Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have received a PCN from Euro Car Parks for MFG - Esso Cobham - Gravesend. I was completely unaware that there was any such limit for parking and always considered this to be a service station. I stopped there to use the toilet, have a coffee and made a couple of work calls. I have read the previous topics on this location which suggest I can ignore this and ECP will not take legal action. The one possible complication is that the vehicle is leased by my employer so I do not want to involve them with the associated reminders and threatening letters. The PCN was first issued to the leasing company Arval who have notified ECP of the hiring company. I have attached a copy of the PCN Notice to Hirer with details removed as per instructions. What options do I have or should I just pay the PCN promptly at the reduced rate of £60? img20240424_23142631.pdf
    • What you have uploaded is a letter with daft empty threats from third-party paper tigers.  Just ignore it. What we need to see is the original invoice you received last October or November.
    • Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of  the original  PCN that they sent to the Hirer  along with your hire agreement documents. Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include  all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer.  Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference. Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper.  You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
      • 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

Revenue Protection Issue


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4166 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've been reading this site and i've seen some excellent, helpful, non judgemental advice given here by some of the members .

 

Someone I know was approached by a revenue protection officer recently. They have no defence and basically admitted they were in the wrong and know they have to pay the price. They've been offered a settlement sum, which includes a £100 admin fee, prior to the issue of an Intent to Prosecute letter.

 

They clearly want to resolve the problem as soon as possible. Should I suggest they just pay at once in order to get it cleared up? I don't think i've seen anything on here where anyone was told a figure until after they had returned their MG11.

 

Many thanks.

Edited by Clockwork2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again and thank you for that.

 

I don't think I've come across this before. Did the person you spoke to have the details or do you think it was a general conversation? I'm of the understanding that the next day, the office wouldn't normally have information on the case.

 

In any case, if it were me I would want to see it in writing before handing over money.

 

This is definitely about a rail fare, is it?

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening

 

Does sound a little unusual for it to have been dealt with in this way so far, is there anymore to the story? Usual thing to happen is spoken to under caution and the MG11 filled out and signed for by the RPO and passenger. Did all of that happen? And, Which TOC are you dealing with?

 

Would be helpful if you can find out all the information and give a step by step account.

 

I wouldn't pay anything until you have something in writing and at least a reference number for your case so that it can be traced and looked into in future if necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok i'll check the details. I know it's not a rail fare but traveling in first class without a first class ticket. There was a conversation under caution and that person gave the phone number, saying call them tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again and thank you for the additional information.

 

Is there any chance your friend could sign up and tell us the story himself? Its very kind of you to help your friend, but having a middle person always slows things down and sometimes facts get lost in the translation.

 

I hope you'll find other forums that might be of interest to you anyway, it's a wide ranging site. :)

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would certainly ask the actual traveller concerned not to part with any money until they have confirmation from the rail company concerned that report has been made and I certainly would not contact the reporting Inspector / RPO or wahtever with payment in hand at their request.

 

As HB says, get your friend to post for themselves and to be open and honest, but not reveal any information from which he can be identified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really appreciate the advice. The person concerned is a close family member and absolutely terrified of what could happen next, particularly as the person they spoke to put huge emphasis on them losing their job if convicted. I do have more information I've now made lots of notes, but as you have said OC its difficult to say very much without fear of being identified. The last thing I would want to do is make the situation worse.

Edited by Clockwork2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really appreciate the advice. The person concerned is a close family member and absolutely terrified of what could happen next, particularly as the person they spoke to put huge emphasis on them losing their job if convicted. I do have more information I've now made lots of notes, but as you have said OC its difficult to say very much without fear of being identified. The last thing I would want to do is make the situation worse.

 

Unfortunately, without information that identifies the alleged offence, it does not need name, date, place or any reference numbers, but does need to explain the allegation, then there is virtually nothing any of us can do to help.

 

The one thing I will say is that sending any payment to anyone without documentary evidence of what it is for would be foolhardy in the extreme in my view.

 

It is certainly not the remit of individual rail staff to say "You've been nicked and you've admitted your guilt, but if you contact me and pay £ xx then that will be the end of the matter and we will not need to send you a letter", which is what your post appears to suggest.

 

If I were managing a team who undertook to do things that way I would be having a pretty quick turnover of staff I guess. Where is the audit trail for you and them?

Edited by Old-CodJA
Link to post
Share on other sites

OC, thank you, I completely agree with your advice. You are essentially right in your interpretation of what I am saying.

 

I did find a post from a year ago on another forum which mentions the same person.

 

I advise you call 2 weeks after being cautioned as that's how long it takes for the officer to submit his report. The number for the office is: *****- The best gentleman to speak to there is *****, PM me for his mobile number (it's unfair on him to advertise it on the net so I'll only give it to those who need it the most). Best of luck, and remember, call ASAP and apologise for making the mistake and let them know how you're preventing the problem from happening again in the future You will get charged the fare and their costs (up to £50 I believe). Hope this helps!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking by posting the information from the other site. But I don't think you're going to get any further with this one until you know the offence, reference number and the name of the person in the office dealing with the case.

 

We always advise people to wait until the reference arrives.

 

As OC says, you could tell us more about what happened without dates or place names for now. Do you know which rail company it is?

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OC, thank you, I completely agree with your advice. You are essentially right in your interpretation of what I am saying.

 

I did find a post from a year ago on another forum which mentions the same person.

 

 

I would certainly guard against referring to old, inaccurate, or misleading information.

 

There is NO blanket option of paying a fee to avoid prosecution for an allegation of 'breach of Byelaw' or 'avoidance of fare' applicable to any of the constituent members of The Association of Train Operating Companies.

 

Each case is dealt with on merit. Please do not confuse being reported on an MG11 statement with Penalty Fares legislation, which is a civil remedy in relation to some instances of ticket-less travel

Edited by Old-CodJA
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's not a rail fare but traveling in first class without a first class ticket. QUOTE]

 

If the traveller was given an opportunity to move and simply refused to move to standard class accomodation, this is a breach of National Railway Byelaw 19 and carries a maximum penalty for a first offence of a fine of up to £1000

 

If the traveller refused to pay the appropriate fare it could be charged under Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) and carries a similar penalty, but is a more serious charge.

Edited by Old-CodJA
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I got a feeling from reading the posts that whoever your friend/family had spoken to was trying to undercut the company by offering your friend a chance to bribe him, so that he won't file a report.

 

This is how I read from the information you have provided. Feels dodgy. A proper RPI should never had given the passenger his own number or any number which claims to offer quick settlements... And any out of court settlement is only relevant after the RPI had filed his/her report to the prosecutors and a case has been setup with proper case IDs and the prosecutors had decided to proceed with prosecution. At that stage your friend should have already received a formal letter with case ID from the prosecutors informing them their intention to prosecute and invite them to write his/her version of events.

 

The person concerned is a close family member and absolutely terrified of what could happen next, particularly as the person they spoke to put huge emphasis on them losing their job if convicted.

 

This line looks particularly dodgy, it almost as seemed the person is trying to coerce your friend to hand over the money. And it is definitely not the kind of practice normal RPI and TOC prosecutors would do. Actually it is usually the other way around, it is your friend who would need to convince the prosecutors that he/she would lose their job if convicted and use this as a mitigation in the attempt to ask the prosecutors to consider out of court settlement.

 

The dilemma is of course if your friend ignores the offer, the said person may actually file a very negative report (if he is actually a RPI), and it is not guaranteed that the actual prosecutors may agree to settle out of court. But I guess if your friend could obtain any evidences of such contacts with that person it could be used as grounds for prejudice which could potentially invalidate any evidence provided by the person and hence the case.

Edited by wtlh
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...