Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you all   JK, I agree; if they were to accept my full claim today, then the interest would be around 8-9 pounds. If I were them, I would have offered to pay the interest and said no to the 12 pounds for the letters. These have not been mentioned, which is my mistake.   As you pointed out, if the judge were to award at 4% and I did not get the letters, I would get less.   Bank, thank you. I do hear what you are saying. If I am to continue with this, then I will need to pay an additional trial fee of £59. If I win everything, then great, but if I win less the claim and court fee, then I lose out. I am not sure what the judge will think about the interest. I think we have to remember that I won the item and, therefore, did not pay a penny for it. Yes, I have had to purchase an additional one, but maybe the judge will hold this against me. I am content that this is a win. I have not signed any non-disclosure clauses, and they do not ask for this either in their offer. 
    • Are you saying that both businesses were closed? Yet you stayed there for over two hours. . If both were closed than to charge £100 is a penalty since Horizon had no legitimate interest in keeping spaces clear for the company. sake as there were no customers..
    • Well you would think that would be the case. Sadly i doubt there is one honest broker within the BPA or IPC and most of their members. they are there to take as much money as they can from motorists regardless of PoFA.   Take the Consideration  period for example. This is a minimum of 5 minutes to allow motorists to find a parking space, read the T&Cs giving them enough time to leave the car park without having to pay if they decide not stay. Simple. Well it would be simple if it were any other company than BPA [or IPC who have now fallen into line with BPA's "reasoning"].  You see if you decide to stay then despite the fact that during the Consideration period when you still weren't classed as parking , once you accept the terms [with all the underhand little tricks designed to trip you up] that five minutes is now included in your parking time. [No not the parking period because the poor dears who ANPR cameras are apparently unable to work out what the exact parking period is since their ever so infallible cameras [yeah right] are incapable of tracking cars once they are in a car park]. After 12 years they still haven't worked out a way of doing it. Some of them fudge and the majority [with a wink fro their ATA [Accredited Trade Association though it should be Discredited Trade Association] just ignore the parking period all together. This is what BPA claim is the Consideration period Entrance grace period: This is for when motorists enter a car park, read the signs and/or attempt to make payment then leave. In these instances, motorists must be offered a reasonable amount of time before an operator takes enforcement action, but we do not define this time, due to the variance in size and layout of car parks. An entrance grace period for a small, permit-only car park could be below 5 minutes, whereas for a large multi-story this could be 15. But  heaven forbid that anyone should leave 6 or 7 minutes after entering  their member's car parks. . They are dutybound to receive a PCN. This is regardless of how busy the car park would be [Christmas eve for example ] .Our minimum is their maximum. Moving on to Grace periods. Again BPA gobble degook. Exit grace period: This must be a minimum of 10 minutes and this is when a motorist intends to stay – for example, if you paid for an hour but spent a total of 1 hour 10 minutes on-site, you will not receive a PCN. It is important to note that the grace period is not a free period of parking however and should not be advertised as such. If that ten minutes in not free parking what is it. their members all think they can send out PCNs for anything after 1 minute after the exact time never mind ten minutes. Our snotty letters have stood the test of time. Do not try to reinvent the wheel -especially with DCBL . They don't even know what a non compliant PCN is for goodness sake! You already know more about PoFA then they do. However if you include that they will find a way to disabuse the Judge of your logic and the law. So don't give them the chance.  I am sure you have the Parking Prankster going on about the rogues misusing the rules on planning permission by lying and stating that they had "retrospective permission". There is no such thing in English law yet Judges were swallowing it until one Judge pulled up Parking Eye about one of their Witness Statements alluding to "rp" by claiming it was "tantamount to perjury".  It wasn't tantamount,it was plain and simple perjury. Parking Prankster: The great private car park planning approval scam PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM Guest blog from shuteyepark, from the Consumer Action group forums In December 2013 my daughter received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) fro... Hope it wasn't too long winded Nicky Boy.🙂
    • and more immediate issues WT* is the UK doing. Ukraine needs these funds and weapons NOW Lets sincerely hope this isnt another Tory VIPal skimming issue.   MoD accused of ‘go-slow’ with half of £900m Ukraine fund unused | Defence policy | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Delays mean just £404m of the money donated by nine countries has been committed or spent  
  • 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 2937 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A short extract from the article:

 

A Gateshead motorist may be the worst parker in Britain - after racking up more than 600 tickets.

 

Figures obtained through a Freedom of Information request have revealed that a vehicle in Gateshead has received 653 parking tickets- owing Gateshead Council more than £55,000 in fines.

 

Another vehicle in the area has been given 283 parking tickets, with £23,985 owed in fines relating to the vehicle.

 

It was followed by one in Newcastle that has been ticketed 272 times, owing £16,454 in fines.

 

I little known fact is that a motorist is considered a 'Persistent Evader' if he has 'three or more' unpaid penalty charge notices and there are specific regulations that apply to such cases and most importantly, the obligation to remove the vehicle. Many people have been caught by this regulation (in particular in London).

 

The vast majority of 'Persistent Evaders' have vehicles that are worth just a couple of hundred pound and they could not care less if it was taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Persistent evader?' A wonderful term that immediately places the accused into a position of 'offender' but which in reality has no meaning whatsoever.

 

Persistent evader of what? Three or more accusations of alleged contraventions all based on a presumption of guilt?

 

To those reading - you all owe me £10 - because i say so.

 

Proof? How imperious of you to ask as my accusation is quite enough in law. Ignore me three times and you automatically become a persistent evader of nothing more than an unproven accusation, however the law is with me

 

Perhaps we should stand up to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A short extract from the article:

 

A Gateshead motorist may be the worst parker in Britain - after racking up more than 600 tickets.

 

Figures obtained through a Freedom of Information request have revealed that a vehicle in Gateshead has received 653 parking tickets- owing Gateshead Council more than £55,000 in fines.

 

Another vehicle in the area has been given 283 parking tickets, with £23,985 owed in fines relating to the vehicle.

 

Its was followed by one in Newcastle that has been ticketed 272 times, owing £16,454 in fines.

 

I little known fact is that a motorist is considered a 'Persistent Evader' if he has 'three or more' unpaid penalty charge notices and there are specific regulations that apply to such cases and most importantly, the obligation to remove the vehicle. Many people have been caught by this regulation (in particular in London).

 

The vast majority of 'Persistent Evaders' have vehicles that are worth just a couple of hundred pound and they could not care less if it was taken.

 

 

 

Can you point out the "specific regulations" that apply, I would be very interested to read them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point out the "specific regulations" that apply, I would be very interested to read them?

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/496987/operational-guidance.pdf

 

8.116 When parked in contravention, a persistent evader’s vehicle should be

subject to the strongest possible enforcement following the issue of the

PCN and confirmation of persistent evader status. This is likely to

involve immobilisation or removal.

 

Not having a very good day are you pote :-)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/496987/operational-guidance.pdf

 

8.116 When parked in contravention, a persistent evader’s vehicle should be

subject to the strongest possible enforcement following the issue of the

PCN and confirmation of persistent evader status. This is likely to

involve immobilisation or removal.

 

Not having a very good day are you pote :-)

 

I think the clue was in the word guidance! Fair parking has understood it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the clue is government guidance. :-)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well looking around i think the measure is included in a few by-laws, but what's in a name.

The fact is that this measure is available to the authority under these circumstances, this kind of trivia is really only of interest to people like you who are trying to score some kind of point. Certainly not worth further comment from me.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

For London Councils

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2008/3/part/5/enacted

 

Reference made in 16

 

Oh yes and that seems to be an Act no less :-)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the clue is government guidance. :-)

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/18

 

18Guidance to local traffic authorities

 

(1)The appropriate national authority may publish guidance to local traffic authorities about the techniques of network management or any other matter relating to the performance of the duties imposed by sections 16 and 17.

 

(2)In performing those duties a local traffic authority shall have regard to any such guidance.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not mandatory and the word "May" is used so doesn't have to be followed.

 

 

 

(2)In performing those duties a local traffic authority shall have regard to any such guidance

 

THe word "may" refers to the guidence being produced. It has.

Edited by Andyorch
edited

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

(2)In performing those duties a local traffic authority shall have regard to any such guidance

 

THe word "may" refers to the guidence being produced. It has.

 

 

When did most councils worry about "Government Guidance" its about revenue mostly and what they can get away with.

Edited by Andyorch
edit
Link to post
Share on other sites

TMA 2004 Section 79-1-b-ii makes reference to release of vehicle on payment of earlier penalties.

 

Yes thanks doggone, i hadn't noticed that.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

When did most councils worry about "Government Guidance" its about revenue mostly and what they can get away with.

 

The quote was from the TMA, statute ???

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...