Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my witness statement below.  Please let me know what modifications I need to apply.  I haven't included anything related to "administrative charge while paying by credit or debit card" as I wasn't sure if I should include since sign says "it may apply"   Background  1.1 Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of November 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.    Contract  2.1 No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” From PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act) 2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-  (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or  (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44  For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.    Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed  3.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.  3.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.  3.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.  3.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.    Unfair PCN  4.1         As stipulated in Exhibit 1 (Pages 7-13) sent by DCB Legal following the defendant’s CPR request the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows £60.00 parking charge notice and will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue. The defendant puts it to the claimant a request for strict proof when the signage changed to show £100.00 parking charge as the evidence provided by DCB Legal stipulated £60.00 parking charge was indeed the parking charge at the time defendant parked and included in Exhibit 1   4.3        The Claimant did not respect PAPLOC   4.4        It is also unfair to delay litigation for so long and claim nearly four years' interest.    No Keeper Liability  5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.  5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.    5.3        The claimant did not mention parking period instead only mentioned time 20:25 which is not sufficient to qualify as a parking period.   Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  The notice must -  (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;      No Breach of Contract  6.1      No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY.  6.2        The wording “Electric Bay Abuse” is not listed on their signs nor there is any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them.    Double Recovery  7.1        As well as the original £100 parking charge and £50 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  7.2        PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”. Which in this case is £100.  7.3        The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100.  Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off".  7.4        Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.  7.5        Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the sum £85 was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of all the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court V Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practise continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (...) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6        In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating “It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a addi8onal sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.  7.7        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  7.8        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  7.9        The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA AND THE CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.    In Conclusion  8.1        I believe the Claimant has got use to intimidation tactics and has got greedy. I believe the truth of the manor is the Claimant has used bullying tactics successfully for too long and is therefore assured that innocent drivers will fall into the trap of paying rather than going through the hours it takes to defend themselves. In the process, wasting the time of the Court, the time of the Defendant and everyone else who has advised the Defendant, out of sheer decency to help have a fair hearing and see justice delivered.  8.2        I am still in disbelief that I am being heard in this court, defending myself nearly 4 years after receiving a charge through my door. I have had to spend weeks’ worth of my life studying the letter of the law in order to defend myself from this ridiculous attempt at a swindle.  8.3        I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 
    • 'I thought why don’t we give it a try?' said student Swapnil Shrivastav, after inspiration struck during water rations.View the full article
    • honestly he/she just makes these ppc look so stupid everytime   fairplay lfi
    • Women share their stories of how they feel renting has held them back in life.View the full article
    • First, the Entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract. so it only  is an offer to treat.  Second, the sign does say % hours free without mentioning that it is also the maximum time one can stay. it would be logical to presume that there would be a fee for staying longer-but not £100. Looking at the PCN-as usual it does not comply with the protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First it does not specify the parking period since their figure includes driving from the entrance to the parking space, then later driving from the driving space to the exit. Second it does not inform the keeper that the driver is expected to pay the charge Section 9 [2]] (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; What that means is that you as keeper are no longer liable to pay the charge-only the driver is. As anyone with a valid insurance can drive your car they will have difficulty proving who was driving especially as you haven't appealed. In addition the Courts should your case get that far, do not accept that the driver and the keeper ae the same person. So just relax and ignore all their threats even from their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors.  Just do not ignore a Letter of Claim if you get one of those-come back to us so that you can send a snotty letter.
  • 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

Bus driver stops disabled scooter passenger boarding bus


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4080 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

Stagecoach later apologised, confirmed there was no requirement for disabled

passengers to do “ramp training” and reimbursed her taxi fare.

 

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4859900/council-jobsworths.html#ixzz2OdVqYwpc

 

 

Well as Stagecoach said there was no requirement for disabled passengers to ramp training, presumably the Bus driver was wrong !

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there is no requirement for a disabled passenger to have 'ramp training'. From that point (assuming the story is correct, remember this is the Sun we are talking about!), the driver is wrong. BUT the actual problem lies with the scooter.

 

When low floor/disabled access buses were introduced, all drivers (at West Midlands Travel anyway) had to have training on how to use the ramp and assist a disabled passenger. The training was for WHEELCHAIR users only. The bus is designed to carry wheelchairs, not scooters. There is only one permitted way that the wheelchair can be carried; facing backwards and against a long narrow bulkhead so the handles fit either side to prevent side to side movement. Also, the wheelchair brakes MUST be applied. So in effect, it is impossible for the wheelchair to move forwards if the bus were to brake suddenly. AFAIK scooters do not have brakes and cannot be positioned within the wheelchair space correctly.

 

ANSWER; Disabled scooters cannot be safely carried on a bus and as such, should not be allowed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha.. many thanks SS

 

I seem to recall another such incident about 3 or 4 years ago. The Disabled scooter driver was actually banned from using the bus, period, because of not having brakes.. I will have a looksee later on.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the bus driver actually do this or is this technically discrimination as most disabled people do not have wheelchairs? It is not access for wheelchair users; it is access for disabled people, whatever they have that limits them. And push chair parents have taken advantage of this. You should see the size of some push chairs and double prams!

 

They take up the entire floor space! It is technically illegal to refuse outright access to public transport based on disability, but there is a safety issue here and there is a statement about reasonably practical. This means that if there is a safety issue then they can say no to access. A scooter! Some scooters can fold and go in the boot. If this is a national express bus then that is fine, they can load in the boot and passenger on the bus. If it is public transport this is not possible as they do not take luggage in boot space. They have limited space in any event.

 

I have to admit this is a new one on me and I would really love to know what happens if the disabled passenger made a formal complaint via a disabled tribunal or authority against the bus company. I also feel sorry for the driver and he or she is probably correct: safety of the other passengers is a problem here. I assume that the scooter does not have a break although actually they do: you have a key that turns them on and off and they can be immobilised safely! But what if they were not done correctly: they are quite large items and could cause some damage.

 

There have been a few incidents with scooters being driven into the path of someone and an accident happening and injuries were quite bad. I have used scooters in the centre of town and believe me as hired items they are not easy to use and get out of the way: I had to use the horn a number of times as people wander into your path and are not aware you are there.

 

There may be some issues here on the bus and safety would be one of them. The issue, however, is: is this legal, can you refuse access to disabled people in scooters? I would assume that the issue has not been looked at very closely as you would not get many people on scooters getting onto a bus: but I can certainly, even as a disabled customer, understand if a driver refused. I also have seen mums told to put the pram down as it takes up room for other people and you cannot get past to get off or a wheelchair user may get on and this is quite right as they have a choice: a wheelchair user does not and has priority on public transport. Those are the rules.

 

I have had pushchairs run over my feet to try and force me to move from the disabled seat on the bus and refused as I cannot stand and this was when there was enough room for the chair and me in the same space. I also had to ask a bus driver to help me up as a mother had hysterics as I was sitting where she wanted to put her huge pram. The driver got up and abused me! I told him if he wanted me to move then he needed to assist me and he soon shut up and told the mother to move instead or put the chair down.

 

It was only when a younger person moved from the ordinary disabled seat at the front that I was able to actually move in any case! No, I will not stand while a mother gets on and takes my disabled place with her tripple brat mobile.

 

To get back to the point I would actually move for a wheelchair: I would not move for a scooter either: there is no need for a scooter on a normal bus. A national express bus can put it into the boot in a special department: the local bus cannot.

 

Sorry, but even at the risk of having every other disabled person in the world attack me, law not withstanding, I believe the bus driver acted in the interest of safety, was being practical and he was thinking of the other passengers. The law may well say otherwise: I am not sure; but I feel the drive acted correctly and was not discriminating in any way.

Edited by citizenB
formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites

use the edit post and put some blank lines in...

 

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

Bandit Queen raises an interesting point about pushchairs and buggies. It's obviously A difficult one for the poor old driver sometimes, but he is ultimately responsible for the safety of his passengers. PCV regs stipulate that the aisle MUST be kept clear while the bus is in service. As far as prams/pushchairs are concerned, if they impede into the aisle then they should either be folded or refused on board. But the reality is that most drivers will turn a blind eye and they will carry more than they should. I personally allowed 2 unfolded pushchairs on providing there was space in the 'buggy zone' to accommodate them. After that, any further passengers with pushchairs would have to fold them so they would fit into the luggage rack.

 

Problem is though is when you have your full compliment of pushchairs and then you come across a disabled person in a wheelchair! Then the driver theoretically should make the wheelchair space available by getting one of the two buggy passengers already on board to fold their buggy up to allow the wheelchair user onto the bus. Not so easy in practice, I can assure you!

 

Bandit Queen is correct in saying that you should not refuse to allow a disabled person to travel. But you can if it is not safe to do so, i.e. if they are in a scooter which cannot be carried in the same fashion as a wheelchair.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a mobility scooter boarding a Metro train in Newcastle and going straight through the doors on the opposite side onto the track. Used to be CCTV of it available.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7582097.stm

 

Turning circle is too small on buses/trains. Could also impede evacuation of a vehicle.

 

I would go further and say that users of these scooters should be made to hold a license. They can be surprisingly fast and heavy, and if they ever hit someone whilst rushing about on the pavement, they could seriously hurt someone or damage property.

 

Some train companies issue permits to customers that allow them to travel with their scooter, but only if specific measurements are met, and the user can demonstrate a level of competency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...