Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • forget CAB you might as well phone bt back as thats about as useless as they'll be.   you can't have a rolling 24mts contract', bt rolling contracts are month to month only, thats an industrywide accepted definition of what rolling means.   what happened here is she earlier changed her 'package' removing skt to reduce costs. as with all providers that invoked = means she entered into a new 24mts contract.   she latterly phone to cancel that contract, and thus bt charged her the cancellation fee/loss of revenue over the raining months of the contract.   the fact that she owes them 'this money' but didn't pay it, then entitled them sadly to cancel the mobile contract, which sadly again they allowed to do.   rock and a hard place if she wants to keep the same mobile number.   Or as long as her phone is not imie blocked by bt (in otherwords she purchased from BT under the mobile contract) but simply locked to BT (which is easily gotten around for a small fee at many shops/market stalls or if someone is tech savvy follow the guides on youtube to unlock the phone for an even smaller fee. and wack a new sim in it.   as for the £800 bill simply ignore them. they'll sell the debt on  and if anyone like Lowells or anyother powerless DCA debt buyer wants to do court, it's easily defended we've not lost one case like that here.        
    • The 1st 2 calls were the normal scam calls. get a truecall box   the PDC stuff you ignore their letter States our client three whom if you wanted too you deal with directly.   Until/unless whenever it gets sold on too and they eventually send a letter of claim you maintain radio silence    
    • hi all. bit of advice please. I had a Three contract up until November last year. At £11pcm for 24mths. Paid every month on time via their online portal. When I ported over, I received a letter from Three thanking me for being a customer blah blah blah.. It also said IF I owed anything a final bill will be sent. No final bill ever received - I get a phone call around the first week in December form an Indian sounding man who was extremly difficult to understand. Said he was calling from Three, and wanted me to confirm my details - something of which I didnt as something didnt sit right. He said I could log into my account and review my bill as I owed money and then hung up. After the call I thought I'd best log into my account just in case.  Couldnt log in. Account access denied. Logged on to chat - they said as I ported over and I was no longer a customer my access was suspended. Couple of weeks later I had another call from a local area number and answered again it was some Indian guy telling me I owed money, wanting me to confirm details. I refused and he said details will be sent out to me to my email on account and my home address as it was important. Once again nothing.. 15th Dec I received an email from PastDue in my name RE Three. Email stated they were contacting me about Three an I should receive a letter soon regards to this matter. Says about visiting their website.  22nd Jan another email form Pastdue. Stating they have yet to receive a response to the letter, and they had already sent me an email about this. We will continue to contact you until this matter is resolved. Again asks me to login. 23rd Jan letter received dated 13th Jan. Titled "We are here to help keep your Three Services"  Claiming I owed "Airetime Balance £201.43" and contract period was 26/11/2019 to 25/11/2020 States "We have been appointed by Three to recover the amount of £201.43. If you pay this amount in full Three may be able to waive the cancellation fee and reconnect their service for you" - what cancellation fee / re connection??? I ended the contract giving the 30days notice and paying the last bill.. Then the normal crap about its important to pay. If I'm experiencing difficulties etc. Now both December and  January Credit reports from ClearScore, Credit Karma, Credit Expert, Totally Money and Equifax all show Three as Closed and balance as Zero. (Date Satisfied /closed 17th Nov, bal 0, last updated 30th Nov) I've had nothing from Three. As far as I'm concerned I owe nothing as no final bill and no access to the portal. Should I email PastDue and do a prove it & attach proof of Credit Reports being £0 or do I do something else?  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

PCN Issued by Wlatham Forest and refused by PATAS


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2652 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Need Urgent help regarding my case about PCN issued while Parking bay was suspended. I have used this forum and found relavent information which I sent to Local Authority.

 

I received rejection letter and sent again appeal to Local Authority with further evidence.

 

Rejection letter was issued by Local Authority and few days later Notice to owner without any form of appeal process.

 

Wrote again and received appeal documents and sent to PATAS with lots of information and even letter from Department of Transport confirming Local Authority didn't have applied for Traffic Sign to Suspend the bay.

 

Appeal was refused by Adjudicator Michael Burke saying that Local Authority have displayed correct sign and there is no reason to refuse the appeal.

 

I asked for review because I came across new information which was

 

 

 

  • at the time I was issued PCN my neighbour was issued PCN same time, same date and for same contravention.
  • Local Authority day before when my neighbour case was due to appear in front of Adjudicator decided not contest the appeal.
  • I provided the same information to PATAS and asked for the review.
  • PATAS Manger wrote to me that after reviewed by another Adjudicator his reply is that (Michael Burke first Adjudicator who reviewed my case) Adjudicator couldn't have that information therefore his intial decision still stand.

I wrote again to PATAS explaining that's why I asked to reviewed the decision because there was new evidence. But again received same letter that their is no ground to review and if I am not happy I should ask for High Court Judicial review.

 

Sent few letters to Local Authority asking to cancel the PCN but getting no where.

 

Need Advice where to take this matter before it escalate into some thing I don't have control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if they did review it, the fact that the Council let someone else of for the same contravention is not grounds for cancelling your PCN.

 

 

I don't know if this sound right but my point is

 

  • If council issue 2 PCN same time, same date and for same reason on cars parked next to each other however don't contest one and other get full penalised

I thought justice system need to equal to everyone. I have provided the proof and letter from the claimant whom PCN have been cancelled. Why can't Adjudicator and Council can accept and either cancel both or neither.

 

Maybe I am wrong but I believe law should be same for every one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is the same for everyone, but everyone's circumstances are different somehow. There might be a reason why his was cancelled, which does not apply to you - maybe he had a medical emergency, maybe the contravention printed on his PCN was wrong, maybe his vehicle was broken down, maybe the PCN wasn't served to him - and so on.

 

You presented your reasons why your PCN should be cancelled, and they said that those reasons weren't sufficient. His appeal would have been different to yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The law is the same for everyone, but everyone's circumstances are different somehow. There might be a reason why his was cancelled, which does not apply to you - maybe he had a medical emergency, maybe the contravention printed on his PCN was wrong, maybe his vehicle was broken down, maybe the PCN wasn't served to him - and so on.

 

You presented your reasons why your PCN should be cancelled, and they said that those reasons weren't sufficient. His appeal would have been different to yours.

 

None of the above applies because when we both left our car in suspended bays in question, suspension started at 18.30 on the day in question and PCN were issued to my car at 1834 and my neighbour car at 1835.

We both did came across the PCN next morning about the same time and decided to challenge for same reason.

 

That's what makes matter worse and I feel hard done by, maybe one or 2 things we may have different to each other but most of the point were same, main thing which need to be focus on is Council phoned or wrote to PATAS couple of days before the case was suppose to appear in front of Adjudicator and informed that Council is not contesting this PCN. If they can do for one they should do same for the other as well in which case its my PCN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they can do for one they should do same for the other as well in which case its my PCN.

 

The same could apply the other way, you could complain that the neighbour should be made to pay since the adjudicator clearly felt there were no grounds to cancel the PCN!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adjudicator decision was based on that Council have displayed the correct sign which is questionable on it own.

 

Not that I didn't challenged correctly or any thing else. Nor I had the information at that time that my neighbour PCN appeal has been allowed.

 

If I had that information with me before the adjudicator was going to review my case maybe outcome would have been different.

 

Anyway my issue or advice I am trying to receive is that Law should be equal when circumstances are same I emphasis again "when circumstances are same" outcome of any decision should be same as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Circumstances are never the same. For some reason - I don't know what - the council declined to contest the case. Perhaps you're right and the basis of his appeal was the same as yours, but there is a reason why they backed out. Maybe they were short staffed and couldn't prepare for the additional hearing? Maybe they'd messed up procedure with his documents? Maybe their paperwork wasn't prepared - I don't know why, but they dropped it for some reason. He didn't win it on his arguments.

 

But your case went through to hearing, arguments were heard, and the PCN stood.

 

That's just the way it goes. His case is separate from yours and a different chain of events happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can and have challenged it, and even had a personal hearing at no cost to you. The fact is, you didn't win - that's that. There is no right to get a PCN cancelled - you tried, lost and so all you can do is pay. There's nothing else open to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pay the fine and then, depending upon which local authority gave you the PCN, use a Freedom of Information request, to obtain figures of those that are let off for similar circumstances, or you could go for the jugular and request answers on staff bonuses over ticketing and the level of corruption within the chain of command that runs them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best that will result in, is you get a number for those "let off" - what use is that to anyone?

 

There are never bonuses for ticketing, and in fact the companies involved tend to face penalties themselves for PCNs issued for no good reason.

 

As for corruption - maybe you could suggest what questions should be asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are never bonuses for ticketing, and in fact the companies involved tend to face penalties themselves for PCNs issued for no good reason.

 

Retaining one's job is not a bonus in your view ?The judge cited an email from Emma Collins, a regional manager with NSL, which read: "There are still significant numbers of people issuing at a rate of below 9 per hour... we should not feel uncomfortable to use the disciplinary process."

Judge Burns responded: "We have no doubt the managers felt under pressure to ensure PCN issuing was maximised and they passed this on to CEOs [traffic wardens].

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17190084

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not. "Staff bonuses" as you said it, means extra cash in their pay packet. That's just a myth.

 

If you're now saying a "bonus" means not getting the sack (which is a new definition on me!), read the link you posted. It says quite clearly that it is illegal to set staff minimum quotas, and when this guy was dismissed, he was deemd to have been wrongly dismissed and awarded compensation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not. "Staff bonuses" as you said it, means extra cash in their pay packet. That's just a myth.

 

If you're now saying a "bonus" means not getting the sack (which is a new definition on me!), read the link you posted. It says quite clearly that it is illegal to set staff minimum quotas, and when this guy was dismissed, he was deemd to have been wrongly dismissed and awarded compensation.

 

Not at all, though retaining one's job is certainly an incentive to reach the minimum quotas, whether set by the company, or simply advised by those above you in the pecking order.

 

"The bonus money wasn't that great, an extra £65 a month, and to get your bonus you had to jump through all kinds of hoops." The pressure came instead from management: "I got told more than once: you've got to do more tickets, more tickets, more tickets.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/confessions-of-a-traffic-warden-6286324.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all, though retaining one's job is certainly an incentive to reach the minimum quotas, whether set by the company, or simply advised by those above you in the pecking order.

 

"The bonus money wasn't that great, an extra £65 a month, and to get your bonus you had to jump through all kinds of hoops." The pressure came instead from management: "I got told more than once: you've got to do more tickets, more tickets, more tickets.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/confessions-of-a-traffic-warden-6286324.html

:lol:

A CEO sacked for gross misconduct is obviously going to be a credible source of information and have no hidden agenda!

Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:

A CEO sacked for gross misconduct is obviously going to be a credible source of information and have no hidden agenda!

 

Apologies, I thought he was the same CEO that was completely exonerated at the employment tribunal within the earlier post.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17190084

 

Strikingly similar name though, they could actually be distant relatives if one squints hard enough .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apologies, I thought he was the same CEO that was completely exonerated at the employment tribunal within the earlier post.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17190084

 

Strikingly similar name though, they could actually be distant relatives if one squints hard enough .

 

No apology needed the article was a bit confusing and just a poor attempt to promote the guys book. It does however seem a common trend that only those sacked for not being competent decide to spill the beans on being asked to issue a number of PCNs deemed satisfactory by their employer. Any job requires a certain level of competence and anyone not meeting that is obviously going to struggle to keep their job.

Although a CEO has other tasks his main purpose is to issue PCNs with the aim of raising compliance, you can argue by moving people on he is keeping the streets free of congestion but that argument is completely flawed. If you use the analogy of fare evasion a penalty fare is used as the deterrent, if a ticket inspector just asked those without a ticket to pay the appropriate fare there is no incentive to pay properly as you have good odds of not getting caught and if you are caught you are no worse off than if you did pay in the first place. You stick on a penalty fare of £50 and then the choice is pay £5 or risk paying £50, most will not face the risk and fare evasion drops.

If we go back to the CEO if he just wanders the street with a friendly hop and a skip, moving naughty drivers on, who is going to bother adhering to the parking regulations? Most CEOs have large areas to patrol and most areas are visited infrequently meaning you can park on double yellows outside your shop causing havoc for a couple of hours knowing full well when the friendly CEO arrives you can drive around the block and re-park.

CEOs therefore have to issue PCNs to be a deterrent, that is their job. The question then is how many should they issue a day to be seen to be competent and working as hard as their colleagues? Most 'quotas' used in staff performance reviews equate to around 1 PCN an hour and that is usually based on historical data (previous figures), colleagues numbers and compliance data. If you think asking someone that is paid to issue PCNs to issue a single PCN an hour is corrupt you obviously do not live in London. If you do live in London I challenge you to walk or drive around for an hour without seeing a single vehicle that is not parked where it shouldn't be because I doubt you will succeed and that's without checking tickets and permits. No one gets sacked on the spot for having a bad day low issue figures are addressed at performance reviews and only if all avenues taken to improve such as further training fail to improve the matter then disciplinary action may be taken as it would in any other job where an employee wasn't capable of carrying out his job properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...