Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3695 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,

 

 

Would appreciate some urgent help on this issue please

as my deadline for appealing this PCN is just hours from expiring.

 

I was recently visiting a local hospital (St Helier in Carshalton) and

parked on a nearby street.

 

Days later and to my horror,

I received a PCN from Sutton Council stating that I had been guilty of the following parking regulation:

 

Contravention Code: 62J Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath

or any part of a road other than a carriageway.

 

Naturally, I was rather peeved to receive this PCN as I did not believe I had caused any contravention at all

and these are therefore the main grounds for me wishing to challenge this PCN:

 

1) Due to the narrowness of that particular stretch of road,

just about every single vehicle parked on that road has to do so with two wheels on the pavement.

Anything else other than that would practically cause a road block.

 

2) I believe that my vehicle was parked reasonably and did not restrict or inhibit pedestrian access in any way.

 

3) The signage erected a few metres away from my vehicle only instructs motorists

to park in marked bays but crucially, does not state that parking on that road is restricted to marked bays only.

 

4} There were no road markings (yellow lines, red lines, etc)

or other form of parking restriction on any part of the road where my vehicle was parked.

 

5) I have documentary evidence in the form of a letter from St Helier,

confirming my claim that I was visiting the hospital as an A&E patient

at the time of the alleged contravention.

 

Do the above points give me good grounds for a successful appeal?

 

I would really appreciate some prompt advice and feedback on this please.

 

I have provided copies of the council’s images of the alleged contravention and also of the nearby parking sign.

 

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sutton is a London Borough and as such parking on the pavements is not allowed anywhere .

 

The sign you have posted does allow for parking partially on the pavement but only in designated bays,

which you weren't.

 

Other users here may be able to notice an impropriety

but if time is that short I doubt you will get an answer within the timescale you need.

 

Looks to me that, unless this was a CPZ, you could have parked wholly on the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the prompt feedback @spb1957. Really appreciate it.

 

I'll take a rain check by close of play today and

if the general consensus from other forum members is that I have no defence,

then sadly I have to swallow the bitter pill and settle the fine while

I still have the opportunity to do so at the reduced rate.

 

 

Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to PCN Contravention 62J
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...