Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unsettling the applecart?,  I'm going to be direct here, I know how this works , I've been in far worse situation than your relative, and I can assure you , now that there i likely a default in her name, it makes absolutely ZERO difference if she pays or not. Denzel Washington in the Equalizer , 'My only regret is that I can't kill you twice'... It's the same with a default, they can only do it once and it stays on your credit file for 6 years if she pays or not, and as it stands right now she's flushing £180 of her hard earned money down the toilet  so that the chaps at Lowell can afford a Christmas party. As for the SAR this is everybody's legal right, originally under the Data Protection act 1998 and now under GDPR, it's her right to find out everything that the original Creditor has on her file, and by not doing it the only person she is doing a massive disservice to is her self. As the father of 2 young adults myself, they need to learn at some point.. right?
    • Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  
  • 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

Contravention 31 - Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4051 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

I thank everybody for their comments. I wish to present the following argument.

The contravention is quite simply “entering a box junction when yourexit is not clear”. It is possible to stop within a yellow box (YBJ) withoutcommitting an offence. For example if at the time you entered the box the exitwas clear but then a lorry cut in front of you and stopped, forcing you to stopin the yellow box. In fact the independent adjudicator has upheld appealsagainst Tfl and other councils on this point. In one case transport for Londonsaid the vehicle was obstructing the box but because that is not part of thedefined contravention and they did not produce evidence of the vehicle actuallyentering the box when its exit was not clear the appeal against them wasupheld.

To prove a contravention the enforcing authority must be able to showthat at the time that you entered the box the exit was blocked by stationarytraffic.

In my case, I entered the YBJ when the exit was clear. As I approachedthe exit, the car in the front stopped suddenly forcing me to stop. Therefore,my stopping is justified. To prove that I entered the YBJ when exit was notclear, the council must be able to present CCTV footage and there is no suchfootage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailor Sam and citizenkain are bang on. You should not have moved into the yellow box UNTIL you knew you had a clear exit on the other side which you didn't.

 

I have to drive over lots of yellow box junctions each day, and I absolutely refuse to enter until the car in front has cleared the box, and has left room for me to exit clearly. I see so many drivers every day, the lights go green, all the cars move, without any thought for whether or not they will get across. Many of them don't, and get a ticket from the camera car.

 

It's simple isn't it ? If your exit isn't clear, then don't enter the box. The ticket looks justified to me. The fact that a car on the other side suddenly stopped isn't relevant, as you drove into the box along with other cars, thinking that a gap would become available. It didn't, you got stuck in the box. Bad judgement on your part.

 

I wouldn't doubt sailor Sam or citizenkains judgements for a second.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thank everybody for their comments. I wish to present the following argument.

The contravention is quite simply “entering a box junction when yourexit is not clear”. It is possible to stop within a yellow box (YBJ) withoutcommitting an offence. For example if at the time you entered the box the exitwas clear but then a lorry cut in front of you and stopped, forcing you to stopin the yellow box. In fact the independent adjudicator has upheld appealsagainst Tfl and other councils on this point. In one case transport for Londonsaid the vehicle was obstructing the box but because that is not part of thedefined contravention and they did not produce evidence of the vehicle actuallyentering the box when its exit was not clear the appeal against them wasupheld.

To prove a contravention the enforcing authority must be able to showthat at the time that you entered the box the exit was blocked by stationarytraffic.

In my case, I entered the YBJ when the exit was clear.

 

But you didn't, there was a car in front of you.

 

As I approachedthe exit, the car in the front stopped suddenly forcing me to stop. Therefore,my stopping is justified.

 

Good luck with that argument because you are going to need it.

 

To prove that I entered the YBJ when exit was notclear, the council must be able to present CCTV footage and there is no suchfootage.

 

There is and it shows you stopped within the box.

 

I have given my opinion and observations so as far as i'm concerned that's as far as I can go with it. Please feel free to appeal and come back to tell us the outcome. I am always happy to be proven wrong.

 

Please Note

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused now. You say your exit was clear before you entered the box, but there were cars in front of you. You state you moved with the cars in front when the lights went green.

 

If your exit was clear before you entered the box, but a pedestrian caused the cars in front to suddenly stop, therefore blocking your exit, that would surely mean that the clear exit you apparently had, must have been blocked by the car in front of you reversing into the available gap. It doesn't make sense that if there was a clear gap, that the car in front would suddenly block it unless he either reversed into it, or a car turned left from the junction into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thank everybody for their comments.

It will certainly help me in taking the right action on the road in future.

 

At present, I am talking about the CCTV footage that will determine if the exit was alreadyobstructed prior to my entering the box. In other words, what was the state oftraffic at the point of entering the box? Such a CCTV footage is not there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See here and pay particular attention to the first paragraph;

OK - I agree that according to this article you have to enter the box AND stop within the box. However, please read the other parts of the article that I've highlighted below. It seems that some of this "discussion" is because different (PATAS) adjudicators have differing views on what the Regulations actually mean in practice.

I suggest that the OP carefully reads through the material on the Tisketfighter sight (and other forums) and the PATAS cases cited to build his own picture of how to assess and challenge his pcn.

 

The yellow box regulation only applies to a vehicle which is stopped. A vehicle which is moving slowly cannot be ticketed... The offence ... is therefore committed when you enter the box. So if circumstances afterwards change, such as a vehicle changing lanes and blocking your exit, the ticket is invalid.

The Place Invaders v TfL case also makes the point that it is when you enter the box that is relevant. However a note of caution! Another adjudicator has recently completely contradicted these cases and stated that “It does not occur at the vehicle’s point of entry to the box but at the point at which the vehicle stops”. Suffice to say I and the appellant do not agree with this. The implications are huge. In practice it means that every vehicle would have to wait for the one in front to clear the junction before they go!

The authority must have video evidence of your vehicle when it enters the box (as show in this case) and stopped and this evidence must show also that the exit was not clear when you entered.

 

As detailed in the regulations below, the offence is stopping in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Therefore stopping for another reason such as a red light, pedestrians etc is not an offence. The authority must prove there were stationary vehicles in front of the box

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...