Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • worth a punt, but just remember 'view obstruction' comes down to things like bushes and trees etc, not when a sign that was put up, then in the said area whatever it was that required said bay hides the sign. they cant see into in future . You have 28 days to challenge a PCN. If you do it within 14 days and your challenge is rejected, you may only have to pay 50% of the fine. Check the ticket - there are different rules for some types of PCN. You will not have to pay the fine if your informal challenge is accepted.  
    • I've sent the EX107 already and chosen a transcript company. The Court is dragging it's heels though with actioning the transcript of the judgement and approving it to the external company.  I don't yet have permission to appeal. It's small claims. As I understand it I can send the N164 within 21 days and just tick the box saying I don't have permission to appeal? And then the request to appeal will have been submitted in the timeframe, giving me a further 14 days to submit the appeal bundle and include the transcript of the Judgment with the appeal bundle? 
    • I've had a quick look. Are these your pictures or the ones from your customer? Certainly I can understand parcel to go say that they can't see any damage.  Also picture number one with the parcel standing out in the sunshine isn't going to be very helpful to you.   
    • nothing yes ignore everything totally  unless by a very rare chance one of them is a letter of claim with a reply pack wanting stuff like I&E etc. dx  
    • One thing I notice from the council rejection is that it states: 'The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief.' Then he states: Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I would take from above that  he/she is admitting the suspension warning was not clearly visible?   Question for you Mycathasfleas Is it possible to pay the reduced amount first and then appeal the PCN afterwards using the tribunal?
  • 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
×
×
  • Create New...