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

Littering Fixed Penalty Notice Swansea


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2669 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

I have received a fix penalty notice for depositing a cigarette end out of my car window. I have attached the evidence they have presented to me which I had as being the registered keeper.

 

The ironic thing is I dont smoke and have not done for 4 years (I now vape instead)

 

I wish to challange the ticket and I have attached photos of the paper work I have had.

 

I notice there is also an error on the ticket with the date of issue being October instead of december. I am seeking some advice please.

 

Many Thanks

IMG_20161230_144530.jpg

IMG_20161230_144543.jpg

IMG_20161230_144552.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Write back saying that i mr x, am the registered keeper of the said vehicle registration xxxxx, but on the date/time noted on the fixed penalty notice was not driving or a passenger of said vehicle. I do not smoke such cigarettes and do not know who was driving said vehicle on the day. Apologise that you are unable to assist with their investigation.

 

As it is not a parking penalty by Police or local authority and not an endorseable driving penalty, then i don't think you have any legal obligation to advise the name of the driver or whoever might have thrown the fag but out of the window.

 

I don't think you have any liability as registered keeper, if you are not responsible and they have no evidence it was you.

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

Ok, so just write back saying that you do not smoke cigarettes and no evidence of any litter from the car has been provided to support the allegation. All they have provided is a photo of the car.

 

Did they not stop to pick up this fag ?

 

It might have been a sweet wrapper you accidentally let blow out of the window. I would say that their evidence is not sufficient.

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

I have no idea what they did. I would have thought taking a picture of it leaving the car would have been a good idea. If I ask for more evidance does that delay the reduced fine or will the time this takes go over that and if they do go to court I would have to pay the much higher amount. Is there a legal set letter I can send.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your choice.

 

 

You either accept the penalty and pay the reduced amount.

Or you send a simple letter ( no template) saying that you don't smoke cigarettes and no evidence of a but has been provided.

 

 

They have to assess your letter and decide whether to take further.

 

I can't see them going to court, unless they have more evidence.

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

Yes if they had it.

They could go to court and just make a statement confirming that they saw the driver throw the butt out of the window, but it was not safe to stop to pick up the butt.

It would then be up to the court to decide.

 

You would make a statement that you don't smoke cigarettes and did not recall throwing anything out of the window.

 

Say the civil enforcement officer is mistaken,

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

He had a clear and unobstructed view...

Boll@x!

From the picture you can see that it's raining and his wipers are not clearing the windscreen.

Tell them to take the matter further if they want, that you don't smoke and you never threw anything out of the window.

In fact, as it was raining your window was probably shut.

These fraudsters infuriate me!

Motorists already pay a massive premium to keep the car on the road and then we are hit with all these extra hidden taxes, first of all having to pay to park the car on a public road.

We already did that with the road tax!!!

Sorry for the rant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I dont want to fall out with the person. Here are the things I am going to outline in my conversation

 

I dont Smoke I now vape

It was Raining so my window was closed

I am going to ask him to describe the person who was alleged to have thrown it out the window.

Why is there no evidence of anything being thrown other than your word for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr jones,

I note the content of your letter dated xx/xx/xxxx.

I dispute your CEO's statement for the following reasons:

1. I do not smoke

2. Nobody apart from me drives my car

3. The ceo claims of having had clear and unobstructed view when in fact I gather from his picture that it was raining and his wipers were not operating thus impairing his view.

4. You have offered no evidence of this alleged offence apart from your CEO's statement and a picture of my car bearing no date and/or time.

5. Your pcn shows the date of issue as 22 october/2016, and the offence date as 22 December /2016. I fail to understand how your ceo predicted in October that two months later I would have committed an offence and he would have been driving behind me.

6. When it rains I keep my windows shut so I don't get wet, therefore I couldn't have thrown anything out of my window.

7. The ceo at no point attempted to gain my attention. Being stationary in traffic he could have approached me, flash his headlights or do anything else to stop me and obtain my details for the purpose of reporting the offence.

 

I suggest you speak to your CEO again to understand what really occurred.

Should you decide to take this matter further and proceed with a court case, I will defend my position robustly and invoice you for all my expenses and losses.

I will copy this communication and any subsequent one to our local MP (name here) to find out what he/she thinks about a non smoker being wrongly accused of littering and abruptly asked to pay money to your local authority.

 

Regards

 

Your name here

Link to post
Share on other sites

He had a clear and unobstructed view...

Boll@x!

From the picture you can see that it's raining and his wipers are not clearing the windscreen.

Tell them to take the matter further if they want, that you don't smoke and you never threw anything out of the window.

In fact, as it was raining your window was probably shut.

These fraudsters infuriate me!

Motorists already pay a massive premium to keep the car on the road and then we are hit with all these extra hidden taxes, first of all having to pay to park the car on a public road.

We already did that with the road tax!!!

Sorry for the rant.

 

Ignoring your rant.. you do realise theres no such thing as a road tax right?

 

Also the view from the windscreen in that photo does look pretty clear.

 

The issue is that its just a photo of a car.

 

Nothing else.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Add this point:

 

8. You state that the "fine" is £75. I do not recollect being summoned to court where a fine would be imposed. Are you acting on behalf of HMCS and found me guilty without a fair trial? I find this disturbing and I will enquire with HMCS about your authority to act on their behalf.

 

 

Also change pcn to fpn (fixed penalty notice)

 

And add this last sentence:

Please accept this communication as my formal appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring your rant.. you do realise theres no such thing as a road tax right? Also the view from the windscreen in that photo does look pretty clear. The issue is that its basically just a photo of a car. Nothing else.

 

In fact, I don't see anyone throwing a cigarette out of the window.

Don't know where you live, but here in london motorists pay road tax.

Oh, hung on...

It's a vehicle tax!

Tomato... Tometo

Link to post
Share on other sites

no you pay vehicle tax.

 

 

and councils can issue FPN's without ref to anyone

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

twas in relation to the post above that one.

but id not be taking much notice of anything passed post 8 anyway...

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a problem with Kings letter.

 

But if you want my honest opinion, the best response letter should be as short and to the point as possible.

 

You don't smoke cigarettes

There is no evidence anything was thrown out of a window

The picture shows very rainy conditions and no window is open

You are confused by the allegation, as you would not throw anything out of a window.

 

It is up to those making the allegation to prove it and unless they can do so, i can't see them taking it further. If they do, you go to court and defend yourself. I can't see it would get that far.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...