Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The case against the US-based ride-hailing giant is being brought on behalf of over 10,800 drivers.View the full article
    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
  • 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

Help - PCN 01E Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours (double parked/obstruction)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3993 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

So I came back to my car tonight with this, I've been parking in this same spot for couple months now.

 

" PCN 01E Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours (double parked/obstruction)

Observed from 21:30 to 21:30"

 

I've done a bit of reading up and believe it means they are saying I parked on yellow lines? Is this correct?

The photo they took I'm not even on the road with the lines! :S

 

But the photo seems to also focus on the kerb, so I read up more and found out I'm not allowed to park there supposedly? But that would normally go under Contravention Code 27.

 

Where do I stand with appealing this?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the lines restriction extends to the boundary wall

 

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

We can't see where the 'road' in question goes (is it your land?) but your back wheel is about an inch away from the double yellows so you've probably been very lucky to get away with this for a couple of months. If it's a Council ticket then pay the fine before it goes up and think of it as a parking fee, but then find somewhere else to park!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where do I stand with appealing this?

 

 

What would your grounds of appeal be? You are quite clearly on double yellows, in the mouth of a junction. As said above, the yellow line restriction covers the whole area from the centre of the road up to the building, including footpaths etc. The contravention code is the correct one, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

What would your grounds of appeal be? You are quite clearly on double yellows, in the mouth of a junction. As said above, the yellow line restriction covers the whole area from the centre of the road up to the building, including footpaths etc. The contravention code is the correct one, I think.

 

I don't think it's clear at all that I am on the yellow lines, I am parked on a different road that the yellow lines are even on? :S

Link to post
Share on other sites

The contravention is possibly correct in regards the yellow lines however the 'e' suffix should no longer be used as Councils do not enforce obstruction (its not a civil offence) and double parking is code 26 not 01. The contravention as stated on the ticket did not occur you were parked in a restricted street but were not causing an obstruction and not double parked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The contravention is possibly correct in regards the yellow lines however the 'e' suffix should no longer be used as Councils do not enforce obstruction (its not a civil offence) and double parking is code 26 not 01. The contravention as stated on the ticket did not occur you were parked in a restricted street but were not causing an obstruction and not double parked.

 

Thanks for the reply Green_and_Mean, if this is the case, where do I stand?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking in the mouth of a junction or on any other kind of corner could be viewed as obstruction, because it limits drivers' visibility and could therefore be dangerous. Check the Highway Code for guidance and whether this is open to any interpretation, but perhaps that's what the ticket is for rather than the double yellows. I wasn't aware that obstruction was beyond local authority enforcement though so you'd need to check that too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking in the mouth of a junction or on any other kind of corner could be viewed as obstruction, because it limits drivers' visibility and could therefore be dangerous. Check the Highway Code for guidance and whether this is open to any interpretation, but perhaps that's what the ticket is for rather than the double yellows. I wasn't aware that obstruction was beyond local authority enforcement though so you'd need to check that too.

 

Obstructing what? Where is the obstruction defined in the traffic order? Where is the junction, its a private drive? What regulation is he meant to have broken, obstruction may be contary to the highway code but that doesn't permit a CEO to wander the streets randomly looking for cars he considers are poorly parked

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a silly place to park, highway code states not to park by a junction I would pay the PCN and put it down to lucky I got away with it for so long

 

You need to go to specsavers there is no junction, he is parked on a crossover to a private housing complex, if it was a junction it would not have yellow lines across it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...