Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
  • 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 Towed Away and Impounded by The Council


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3396 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

 

My niece and her boyfriend had broke down in her car, so they push it off the road onto the kerb. She tried for 20 minutes to start the vehicle but it could not be started. I came back with them early next day with my vehicle transporter trailer, but the car had been towed and impounded by the council.

 

I thought this was a matter for the police, to remove vehicles which are illegally or dangerously parked? Her's was parked safe by the way even though on the kerb.

 

She put this to the council but they want her to pay fine then she gets her car. Also the council requested she prove it had broken down that night, but were unwilling to meet at car yard to be showed. How can this be proved if the council are not willing to come and see for theirself.

 

Any advice welcome.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was in London and the contravention was footway parking you will have to rely on Council goodwill to cancel the ticket as breaking down is not an exemption for footway parking as obviously you are unlikely to be driving on the footway when you break down.

 

 

 

I recall some adjudicators using the exemption below where they've sympathised.

 

 

(3) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the vehicle was parked-

© for the purpose of rendering assistance at the scene of an accident or a bona fide breakdown involving one or more vehicles and –

(i) such assistance could not have been safely or satisfactorily rendered if the vehicle had not been so parked;

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall some adjudicators using the exemption below where they've sympathised.

 

 

(3) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the vehicle was parked-

© for the purpose of rendering assistance at the scene of an accident or a bona fide breakdown involving one or more vehicles and –

(i) such assistance could not have been safely or satisfactorily rendered if the vehicle had not been so parked;

 

 

 

'RENDER' means to provide or give NOT receive, how was the vehicle parked to give assistance at the scene of a breakdown?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As we all know adjudicators arrive at their own interpretations. The decisions I recall reading interpreted it as rendering/giving assistance to a vehicle rather than a person which enabled them to say it was acceptable to assist in the breakdown of your own vehicle.

 

 

 

Regardless of any dubious interpretation you seem to have forgotten to cut and paste part 2 of the exemption...

 

 

(ii)the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked

 

 

I would like to see the OP explain to PATAS how the Council managed to tow the vehicle without him noticing or convince them that he stayed with the car overnight as it actually broke down the day before?

Link to post
Share on other sites

PATAS case 211011761A is an example of a breakdown being accepted. As for "attendance" that is a bigger hurdle but PATAS has ruled previously that a person does not have to remain physically with the vehicle at all times. Case 2110097829 being one ruling. If the breakdown can be proved and if the vehicle was being attended to in some form such as arranging for it's removal/repair then a reasonable adjudicator may allow the appeal. Since there is nothing to lose I would appeal and attend a personal hearing to give it the human touch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just goes to show adjudicators can be as stupid as drivers on occasions! I fail to see how any normal person would think moving the car so as not to inconvenience other road users whilst at the same time obstructing the footway is acceptable or how you can park a vehicle on the footway to give assistance to yourself, but such is the stupidity of the adjudication system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Just goes to show adjudicators can be as stupid as drivers on occasions! I fail to see how any normal person would think moving the car so as not to inconvenience other road users whilst at the same time obstructing the footway is acceptable or how you can park a vehicle on the footway to give assistance to yourself, but such is the stupidity of the adjudication system.

 

 

So what should have been done? Leave car in middle of a busy road hoping you don't get hit. The car's passenger side was put on a kerb so it did not trouble passing vehicles or hinder any of the public walking on pavement

 

 

Anyway, a letter been received from council wanting storage payment etc or log book. It makes you lose your faith in humanity. Ridiculous!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...