Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3681 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

Help please.

I have a blue badge and parked in what I thought was a legal space. It was a sunday and parking restrictions are lifted all day.

I returned to find I had a PCN contravention code 12. " Parked in a resident's or shared use parking space without clearly displaying a permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place".

I had missed the sign saying permit holders only. There were 2 permit holder spaces and 6 pay and display spaces.The pay and display machine states that payment is required Mon-sat in permitted spaces.

I challenged the PCN and it has been declined stating that as a blue badge holder I should know where I can park. I accept that if the wording had said "parking in a permit holders only space " I would have accepted the PCN.

I am confused by the wording. Could a pay and display and ticket have been purchased ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some parking bays are for resident permit holders only. Some bays can be used for either resident permits, or pay & display, and are called shared use bays.

 

To simplify their processes, and keep the number of contravention types as low as possible, councils use the same code for both of these types of bay - code 12 - "Residents OR shared use".

 

It does not follow that because a code 12 is issued, the bay must be shared use. In your case, it sounds like resident permits only, and the code 12 would be correct. Purchasing a pay & display ticket wouldn't have allowed you to park in a permit only bay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't recall hearing of a correctly displayed BB and clock (assuming that was so) not being valid in a Resident Permit bay? It is a common exemption in most traffic Orders.

 

I suggest you ask for the relevant Order and post it here.

 

Show the rejection ---- because you say they refer to 'you should know where to park'. Well, yeah but what info did you get with the BB on where exempt and what applies locally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't recall hearing of a correctly displayed BB and clock (assuming that was so) not being valid in a Resident Permit bay? It is a common exemption in most traffic Orders.

It's true a few councils do allow BB holders to park in resident bays, but it's not a common exemption.

 

The general rule, as per BB scheme, is that BB holders are not allowed to park in resident bays:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-blue-badge-scheme-rights-and-responsibilities-in-england

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true a few councils do allow BB holders to park in resident bays, but it's not a common exemption.

 

The general rule, as per BB scheme, is that BB holders are not allowed to park in resident bays:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-blue-badge-scheme-rights-and-responsibilities-in-england

 

I stand corrected. Thanks Michael.

 

Worth a check of local policy on letting off first time BB offenders maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone

Thanks for all your help.

I will be taking your advice and pay the reduced rate. I have challenged the ticket already and they upheld the PCN even though I had told them that it was genuine mistake.

I will just have to be more observant next time I park in that area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...