Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. 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. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. 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 acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
  • 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

TnC Parking Enforcement Notice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3846 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

Hi Everyone,

 

I need some advice and confirmation that I should be ignoring a Parking Enforcement Notice which I received from TnC Parking Services on behalf of their client P4 Parking.

 

I live Edinburgh (EH11) and the fight for parking spaces is a daily battle. I'm a musician and after returning home very late one night from work, I parked in the only place available within a two mile radius of my flat. I parked on the street, not in a bay and was not obstructing or impacting access to the car park in anyway. There are just two signs within that area of the car park however nether are on the side of which I parked and none are visible at night due to low lighting. The area in which I parked is used on a daily basis by others and their inconsistencies in who they choose to ticket is somewhat baffling.

 

After reading many posts on here, I have chosen to ignore the two demands they have sent me so far via the personal information they acquired from the DVLA, as there are no trespass laws in Scotland and I believe that only police or council have the right to issue such demands.

 

So my question is, am I right? Should I keep ignoring or do I contact them with my despute?

 

I have no intention of paying this so called 'fine' as I believe it to be unlawful but somehow they've manage to get under my skin and I can't help but worry about it. :frown:

 

Please help put my mind at ease. Many thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Scotland there is no chance of anyone recovering anything from you as there is no such thing as trespass so just ignore any letter that doesnt arrive with a red county court stamp on it. If they are stupid enough to issue a summons then that is easily defeated by demanding "strict proof" of claim by claimant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I spent almost £300 at Homebase in Greenock only to be hit a week later with a Contractural Parking Charge Notice from G24 Ltd. They want £100 from me which will be reduced to £60 if I pay within 14 days. My "crime"? I parked in the Homebase car park for 143 minutes which was 53 minutes over the permitted 90 minutes. I am seething especially as the signage was very poor, I was not aware that there were any restrictions and I do not recall entering into any contract,

I have read various opinions and have decided to ignore this letter. Is this the right thing to do? Has anyone actually been taken to court? Like other people, I just need a bit of reassurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer to your invoice dated the xxxxxx

 

In response, I would ask you to note the following.

The registered keeper/owner of a vehicle is under no obligation whatsoever to provide details of the driver or any other information to a commercial company of no legal status of any description. (Scottish Jurisdiction).

 

In addition, liability for payment could only be determined by a Sherriff under Scottish Civil Law and such demands should not be confused in any way with Penalty Charge Notices issued under the terms of a Road Traffic Order.

 

Furthermore,, where a ticket has been issued under the law of contract to a vehicle which although allowed to park on the land, is in breach of the conditions relating to parking, the driver could argue that the charge being demanded is so high that it amounts to a penalty and is therefore unlawful under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

 

What the regulations state

 

A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated when it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

The previous paragraphs are also supported by the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract

 

Transferral to a debt collection agency and the threat of additional charges is also in my opinion questionable for the following reasons taken from the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance.

 

 

2.6 Paragraph H.

Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for money.

 

2.8 Paragraph A

Sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

2.8 Paragraph J

Requiring an individual to supply information to prove they are not the debtor in question.

 

2.10 Paragraph B

Misleading debtors into believing that they are legally liable to pay collection charges when this is not the case, for example, when there is no contractual provision. .

 

I am also aware that I am under no obligation to engage in any way with debt collection agents.

 

In Conclusion, the contents of this correspondence should not be considered as a letter of appeal, but as total denial of liability..

 

I hope this clearly outlines my position.

 

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I sent a letter denying liability and have now received a "final notice". G24 are now demanding £100 saying that "you (as the registered keeper) are now liable to pay the Parking charge and we have the right to take recovery action against you". If, after 28 days the Parking Charge is not paid they will take further steps to recover the amount owed by forwarding the outstanding amount to a debt recovery agency and additional charges may arise if they have to do so.

 

I have no intentions of paying but just wondered if this would have any affect on my credit rating?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a letter denying liability and have now received a "final notice". G24 are now demanding £100 saying that "you (as the registered keeper) are now liable to pay the Parking charge and we have the right to take recovery action against you". If, after 28 days the Parking Charge is not paid they will take further steps to recover the amount owed by forwarding the outstanding amount to a debt recovery agency and additional charges may arise if they have to do so.

 

I have no intentions of paying but just wondered if this would have any affect on my credit rating?

 

None whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Scotland the PoFA doesnt apply so it is for the company to prove that you were the driver at the time. Did you admit being the driver? if you didnt their claim is dead in the water as without proof of who was driving at the time they cannot even begin to chase the RK of the vehicle, which they appear to be doing so you can claim for harassment by them. As for the rest of the wording of their letter, it is all hot air. Passing it on to a DCA just means that you will get some more letters telling you to pay up and probably adding another £50 to the supposed debt but this is a worthless as the original letters. This again, has no legal basis so no-one is going to take you to court because if you defend any action they may well be in BIG trouble and lose the legal right to pursue anyone for debt in the future via the court process as well as costing them good money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

G24 do not know who was driving the car and I have not given them this information. I have informed them that under Scottish jurisdiction the registered keeper/owner of a vehicle is under no obligation whatsoever to provide details of the driver or any other information to a commercial company of no legal status of any description. So it does appear that they are harassing me as I haven't just rolled over and paid up. Should I write to them again or just ignore?

 

I just wish more people would stand up to these bullies as they are taking advantage of people's fear and/or indifference.

 

Thanks for everyone's support as sometimes it's a bit worrying when you have kept on the straight and narrow all your life and then something like this happens!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to pay for a stamp and continue playing letter tennis then by all means reply but I think that they will cut their losses and leave you alone soon. Sending out pointless drivel costs them money so as long as it doesnt really bother you I would leave them alone and file away all the correspondence in case you do feel like hitting them back at some point if it all gets a bit too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...