Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

Car Accident - Query re Liability


Migster
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3571 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

 

This morning my car was involved in a collision, whilst parked in the street outside my home. Another car was parked behind me, and a third party has smashed into this car, catapulting it forward into the back of my car. Unfortunately this third car failed to stop and whilst I saw them drive away, I was unable to catch the reg number, so I’m assuming they either won’t be traced by the police or even if they are, the car will be stolen, uninsured, etc.

 

I spoke to my insurers this morning and they indicated that in the event that the other driver isn’t traced, my claim would be against my policy, with the other (parked) car involved claiming off their own policy.

 

Is this correct or should my insurers claim off the car that actually hit me, even though the owner of that car was not actively involved? That would seem very unfair, but I seem to remember reading about similar scenarios on here, where it was stated that you claim off the car that hits you and they then claim for both costs off the third car.

 

Is anyone able to clarify what the normal policy is?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear this has happened, it is appalling when people do not stop after an accident.

 

The car behind yours has no liability to you as they are also an innocent victim. Unfortunately you would need to claim on your own policy and take the hit on your no claims bonus. The car behind yours will claim on their own policy as well.

 

I would contact the police with the make model and colour of the third car that fled the scene as they will be able to check if there was a car matching that description stolen in the area. If the vehicle is stolen and the theif was aprehended and charged then the insurers of the stolen car will cover your losses but only if the driver is identified.

 

Also check if there is any cctv cameras that the car would have gone past on the way to or from the scene and if so point out the camera locations to the police. Local shops and pubs almost always have cctv covering the road outside these days and are often a good source of footage but they dont keep the footage long so get a copy of the footage yourself.

 

Finaly any losses not covered by your insurers can be recovered from the motor insurers bureau untraced driver sceme subject to an excess of £300 unless the third car is identified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes agree with Angrycow. Not much you do here, unless this car is traced. The Police won't do much to trace the car and it may leave you a bit frustrated. Very unfair that you will suffer a loss, as a result of someone damaging your car and then doing a runner. Not only will you have the excess on your insurance for the repairs, but you will lose some no claims discount if not protected and will also have a premium loading applied. Depending on the repair costs, it might be more economical not to go through your insurance and to pay yourself. If the car/driver is then traced, you can take legal action to recover your loss, using any legal cover you may have on your policy.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies - unfortunately you have confirmed what I was expecting. My car was almost on its last legs anyway, having owned it since new in 2001 (though only 70k miles on the clock). I'm 99% certain that the damage is extensive enough to make it a write off, so it would not be practical/economical for me to pay for repairs myself. My no claims is protected so the hit for me is just the excess plus any uplift in future premiums (and, no doubt, getting stiffed on the payout from my insurers).

 

On the plus side, I'm now looking forward to getting a nice a new car...just have to decide if I go boring and practical or sporty and impractical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just thought I'd provide a quick update to say how impressed I was with the service I received from my insurers (Bell - part of Admiral). The accident happened on a Thursday morning, my car was recovered the following Monday and the settlement funds (it was written off as I expected) were in my account on the Wednesday, so all done and dusted in under a week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...