Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Work from home is "an aberration" that will be corrected as soon as possible says Goldman Sachs chief. View the full article
    • Work from home is "an aberration" that will be corrected as soon as possible says Goldman Sachs chief. View the full article
    • The mini electric vehicle being made by China's biggest carmaker is now outselling Tesla two to one. View the full article
    • https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-right-to-silence-citizens-duties-and-coronavirus-regulations   Perhaps the OP should have said nothing - and risked arrest!   "Firstly, the case calls into question the logic behind aspects of the criminal justice response to the public health crisis created by the Coronavirus pandemic...   "Secondly, it is clear that some police officers have misunderstood and misstated their powers, and citizens’ obligations, under the Regulations and at common law...   "Thirdly, the case confirms reasonable excuses for being outside are not limited to those explicitly set out in the Regulations. Police officers considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed under the Regulations so that an FPN may be issued, or the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are necessary for an arrest, should give proper consideration to any explanation given by members of the public (and what a court might think of them) rather than only recognising those exceptions explicitly listed in the Regulations and/or government guidance...   Fourthly, the case is an example of a failure of the CPS review into prosecutions brought under Coronavirus Regulations, which has found that alarming numbers of cases were wrongly charged..."   Above quotes from the Bindman's article, not the decision.  Case arose from the first lockdown and was in Wales.  Same now?  Also was about not being at home - not mask wearing.    
  • 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

PCN from Lambeth council - do i have to pay?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2597 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

Hey guys, just hoping for some advice.

 

I received a parking ticket for being in residents permit holders. I had displayed a one day visitors parking permit but had stupidly put the number plate of my old car in the license plate section.

 

I wrote to the council saying that fair play should be considered as clearly an attempt to comply was made but a stupid error occurred, they have written back saying that I haven't made grounds for cancellation of the PCN.

 

Do I have a leg to stand on here with regard to contract law, this is clearly a case of them extorting me for the money with no good will added.

 

Would love to hear some feedback and advice, thanks so much in advance.

 

Best regards

 

Marc

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the face of it, you don't have grounds to get it cancelled. The reason they want a registration number is so that permits can't be passed from car to car during the day - it's one permit, one car. With the wrong reg number on the permit, it's invalid for use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input Jamberson,

 

Yes what you say is very right, i'll probably just have to pay, but it is still extortion in reality though. I had good will to comply and actually had two permits one for the next day too as i was staying over night, and the other car is in my name so they could easily tell I simply made a mistake, but as a for profit business they are only interested in extorting the money.

 

Thanks for your advice much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could ask them tyo cancel the ticket for the wrong vehicle as you hadnt used it. PCN's are basically fines for breach of contract and no-one has said that the fine is X plus the cost of the permit so why cant you have that money back?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You could ask them tyo cancel the ticket for the wrong vehicle as you hadnt used it. PCN's are basically fines for breach of contract and no-one has said that the fine is X plus the cost of the permit so why cant you have that money back?

 

This is not correct. PCNs are not issued for breach of contract. They are penalties ("Penalty" charge notice), like fines. You are issued with a penalty charge for contravening the regulations covered by the decriminalised parking scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not correct. PCNs are not issued for breach of contract. They are penalties ("Penalty" charge notice), like fines. You are issued with a penalty charge for contravening the regulations covered by the decriminalised parking scheme.

 

In many cases, contravention of a regulation IS a breach of contract.

 

Pay and display tickets for example, where it falls off the dashboard as the door is closed. The penalty is for failure to display rather than not having paid to park in the first instance

Link to post
Share on other sites
In many cases, contravention of a regulation IS a breach of contract.

 

Pay and display tickets for example, where it falls off the dashboard as the door is closed. The penalty is for failure to display rather than not having paid to park in the first instance

 

That is a breach of a traffic regulation order, NOT breach of contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a penalty for contravening the regulations. There's no contract, not least because the vehicle is in contravention - no-one is driving it when it's parked in a P&D bay - and a vehicle cannot enter into a contract. I think you are confusing PCNs with private parking charges, where they do rely on contracts (and which is very shaky legally, anyway).

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...