 consecutive P&D tickets and issued PCN.

 

Correct:

CEO sees car notes valve positions and ticket details and returns after expiry of first ticket to see if you have metre fed, issues PCN

 

If its the wrong way you have grounds for appeal you need to get the CEOs notes and also are there observation times on the PCN?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello green_and_mean

 

Thanks for your comments, really appreciated.

 

So basically I arrived at my car with one minute remaining, saw the CEO and gestured to him to allow me some time while I buy another ticket. He remained in the area, saw me purchase a new ticket, allowed me to replace the new ticket with the old ticket, patiently waited for me to leave the scene and then issued the PCN!

 

If it was wrong to purchase another ticket, he should have told me so!

 

Yes, there are observation times.

 

PCN issued at 13:19

CEO observed from 13:08 to 13:19

First ticket expiry: 13:15

Second ticket expiry: 13:53

 

On the letter I received from Camden, it says "Civil Enforcement Officers do act for the council and as such are expected to offer a high level of customer service"

Yeh Right! They are money hungry thieves who'll do anything to ensure a PCN is issued!

Edited by bengaltiger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello green_and_mean

 

Thanks for your comments, really appreciated.

 

So basically I arrived at my car with one minute remaining, saw the CEO and gestured to him to allow me some time while I buy another ticket. He remained in the area, saw me purchase a new ticket, allowed me to replace the new ticket with the old ticket, patiently waited for me to leave the scene and then issued the PCN!

 

If it was wrong to purchase another ticket, he should have told me so!

 

Yes, there are observation times.

 

PCN issued at 13:19

PCN Observed from 13:08 to 13:19

First ticket expiry: 13:15

 

On the letter I received from Camden, it says "Civil Enforcement Officers do act for the council and as such are expected to offer a high level of customer service"

Yeh Right! They are money hungry thieves who'll do anything to ensure a PCN is issued!

 

If he observed the vehicle at 13.08 before you returned at 13.14 it sounds like they have you I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic behind it is that your are only allowed a fixed period of time. If you were able to replace one ticket with a subsequent one, you could stay forever, always having a current ticket on show. That's why there is a rule - one ticket then you have to move. Even though you did not overstay, the rule still has to be applied to prevent this type of thing happenening generally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic behind it is that your are only allowed a fixed period of time. If you were able to replace one ticket with a subsequent one, you could stay forever, always having a current ticket on show.

 

Not strictly true they could chose to only use the contravention if the driver exceeds the maximum stay I know where I live its Council policy not to issue unless they have done so. The CEO could have logged the vehicle and waited to see if he bought a 3rd PD taking him over the 2 hours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the signs, there was a big sign board saying Maximum stay 2 hours.

 

On the Pay & Display Machine, there were small prints of which number 7 read the following:

 

"Tickets should be purchased only at time of parking. Subsequent ticket purchase is a contravention"

 

This in my opinion is quite ambiguous. The above still indicates to me that parking within the two hour limit is permissible, but any subsequent tickets purchased to extend beyond the maximum stay of two hours is a contravention. A more clear sign would probably read DO NOT PURCHASE MORE THAN 1 TICKET

 

Would you not agree the information on the Pay & Display machine is quite confusing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, that means you can only buy a ticket at the time you park the car, so meter feeding is not permitted.

 

Of course the interesting question there is how anyone can comply - is it really possible to buy a ticket while parking the car, as this rule suggests the driver must do? Surely we would normally park the car, get out of the car, then buy the ticket, which would be a contravention under this rule?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, that means you can only buy a ticket at the time you park the car, so meter feeding is not permitted.

 

Of course the interesting question there is how anyone can comply - is it really possible to buy a ticket while parking the car, as this rule suggests the driver must do? Surely we would normally park the car, get out of the car, then buy the ticket, which would be a contravention under this rule?

 

Yes, this is quite interesting because time of parking is not clearly defined. Could I not argue that my time of parking was between 12:16 to 13:53? In which case I did purchase my P&D tickets within "time of parking"

 

And yes, my actual time of parking was probably a few minutes before this time, which therefore indicates that a contravention had already occurred (under their rules).

 

Now I am thinking if councils are actually allowed to apply this rule under any circumstances - Is it actually legal for them to do this? Because there is no valid reason for this rule except to generate funds.

 

I still maintain the wording on the machine is quite confusing, but the council is having none of it. Any further suggestions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There could be valid reasons for the rule - for instance, the council wants to keep it as a very short stay car park, and is using a very cheap first hour, then an expensive second hour, to do that.

 

Even if that is not the case in this car park, they may have the same T&Cs in all their car parks to keep it simple for their enforcement staff. Have you worked out how much you paid for parking, in total, and how this relates to the cost of a single ticket covering the full two hours?

 

 

 

How far have you gone in the appeals process? Have you got to the formal appeal, or just the informal?

 

 

I

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

The cost of purchasing one or two tickets is the same. You essentially pay for the time you stay so it doesn't matter how many tickets you actually purchase.

 

I've also read up somewhere on the internet that councils are using a legal loophole to apply this rule. Because actually the rule was set up to ensure no one stays beyond the maximum permissible stay - They are now using this to their advantage and now issuing PCN's for purchasing multiple tickets.

 

I have only just heard back from the informal appeal - So my next step is to write a formal appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...