Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
        • Like
      • 160 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

Multiple Parking Tickets


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2772 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

But even for a continuous contravention, they can issue one every day. One on Friday, another on Saturday.

 

Says who? There is no law that states that, why not every hour or every week?

 

case ref: 2110166557

 

The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' parking place or zone displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011 at 09.00.

 

The Appellant's case is that the permit had not been renewed because they had not received a renewal notice from the authority. The Appellant and his wife were on holiday from 31 December 2010 until 23 January 2011 during which period the Penalty Charge Notices were incurred.

 

I have considered the evidence and I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents parking place displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4 January 2011. It is the Appellant's responsibility to renew their permit and they are not entitled to rely on the courtesy renewal letter, which may not have been received.

 

However I find that the Appellant's vehicle committed one contravention of parking in a residents' permit bay without clearly displaying a valid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011.

 

I find that one continuous contravention has occurred; the vehicle remains at the same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued. Further, I have taken into account that the residents' bay is operational from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday and I find that the situation would be the same if the residents' bay was operational 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

 

There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty charge notice every 24 hours or as in some of these Penalty Charge Notices less than 24 hours. An enforcement authority has other powers at its disposal for a continuous contravention, such as removal.

 

The appeal in relation to 4 January is refused all other appeals are allowed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - I mis-understood. By "continuous contravention" you mean that literally - and you're right. I thought you meant for a vehicle which has not moved.

 

To clarify - if the restriction ends at, say 6pm, then the next day is a separate contravention if the vehicle is still in-situ, and a PCN could then be issued each day. As requested above, we need the contravention details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Just to let you all know I am appealing against two parking tickets received whilst away on a work trip, when my telephone payment failed. One of the basis for appeal expressed is 'continuous contravention' in that it was one error and I didn't return to the car, despite the fact that there were technically two separate contraventions in terms of periods of time when payment was required.

 

 

I'll let you know how this goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let you all know I am appealing against two parking tickets received whilst away on a work trip, when my telephone payment failed. One of the basis for appeal expressed is 'continuous contravention' in that it was one error and I didn't return to the car, despite the fact that there were technically two separate contraventions in terms of periods of time when payment was required.

 

 

I'll let you know how this goes.

 

Who are they from?

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are they from?

 

The appeal is against a PCN issued by a civil enforcement officer acting on behalf of a Borough Council. I'll let you know which council once I have the result of the appeal, along with any further details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful about the concept of "continuous contravention". If you are parked in contravention of, say, a pay and display bay which is not in force overnight, then the next day when it comes back into force, that's considered another contravention. They can issue two PCNs, one each day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

" find that one continuous contravention has occurred; the vehicle remains at the same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued. Further, I have taken into account that the residents' bay is operational from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday and I find that the situation would be the same if the residents' bay was operational 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

 

There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty charge notice every 24 hours or as in some of these Penalty Charge Notices less than 24 hours. An enforcement authority has other powers at its disposal for a continuous contravention, such as removal."

 

That seems to imply that it does not matter if there are time limits or not. If the car did not move for 48 hours, only one offense has been committed

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well he must be about the only adjudicator in the country who thinks that's a continuous contravention. It stands to reason that the car is in contravention until the bay comes out of force, then it's not, then it is again the next day. Strange interpretation of the term "continuous".

 

Anyway, standard practice is to enforce one and cancel the other - whatever terminology is used. I wouldn't advise davidt to use the phrase "continuous contravention" in his appeal but I doubt it will matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Yesterday I was given a ticket at 10.05am for parking in a taxi bay on the market-place. Vehicles not permitted on the market between 10am and 4pm. As I had a ticket anyway, I left the car there all day.

At 3.30pm another traffic warden arrived on his bike and slapped a second ticket on the windscreen. I went to speak to him as I was working about 10 feet away from the vehicle and he said 'You should have moved it'. So I got a 2nd penalty, for the sake of another 30 mins before my car could legally be brought onto the market, although my car had not moved one inch since 10.05am.

Is this legal? Local Authority TW.

:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Hi,

 

I know this is an old post so perhaps this will not be seen,

 

 

but I just wondered if anyone could advise how to frame the letter contesting multiple pcns.

 

 

I came back from holiday to find 3 pcn's on my van

- first holiday in 2 years and it coincides with my bloomin residents parking permit running out.

 

 

My fault, fair enough,

but it seems a few people on this thread are saying that standard practice is for the subsequent tickets to be cancelled.

 

 

But how do I ask them to do this?

 

 

Presumably I cant just say,

 

 

"I've heard its standard practice that you cancel subsequent pcn's, so can you cancel mine please" :-)

 

Do I say I am contesting those ticket because they should not have been issued?

But why?

Someone said previously that its best not to mention the continuous contravention point.

 

 

So whats the best approach.

 

Any advice would be massively gratefully received.

 

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes good guess

it might be better for you to

start a new thread

 

 

of your own.

 

 

i'll then post a link to this thread

and that might help too

 

 

dx

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...