Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It takes a long time to agree trade deals because there are so many aspects to consider.    UK companies trade with US consumers including US Government every day of the year, with the previous trade arrangements still in place.   There is no hurry to agree a new trade deal. It takes thousands of civil servants in both Governments to go into every aspect and they just don't have the people available to do this work.    
    • Hi thanks so much for the update and all the information. I will get my reading glasses on and look at the claim info and court info.  I agree let’s proceed issuing a letter straight away.  I am happy to stump the fees for court and am confident we will win.  The police officer I have dealt with has secured further CCTV evidence which I will ask a solicitor friend to get hold of from the Hermes parcel shop should we need any further evidence the parcel was dropped and collected.  Once I have read all the pages on here I will start putting the letter together and post on here for further advice.  thanks again,  mark 
    • The reason that I have indicated that it is the seller who should bring an action against Hermes is not because they are the seller – but because they are the person who suffered the loss. If you haven't suffered a loss then you probably don't have the status – locus standi – to bring a court action. Of course there is a slight problem that you didn't enter into the contract with Hermes – the purchaser did. Until 1999 this would have been a problem and would have prevented you from bringing any kind of action at all – at least on the basis of contract. However, since 1999, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act gives the beneficiary of any contract full third party rights as if they were a contracting party. The only exception to this is that if the contract specifically excluded non-contracting parties – and I'm not aware that Hermes has yet amended their contract to try and prevent this. Of course as usual, Hermes will make a big point about the fact that no insurance was purchased. Hopefully you have been reading around the threads on this sub- forum and you have seen that our view is that it is completely unfair and in fact it is absurd to require a customer to pay money to protect Hermes or any other service provider from the consequences of their own negligence or the criminality of their own employees. Every time this point has been raised with Hermes in mediation, Hermes have settled and we consider that it is because they want to avoid going to court to get a definitive judgement that their insurance scam – is precisely that – a scam. On the basis of what I understand here, this is more than just negligence there is criminality and your bike has been stolen. You've already begun a complaint and you have been knocked back and so I think there's no point in mucking around and I think that you should simply issue a letter of claim to Hermes giving them 14 days to settle in full or else you will begin a court action. Make sure that you have read around the forum about taking a small claim in the County Court. It's very easy but you need to be aware of the steps. If you send the letter of claim, then don't expect that they are suddenly going to refund you your money. They won't. They will force you to issue the court papers and who will then force you to pay the hearing fee. At this point, they will opt for mediation and they will try to knock you down and get your compromise in your claim. You should stand your ground and refused to compromise even a single penny. We will help you all the way. You seem to be a seller and a purchaser here who are getting on very well together and so as you are motivated by a common purpose, you may want to get an agreement where you decide to share the fees of court action – which won't be very much. I haven't checked the court fees for this value claim – but I expect that the whole thing will be only about £120. Of course you will get that back when you win – but bear in mind there is a is a slight risk factor and that means that £120 would be the extent of your risk and would be the maximum that you would lose. It is inconceivable that you would lose. You should be claiming the cost of the bike, the cost of delivery, plus interest which is presently 8% – a very good rate in today's economic climate. Of course you will also claim back your court fees. If you want to proceed then please let us know and let us know also that you have read around the stories and also the steps involved taking a small claim in the County Court and that you understand what you are doing. If you do your basic reading over the next couple of days then we can help you draft a letter of claim on Sunday and you can send it off on Monday. I would recommend that you post your draft letter of claim on this forum so we can check it. Keep it short and to the point.
    • That's what keeps divorce lawyers and mediators in work, I suppose. You think he's being unreasonable and he thinks you are.   My gut feeling is that it would be better to have this agreed in writing so it can't be challenged later, but that's just my opinion. Here's more information from the CAB in case it covers something you haven't already considered.   HB
    • Biden doesn't seem bothered about negotiating a trade treaty to suit the UK government's timetable. I don't suppose they saw this coming, not that the amount of trade involved makes up for what's being lost with Europe anyway.   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-usa-trade-deal-b1807616.html
  • 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
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2623 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

The Department for Transport has issued a consultation document on council parking.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263815/parking-consultation.pdf

 

The proposals include a ban on the use of CCTV for parking enforcement, whether there should be statutory 'grace' periods, whether adjudicators should be able to have discretionary powers and clearer guidance when adjudicators can allow costs.

 

The DfT invites your views on current local authority parking strategies and on options they are considering to change the balance of how parking is enforced.

 

The consultation ends on 14th February 2014.

 

Q1. Do you consider local authority parking enforcement is being applied fairly and reasonably in your area?

 

Q2.The Government intends to abolish the use of CCTV cameras for parking enforcement. Do you have any views or comments on this proposal?

 

Q3. Do you think the traffic adjudicators should have wider powers to allow appeals?

 

Q4. Do you agree that guidance should be updated to make clear in what circumstances adjudicators may award costs? If so, what should those circumstances be?

 

Q5. Do you think motorists who lose an appeal at a parking tribunal should be offered a 25% discount for prompt payment?

 

Q6.Do you think local residents and firms should be able to require councils to review yellow lines, parking provision, charges etc in their area? If so, what should the reviews cover and what should be the threshold for triggering a review?

 

Q7.Do you think that authorities should be required by regulation to allow a grace period at the end of paid for parking?

 

Q8. Do you think that a grace period should be offered more widely

– for example a grace period for overstaying in free parking bays, at the start of pay and display parking and paid for parking bays, and in areas where there are parking restrictions (such as loading restrictions, or single yellow lines)?

 

Q9. If allowed, how long do you think the grace period should be?

 

Q10. Do you think the Government should be considering any further measures to tackle genuinely anti-social parking or driving? If so, what?

 

You can respond on-line here:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/T8W8R2F

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if they invested a few quid in educating people on where they can park then maybe it wouldn't be such an issue? Only the govt would think that being too successful at catching people breaking the law is a good reason to stop doing so, whatever next a maximum quota on the number of tickets a CEO is allowed to issue a day? The suggestions just show that the govt is just going for cheap votes nothing else and some of the ideas are so half baked its laughable.

Lets make it law that you have to give 5 minutes grace at the end of a P&D ticket.....great idea! :lol: People will just add the 5 minutes on to the parking time and still get just as many PCNs and still complain that a ticket issued after 6 minutes is harsh because they are only 1 minute late. The same applies to grace periods in free bays thats suggested, if it says 30 mins free parking drivers will just get 35 minutes, so Councils will change traffic order/signs to get 25 mins its ridiculous.

How can you possibly give 25% discount after losing at PATAS 25% of what? You give 50% for 14 days then it goes up to the full amount, then if you appeal to PATAS it goes back down again?? What if you appeal to the Council and get rejected you will pay more than if you go all the way to PATAS its bonkers!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe if they invested a few quid in educating people on where they can park then maybe it wouldn't be such an issue? Only the govt would think that being too successful at catching people breaking the law is a good reason to stop doing so, whatever next a maximum quota on the number of tickets a CEO is allowed to issue a day? The suggestions just show that the govt is just going for cheap votes nothing else and some of the ideas are so half baked its laughable.

Lets make it law that you have to give 5 minutes grace at the end of a P&D ticket.....great idea! :lol: People will just add the 5 minutes on to the parking time and still get just as many PCNs and still complain that a ticket issued after 6 minutes is harsh because they are only 1 minute late. The same applies to grace periods in free bays thats suggested, if it says 30 mins free parking drivers will just get 35 minutes, so Councils will change traffic order/signs to get 25 mins its ridiculous.

How can you possibly give 25% discount after losing at PATAS 25% of what? You give 50% for 14 days then it goes up to the full amount, then if you appeal to PATAS it goes back down again?? What if you appeal to the Council and get rejected you will pay more than if you go all the way to PATAS its bonkers!!

 

I agree. Clearly it's not been given any serious thought by someone intelligent.

 

In my opinion it would be better to do away with the informal challenge altogether. It's a waste of time and costly to administer. I'd have the 14 day discount period for those who accept they parked in contravention and after 14 days issue a NtO so those who want to appeal can get on with it. If reps are rejected then a council can always re-offer the discount if they think the circumstances merit it. If rejected and dissatisfied then onto adjudication. I'd like adjudicators though to have a little more scope such as being able to consider mitigation.

 

At a time when councils have no money it seems absurd to complicate things even more with more bureacracy. Ultimately the cost falls upon the taxpayer

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find worrying is that it doesn't seem to concern anyone at the standard of driving involved that results in the millions of PCNs being issued. If you take off the over-stayers and those that gamble on not paying without being caught the rest are basically parking or driving where not permitted, something the govt. is now appearing to say is acceptable. Parking is not a game although for administrative reasons its been decriminalised the contraventions are still just as wrong as when they where a criminal offence. By removing the option of cctv they are in my view saying that the offenders are guilty but deserve more of a chance to escape? If they don't want people being caught breaking the regulations why have them in the first place. Education is the answer, why not run ads on TV telling people what loading is or how bus lanes work dispell a few myths not waste money trying to work out how to let more people off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be fair to get a parking ticket issued by a CCTV camera for parking quite legally? I am a disabled driver who parked legally in a disabled bay and clearly displayed a blue badge but the local council still issued a ticket on the basis that the CCTV operator had seen me park but not display a blue badge. I appealed and it turned out that the CCTV camera was at the REAR of my car and so would never see anything displayed. The council also gave me a ticket for parking in a 'loading only' zone where waiting was limited to 20 minutes. The ticket issued clearly stated that the vehicle was observed from 10.01am to 10.03am.. so parking for 2 minutes whilst getting goods loaded constituted a 'contravention' The appeal stated clearly that the Council had been over zealous and that both instances were incorrectly issued and not valid. There are more illegally issued PCNs overturned at appeal because the Council only see the motorist as a cash cow to make up budget deficits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were they cancelled? The first one sounds ludicrous - unless they could see the windscreen they would have no idea if a BB was on display. It could have been there before you pulled up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it be fair to get a parking ticket issued by a CCTV camera for parking quite legally? I am a disabled driver who parked legally in a disabled bay and clearly displayed a blue badge but the local council still issued a ticket on the basis that the CCTV operator had seen me park but not display a blue badge. I appealed and it turned out that the CCTV camera was at the REAR of my car and so would never see anything displayed. The council also gave me a ticket for parking in a 'loading only' zone where waiting was limited to 20 minutes. The ticket issued clearly stated that the vehicle was observed from 10.01am to 10.03am.. so parking for 2 minutes whilst getting goods loaded constituted a 'contravention' The appeal stated clearly that the Council had been over zealous and that both instances were incorrectly issued and not valid. There are more illegally issued PCNs overturned at appeal because the Council only see the motorist as a cash cow to make up budget deficits.

 

The fact is the evidence was on cctv which helped your case and you got the PCNs cancelled, I fail to see the point you are trying to make? People get PCNs for being in a loading bay for 2 minutes everyday by CEOs on foot why is cctv any worse?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it be fair to get a parking ticket issued by a CCTV camera for parking quite legally? I am a disabled driver who parked legally in a disabled bay and clearly displayed a blue badge but the local council still issued a ticket on the basis that the CCTV operator had seen me park but not display a blue badge. I appealed and it turned out that the CCTV camera was at the REAR of my car and so would never see anything displayed. The council also gave me a ticket for parking in a 'loading only' zone where waiting was limited to 20 minutes. The ticket issued clearly stated that the vehicle was observed from 10.01am to 10.03am.. so parking for 2 minutes whilst getting goods loaded constituted a 'contravention' The appeal stated clearly that the Council had been over zealous and that both instances were incorrectly issued and not valid. There are more illegally issued PCNs overturned at appeal because the Council only see the motorist as a cash cow to make up budget deficits.

 

 

Am i the only that thinks that that loading bay should be only for good vehicles if a goods vehicle is parked in a disabled bay they soon get a ticket even if the loading bay is been occupied by a disabled driver ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Am i the only that thinks that that loading bay should be only for good vehicles if a goods vehicle is parked in a disabled bay they soon get a ticket even if the loading bay is been occupied by a disabled driver ?

 

I don't see the logic. If you are making a delivery to a shop, you might use an estate car or small van. Why does it matter what type of vehicle you use?

 

I don't think a goods vehicle would necessarily be barred from using a disabled bay, provided a blue badge was being legitimately used. It would depend on the local authority's policy.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...