Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unbelievably I can't find it, I will have a really good look for it when I have a bit more time on my day off this week. AS a side note, I emailed them offering a token payment to settle the account and avoid court action, which unsurprisingly they have declined. However there reply states:  A Claim was accepted on 19 June 2024 which means we cannot set up a payment plan just yet. You should have received a claims pack from the Court. We would ask for this to be completed with your offer of repayment and returned to either ourselves or the Court.  You have 21 days for this to be completed and returned in order to avoid a Judgment by Default. This means we would need to receive this by 10 July 2024. I was under the impression it was 19 days from date on the claim form. which was the 14th, which would be 3rd July. Could I use this against them as it seems like they are giving me false information in the hope of getting a judgement by default?
    • when is your mediation? honestly I don't think that the ups case is much use actually because it concerns third party rights BUT  as we know now the contract for packlink is direct and there are no third parties rights at all so you don't need it, and frankly the really helpful one will be from @occysrazor case but I don't know if they have it. expect evris mediation to be a complete fail yes
    • jk2054: I have ensured there's not reference to the third party rights in the updated letter of claim. BankFodder: thanks for the edits and information. I understand the Consumer Rights Act prohibits EVRi's attempts to avoid liability in their duty and care of accepting to deliver my parcel according to Section 57.  They have accepted to carry my parcel even though I have identified it as a laptop and specified the value so they must take reasonable care to deliver the parcel or face the consequences if it were lost as it seems to be in my case! I hadn't originally referenced Section 72 because of EVRi didn't offer any insurance whether free or for me to purchase. I understand that if I were to have any sort of insurance from EVRi then Section 72 refer to the rules of such secondary contracts. Is this section indicating that the insurance may reduce my rights or remedies to recourse to full compensation if I had been offered and purchased such insurance?  Is it beneficial to include this in the letter of claim (and subsequently reference both Section 57 and 72 in the MCOL?) although it might not be pertinent in my case?  Perhaps this is just to reinforce that in general EVRi and other couriers are taking such liberties with their customers so it is to send a message that they are breaching both sections? I made a few minor edits to the letter of claim but mainly grammatical type stuff and to keep consistent font, black colour, but the edits you provided are included and are extremely helpful and are putting me in a good position to email and post the letter to EVRi this week and get the ball rolling. Thanks. Evri letter of claim.pdf
    • Thank you for getting back to me I will do my best to get hold of the claim form tomorrow  When I spoke to MCOl on friday I asked for the extra 14 days so penty of time Onlymeagain
    • Hi, From everything I've read about how EVRi handle mediation, and given I intend not to budge on my position, I am preparing for court. Having read the the full WS and court bundl @occysrazor kindly supplied, I am wondering what value adding the Jamie Bradbury v UPS Limited has?  Obviously this case was lost by the claimant and the ruling clearly goes against the Farooq case and more recently @occysrazor's.  Is the case to include it simply to showcase my argument as being well rounded? Interested in your opinions. Many thanks, Sam 
  • 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

PCN Cont52 Kingston - (Surbiton Crescent KT6 - Council Trialing New Road Scheme

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2575 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'm hoping I can get some help/advice please.


Two days ago I received a PCN from Kingston Council

stating that I had committed a moving traffic offence for contravention 52 -

failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.



The alleged offence happened on 17/11/16 and the PCN was dated 25/11/16.

They have supplied 4 CCTV pictures which show my car in colour in 3 pictures but you cannot read the registration.

The fourth picture is blacked out and clearly shows just my registration number.

The road traffic signs are in the pictures but they are not very clear.


I'm looking to see if I can appeal the PCN as albeit I did drive through a restricted area it was a genuine mistake and there are some other circumstances I feel should be taken into consideration.


In October this year Kingston Council decided to trial a new scheme along part of the road I drove through (Surbiton Crescent KT6

prior to this there were no restrictions for any vehicles).



at one end there a small section where they have now restricted all motor vehicles (the sign displayed) except buses, cycles and taxis and for access.



They apparently allowed some sort of bedding in period and have by their own admission on the website issued over 5500 warnings to motorists who have missed the signs .



The new route along this road is to turn left onto any one of 2 roads rather than going through the restricted area.

There is only one other sign along this road pointing out the changes

but nothing significant to advise motorists that have used that road regularly that they have introduced this major change.

PCN from CCTV footage commenced 14/11/2016.


I believe that they have not put up enough signs to motorists who use this road on a fairly regular basis (myself included) to make them aware of the changes.



When I returned to view the road signs yesterday,

people were still driving through the signs which have been placed on temporary bollards along the actual road and others were also there after receiving PCN's for the same offence.


Can anyone offer any advice?



Link to post
Share on other sites

you can appeal using the mitigating factors you mention and hope that they give you a ticking off instead but ultimately if the Traffic Order is correctly in place ( check this) the you are legally stuffed.



If they havent been fining anyone and the signage has been there for a while then you can claim that the order hasnt been applied so no breach do to "performance" (legal term saying that they arent really interested in enforcing it so it has lapsed)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ericsbrother for your response.


How would I check if the Traffic Order is correctly in place?


Also have done a bit of research - with a contravention 52 should the PCN also have a letter ie a b c d attached advising which vehicles are prohibited as mine does not?

It just says "certain types of vehicle"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ford


Yes that looks to be the right one.


I think that the signs began going up in September and they kept adding more signs at the request of the residents!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also have done a bit of research - with a contravention 52 should the PCN also have a letter ie a b c d attached advising which vehicles are prohibited as mine does not?

It just says "certain types of vehicle"

may have prob seen the same googly info :)

from what 'it' has said, it may have to be more specific depend on the circs? ie, it may depend on the signage. what was the prohibititive signage at the time.


then there is their site


Link to post
Share on other sites

it looks like then it is re suffix 'm'?

seems to be re London only though (others having removed the suffix requirement).

wait see what the guys say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you enter Surbiton Crescent from the Maple Road Junction?


The Surbiton Road entry has No Entry signs with exception of Buses and Cycles (not Taxis)


Talk about total confusion.





Link to post
Share on other sites

Drove down Palace Road and then turned left into Surbiton Crescent,



there aren't any warning signs along this route about the changes.



RBK have hit the news in both Daily Mail and Surrey Comet

- over 12000 PCN's issued since 14/11/2016!!


On the side I entered it does also say for access,

but people are still receiving PCN's for access as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct, no prior warning signs exist in Palace Road. Anglesea Road has none neither.


This is an experimental scheme and you need to request the Traffic Management Order to see the details and conditions.


In my opinion, as this stands the signage is not fit for purpose. The signage that exists is not even illuminated after dark so i am sure nothing is being enforced when it is dark.


I walked around there today and in 40 mins I counted about 15 vehicles in each direction. Incidentally I did not see a single cyclist. Clearly the experiment isn't working as this section of 80 yards of road is supposed the be part of the Tolworth cycle route. I haven't a clue where the cycle route is suppose to go after it leaves this section. Then next section includes a 1 in 5 hill.


Regarding the except access. There is a car park at the rear of the school for about 20 cars. Also some private dwellings, a electrical sub station and a proposed development site. I can only assume that Access refers to accessing these places. How the camera knows who is accessing and where.... Perhaps an experimental camera!


I suggest you find some help to make an appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really considering looking a job at RBK council, they must have so much fun. What do they smoke all day?


According to a Daily Mail comment on this story, residents were asked to give their Registration details and any friends that might visit them and these Reg Numbers will not be sent tickets! Yeah baby.


What are they on? Something also experimental i guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having driven through this junction on 11th, 15th , 16th and 22nd Nov I can confirm that PCN's are only being sent out if you approach Surbiton Crescent from Kingston. It was also reported in the press that the council was issuing 'warnings to drivers' (thisisourtownkingston - link removed]) presumably prior to going live on Nov 14th, although I clearly did not get one for driving through on 11th and I'd love to know why?


As usual, Kingston Council delights in the revenue it generates by not clearly or fairly advising the car drivers who it loves to target who in this case, have used this junction for years and are now being once again persecuted for financial gain.


Besides a clear lack of information, it was also quite evident that you (a) cannot accurately see the 'no entry signs' until you've already turned into the junction and (b) the 'camera' sign only becomes visible once you are inside the road, as it positioned to high and is obscured by an other sign behind it.


However, having photographed this junction on 22/11, I can now see that yesterday 10/12 the no entry signs have been moved and angled toward the on coming traffic, giving marginally better warning to approaching drivers.


Therefore, Kingston Council must have conceded that the existing signage was in fact 'insufficient' to warn drivers. As this appears to be the case, then surely this means that all PCN's issued between 14/11 and the time that they changed the signs (early December, I think although no date is given) must now be rendered invalid?


On the day I photographed this junction, I was there for ten minutes and saw at least as many cars drive through, completely unaware that there were being targeted. I think this alone proves exclusively how Kingston council has a duty of care to inform motorists that they could be penalised before they are fined.


However, as is clearly evident, Kingston Council carries out poor practice in this regard and this needs to stop as at best, it only gives a bad name to the borough and its staff.


Therefore, I would like to see that; all motorists receive a warning letter initially instead of a PCN. This, I believe is the only way to honestly and fairly let motorists know that road layouts have changed.


However, given the disgraceful and embarrassing amount of revenue this has so far generated for RBK, I am sure they would never agree to it.


I would also like to see; Kingston Council publicly accept that they need to amend their practices in this area and move to become more transparent with their intentions as should be good practice at all times for a local authority.


Over 12000 PCN's in a 'crescent' between Nov 14th and Dec 11th. Really?


Do the decent thing Kingston. You've clearly made a mistake. Start sending out your best apologies and refunds before the year is out.

Edited by steve arthur
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have 2 tickets both on Thursday evenings 8.10pmish, dark, unlit signage, the sign I saw was give way to oncoming traffic then I was through the gap. Not enough time to read and notice all the signs in the dark, I am not local, entered Surbiton Crescent from Palace Road which doesn't have any advance warnings. This is disgraceful, this council should be ashamed of themselves. If you view the signs during the day, and are aware, then yes it is clearly marked but too much signage poorly designed and confusing when approached at 20-30mph. Fuming

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Yup been fined too!! However, look at the Traffic Management Order on the Kingston Council website. Google "Kingston Council TMO P236"


The schedule (page 2) says "Between 8am and 4:30pm on Mondays to Fridays inclusive" - doesn't this mean the TMO is not effective outside these hours?


My penalty was for a right turn into Surbiton Crescent at 17.45.


Am I missing something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Thanks ericsbrother for your response.


How would I check if the Traffic Order is correctly in place?


Also have done a bit of research - with a contravention 52 should the PCN also have a letter ie a b c d attached advising which vehicles are prohibited as mine does not?

It just says "certain types of vehicle"




Am new to the forum, so my apologies if am not doing things right.

I have 2 PCN am currently contesting, Kingston has rejected my appeal and now it's I have a hearing with the parking adjudicator. Just noted your point about letter 'm' and was wondering how you got on. Thanks would appreciate a quick response

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Hi Starzwin.


If you want some advice on your case, please would you start a thread and outline the situation and your grounds of appeal.


This traffic restriction has caused a lot of aggro. Looking at everything, I simply wonder whether it is appropriate to describe the restriction as a prohibition to cars and motorbikes "except buses and taxis or for access". Secondly does anyone know how a council decides to make this prohibition versus describing the arrangement as a bus lane, "except for access" - which is what it really is. That would be much clearer but requires very different signage.


Somebody in this thread noticed that the signs are not illuminated at night but I believe this is not needed when the speed limit is 20 or less

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...