Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3974 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 ve received a PCN for parked/waiting/unloading in wimbledon village high st via a camera in a car behind me.

i think i should fight it as i parked in a pay and display bay and got out after a minute to get a ticket, but found the signs nearby restrict parking only to 10am - 4pm.

Obvioulsly until i got out i did not know this and moved once i found i could not park here.

anywhere I ve parked is usually 0830 on wards, and not being from london I am not familiar with this.

is it worth fighting or just pay up.

I noticed in the picture it shows a bay with a single yellow line through which is a bit confusing also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

What was the contravention on the PCN? Also, can you give us the location?

 

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

hi

yes the notice is 02J parked or loading/unloading in a restricted st where waiting and loading/ unloading restrications are in force( camera enforcement)

location high st os18 from 0912-0913

this is outside the lloyds bank in the village

cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you say, signs indicate that no waiting/loading prior to 10am Mon to Sat. If you are still in the discounted period, then appeal stating as soon as you saw the sign and realised, you moved straight away. Not sure it will work but you have nothing to loose by appealing within the discount period.

 

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

Don't agree to appeal to PATAS whatever you do. They only have nine grounds of appeal and this isn't one of them.

 

It would be very unreasonable not to allow someone to stop in a parking bay in order to check the parking restrictions which is what you were doing. As soon as you realized your mistake you drove on.

 

I always find, and have advised friends to do the same successfully, that if you drag out the correspondence and refuse to take no for an answer then 80% of the time the local council will back down. Do make sure it is a very long letter going into great detail - about two and a half pages is good. :-)

 

If they do tell you to appeal to PATAS come back and I'll give you my Catch 22 argument on that.

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't agree to appeal to PATAS whatever you do. They only have nine grounds of appeal and this isn't one of them.

 

In my experience, PATAS do not apply stringent limits on what sort of arguments you can present. The grounds are specified to guide the case, and if you argue outside of those, I don't know that it matters. Have you heard of PATAS refusing to consider cases because they do not fit one of the grounds?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[ATTACH]43964[/ATTACH]

hi

heres the pcn copy.

as to the car that took the photo pic looks like someone was sitting in the passengers seat taking photos with a camera.

i was not aware of a car when i stopped , might not have any markings

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, PATAS do not apply stringent limits on what sort of arguments you can present. The grounds are specified to guide the case, and if you argue outside of those, I don't know that it matters. Have you heard of PATAS refusing to consider cases because they do not fit one of the grounds?

 

I was told by someone who worked at PATAS that they automatically dismiss any appeals that do not meet one of the specified nine grounds of appeal, as shown on their website. From the horse's mouth, so to speak.......

 

That is the Catch 22. They say you have a right of appeal, but if it isn't on one of those grounds you actually don't. Of course if you point out to the council that they are in fact denying you a right of appeal then they usually back down. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told by someone who worked at PATAS that they automatically dismiss any appeals that do not meet one of the specified nine grounds of appeal, as shown on their website. From the horse's mouth, so to speak.......

 

That is the Catch 22. They say you have a right of appeal, but if it isn't on one of those grounds you actually don't. Of course if you point out to the council that they are in fact denying you a right of appeal then they usually back down. :-)

 

Complete tosh, the law defines the grounds of appeal if you do not meet them then you are liable for the PCN. The grounds are comprehensive and cover all likely reasons you may not be liable so I fail to see how you are denied a right of appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So which ground does unimatrix appeal under?

 

Contravention did not take place if he did only stop to check the sign, otherwise their seems to be no other grounds of appeal other than mitigation which the Council can consider but not PATAS as its not down to them to use discretion on behalf of the Council which would have already considered it. If none of the grounds of appeal are available to the appeallant then they are liable for the PCN that is clearly stated in the statute. If the contravention did occur, you were the owner, it wasn't parked without your consent and you haven't already paid it, what else would exempt you from paying the penalty??

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am sure i was parked by the bank as thats the side with the bays and you can see the bank in the picture

 

Personally I would view the video first but if thats not practical appeal on the grounds the contravention did not take place because a) you only parked long enough to check the signs, b) you parked outside TSB which is 86 the High St

 

 

Can you PM me your VRM so I can view the photos online?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contravention did not take place if he did only stop to check the sign, otherwise their seems to be no other grounds of appeal other than mitigation which the Council can consider but not PATAS as its not down to them to use discretion on behalf of the Council which would have already considered it. If none of the grounds of appeal are available to the appeallant then they are liable for the PCN that is clearly stated in the statute. If the contravention did occur, you were the owner, it wasn't parked without your consent and you haven't already paid it, what else would exempt you from paying the penalty??

 

 

The issue with PATAS often stems from their adjudication being suspect, and in some cases online the adjudicator has either missed out a pertinent fact, or has agreed the Council stance for rejection being appropriate, without giving a legislative reason.

 

Quite often the Bulk centre (Northampton ?) will reject the Councils (and PATAS) ruling but this does not cancel the PCN, and then you get into Charge Certification and bailiffs, even though the process has been deemed to be flawed.

 

The LGO will not be contactable either in a case where an appeal has been lodged at the PATAS stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contravention did not take place if he did only stop to check the sign, otherwise their seems to be no other grounds of appeal other than mitigation which the Council can consider but not PATAS as its not down to them to use discretion on behalf of the Council which would have already considered it. If none of the grounds of appeal are available to the appeallant then they are liable for the PCN that is clearly stated in the statute. If the contravention did occur, you were the owner, it wasn't parked without your consent and you haven't already paid it, what else would exempt you from paying the penalty??

 

Which is exactly why I am saying an appeal to PATAS won't work here, and my Catch 22 argument has worked very well for me and for others in that we haven't had to pay the fine, so I don't see why you are dismissing it as "complete tosh."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is exactly why I am saying an appeal to PATAS won't work here, and my Catch 22 argument has worked very well for me and for others in that we haven't had to pay the fine, so I don't see why you are dismissing it as "complete tosh."

 

Because there is no catch 22, I don't think I disagree with the law is a grounds to cancel?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is a Catch 22. Not every reason for appeal can be put in a little box and labelled. Why should someone who sees a parking space, pulls in and checks the restrictions, then moves on when they realise they can't park there, have to pay a fine? Why should there be only nine grounds on which people can appeal and if they dare to suggest other mitigating circumstances then their appeal is actually thrown out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking of paying it , I ve already sent the appeal this morning or will submitting the appeal stop the 21 days discount.

I don't want to pay them as there just raising cash for the council and not enforcing the parking restrictions otherwise the guy in the car could have asked to move

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is a Catch 22. Not every reason for appeal can be put in a little box and labelled. Why should someone who sees a parking space, pulls in and checks the restrictions, then moves on when they realise they can't park there, have to pay a fine? Why should there be only nine grounds on which people can appeal and if they dare to suggest other mitigating circumstances then their appeal is actually thrown out?

 

The Council can accept mitigation but PATAS will only rule on the law and as I have already stated stopping to read the signs is covered in the statutary grounds of appeal. You still have not explained what reason other than the contravention not occuring, not being the owner, having already paid and procedural impropriety that would be valid grounds to appeal and yet is not on the list??

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...