Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

Residents Bay or P&D Bay

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3706 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I have uploaded all the files for viewing to my dropbox which can be accessed by the following link.




On 02/05/14 I drove northbound up Southampton Row, and turned left into Bloomsbury Place WC1, and saw a parking place directly on the left hand side.


Upon parking the view from my windscreen was a P&D payment box, and next to it a sign. I sat in my car and made payment by phone, following instructions on the sign I was looking at.


Upon returning I didn’t even notice I had been given a ticket, was only about half hour later when using my windscreen wipers that I notice the yellow packet sweep across my screen.


I my files you can see the Ringo payment, and from the photos I took on going back to the scene, I would have been parked where the black jeep is behind the white car.


In the pictures taken by Camden council, yes you can see I am parked in what appears to be a residents bay, however this was not seen from the angle of the driver only the P&D sign next to the tree. There is nothing on that sign to indicate that only the one single bay to the right of the sign was in fact a pay & display bay, but the one to the left was not.


I made an initial appeal against the PCN which has been rejected, a copy of their email is included in the files.


What puts a further spanner in the works in this particular case is that this is a company car, with the car owned by Alphabet leasing. Their policy when they receive a Notice to Owner is they will pay the charge, and then re-invoice my company + a nice admin charge, then someone will chase me for the full amount. In my experience once a PCN is paid you lose your right to appeal. So not sure how to go about this further complication.


So bit of advice would be welcome, if you think I do have a case worth appealing let me know, but again if I have been caught fair and square and is a lack of judgement on my part, also let me know and I’ll just pay learn by experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can defend this. The sign is slap bang next to the car. If you didn't see it, that's down to you - you can't use that as a reason to get the PCN cancelled. There's nothing apparently wrong with the signs or lines.


Moreover, the person liable will be the vehicle owner, and only they will be able to appeal from here. As you've said, they will pay it when the NTO arrives and invoice your company - so I don't think you can even appeal any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Code 12 is "Parking in a residents’ or shared use parking place without clearly either a permit or voucher or pay and display issued for that time"


Code 19 is "Parking in a residents’ or shared use parking place displaying an invalid permit, an invalid voucher or an invalid pay and display ticket"


So if you were in a residents bay without a permit of any kind, then code 12 is correct. If you had a permit, but it was invalid for some reason, then a code 19 is correct.


But in any case, as I said, only the vehicle owner will be able to contest it from here on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...