Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Parked in a taxi rank for 10 seconds!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3615 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

Hello all

I parked in a taxi rank for 10 secs literally to pickup my girlfriend and been issued a 130 pound fine! Wow can't believe it. Anyway they have a photo of my car. What options do I have? I'm getting divorced so I didn't get this letter until today (was nearly 3 weeks ago) and moving home soon. Should I just ignore this? Can they affect my credit rating or send bailiffs round. I'm not leaving a forwarding address either.

Please help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more info. It's 45 contravention I wasn't fully parked in the bay half my car was in the road like over the marked taxi bay, 10 secs I was there maybe 20 but no more than that just while my gf jumped in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry one more thing. As I'm actually separated from my wife and not actually staying at the address where the letter went, could I just ignore as we're moving next week, and if it ever came on top deny receiving the notice? And sign a statutory declaration?

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring this would not be the best way to go about things

It will only lead to massive fees later on

And the removal of your vehicle once bailiffs get involved

They will catch up with you at some point

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best contact them tomorrow and explain the situation. Can you pay over the phone/internet if needs be?

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the worst thing you can do is ignore this and delaying payment will cost possibly many times more than £130. Is it worth what could be a long fight with little or no chance of success for £130?

 

You could try challenging when you phone and make it clear that you don't agree the fine is fair but I doubt it'll make a difference. If you pay you could challenge it afterwards without risk of more costs but I don't think you have much, if any chance of success.

 

Sorry if it's not the answer you hoped for, but it's honest.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the worst thing you can do is ignore this and delaying payment will cost possibly many times more than £130. Is it worth what could be a long fight with little or no chance of success for £130?

 

You could try challenging when you phone and make it clear that you don't agree the fine is fair but I doubt it'll make a difference. If you pay you could challenge it afterwards without risk of more costs but I don't think you have much, if any chance of success.

 

Sorry if it's not the answer you hoped for, but it's honest.

 

It's also wrong.

 

You cannot challenge a PCN over the phone - you have to do it in writing.

 

You should not pay it and also challenge it. A few councils may allow this but it's the wrong route - either do one or the other.

 

You have nothing to lose if you appeal now and get the appeal in on time. Your best bet seems to be to write a letter just explaining what happened and hope that they will do the decent thing. If they say no, then it's a no.

 

The fact is, there is no time limit for allowed parking in a taxi rank, so the title of this thread might just as well read, "parked in a taxi rank". That gets a PCN, so you wouldn't have a legal case beyond the normal appeal. If they decline it, you'd be best paying at that stage rather than thinking they'll never find you (they will!). It won't affect your credit rating at all, but bailiffs will be on the hunt for your car.

 

Worth a try with an appeal, I think. Bear in mind that they will reply to your current address, so you would need to chase them up if you don't get a reply in the next two or three weeks, otherwise it will time out and more charges will be added.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone agrees it is a rip-off and just a money-maker and nothing whatsoever to do with keeping traffic moving.

 

 

Unfortunately ANPR will eventually catch you and the bill could then be in the £thousands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent an email to their representations department saying this.

Vehicle registration *******

 

I write to say that as per the DVLA "log book" JOHN SMITH is not the owner of above registration or vehicle.

Please write to the owner to resolve this matter.

 

Is this ok to do? I didn't sign off as anyone that's all I said?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent an email to their representations department saying this.

Vehicle registration *******

 

I write to say that as per the DVLA "log book" JOHN SMITH is not the owner of above registration or vehicle.

Please write to the owner to resolve this matter.

 

Is this ok to do? I didn't sign off as anyone that's all I said?

 

It's certainly not OK to lie to them and could cause you more trouble.

As much as the V5 does not neccessarily mean the registered keeper is also the owner, it is the named keeper that will be considered responsible for parking offences

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Registered Keeper is held liable, but in law it is the owner who is really liable. The council makes the reasonable assumption that the registered keeper is the owner and pursues them initially. (The V5 shows the keeper, not the owner.)

 

If you deny ownership they will ask you for details of the actual owner. If you fail to provide them they will continue to pursue you. (If only it were that easy!). If you don't sign your statement they will ignore it, as it might not have come from the liable party (you).

 

If you make up an owner detail for them, they will eventually draw a blank and transfer liability back to you, so it will delay matters but not resolve things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Registered Keeper is held liable, but in law it is the owner who is really liable.

 

just an opinion...

 

I think within law it is the registered keeper who is liable and not the owner. If someone had a company car, then the V5 should show the registered keeper of the car (the employee) - whilst the owner (the company) owns the car, they are not liable for the keeper.

 

 

goingstraight - you sent them information saying that you are not the owner of the car and asking them to write to the owner to resolve the matter. it is the registered keeper (yourself) who is liable.

 

maybe you could research the legislation and requirements of taxi rank road markings. if there were errors in the road markings then you could possibly use those errors as a basis for your appeal.

 

ive done a quick google search and found this site:

http://www.parkingfinesandlines.com/FinesSignsLinesZone/BibleofUKParkingSignsLinesInterpreted.aspx

 

hopefully you will find that the taxi rank you parked in briefly does not conform to the required road markings and on that basis you should be able to challenge your penalty.

 

i strongly advise you not to use 'excuses' such as saying contact the owner as this is irrelevant.

If I've given you advice, then it is just my thoughts / opinions - doesn't mean I am right!

Link to post
Share on other sites

just an opinion...

 

I think within law it is the registered keeper who is liable and not the owner. If someone had a company car, then the V5 should show the registered keeper of the car (the employee) - whilst the owner (the company) owns the car, they are not liable for the keeper.

 

 

The person liable is the person named on the Notice to Owner. That person is the person the council believes to be the owner (hence, Notice to "Owner"). Probably 19 times out of 20 the registered keeper is also the owner, and since the registered keeper appears on the NTO, there's no issue.

 

There are two ways the owner can transfer liability onto someone else - one, if the car is a hire car and there is a contract proving it - then, the hirer can be made liable. And two, if it is a company car and again, there is a written agreement to those ends.

 

So, in the situation you describe, if the employee was listed at DVLA as the keeper, they could transfer liability onto the owner (the company). They would then transfer it back, on the basis that its a company car, and that would be the end of any dispute over liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DVLA log book doesn't say you don't own it. It just says it doesn't prove you own it. You may do, you may not.

 

The council hold responsible the person they believe to be the owner. If they believe you are the owner, it's up to you to convince them otherwise. If not, the debt sticks with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but I don't own it. The dvla log book says so. I've seen this argument before it's a mystery that no one can work out sneaky dvla monsters keep it quiet.

.

 

 

That is the rubbish that FOTL weirdos spout. If you start quoting things like that on here, you will find yourself with not a lot of friends but you will probably get abuse.

 

 

If you bought it, you handed over the money, but you are only the registered keeper, then who owns it ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...