Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its called reading up.................... they have 28days to do 'something'  though with court delays that can be 2mts before you might be able to guess its become autostayed. dx    
    • surely it should not matter.  as long as a driver is insured to driver the car. the V5C RK name does not have to match . then you can take as long as it takes. 
    • Today I received a MCOL  claim notification haven't been able to log on to see what he put in the claim He has failed to provide information required  pre action I have not received bill or details of what the other builder has done I have not received a letter before action  I had a verbal request to pay half of the new builders re-work  cost  I received an email stating if I didn't pay within 72 hours he would make a claim against me in the county court I did offer to pay £300 for the snagging which in my opinion was sufficient to cover any labour or materials on the minor items He went ahead and re worked the whole of the bathroom area without discussing it with me He has made a claim for £2400 He had taken it upon himself to carry out all of the works without recourse or discussion with me, other than an email saying he wasn't happy with some of the finish surrounding a curved wall and an extractor duct he stated he had lost confidence in me and had appointed someone else to carry out the work The original cost of the full garage conversion was £10400, building control were fully involved and passed all inspections I quoted in writing detailing the work I would carry out with a single price for the whole job no photos of the finished job he has taken lots of photos and videos but not shared them with me onlymeagain  
    • Evening All I am now working on pulling together my bundle of docs for Court (it needs to be submitted by 8 July) and have three parts I'd be most grateful for your thoughts on please. The first is a time line / case summary, the second concerns Items Not In Dispute and the third (I hope) sets out where P2Gs insistence that they are only liable for the first £20 of any claim falls foul of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and also cites three cases where different judges found against P2G and ParcelHero Ltd when they attempted to argue their very limited liabilty was warranted. Anonymised pdfs of all three sections are attached. Given that in their Defendant's Response P2G appear to have conceeded that the eventually delivered parcel was empty, and that the contents had not been handled with due care and attention, do I need the amount of detail I have included in the summary document, or do you consider a significantly shortened version would suffice? As ever, many thanks g59 Description of unenfoceable insurance requirements for my bundle.pdf Issues Not In Dispute - anonymised.pdf P2G Timeline and case summary - anonymised.pdf
    • the temp frozen bank A/C will be under the money laundering rules. he must be transferring large sums of money in/out a UK bank account from abroad and the automatic system has fagged him. now he must wait for a human to intervein.  can take anything upto 2mts see the barclays forum. you cant get a CO for CTAX as that would need a CCJ FIRST  9/10 council dont go for CCJ's on CTAX debt , as they can go direct to bailiffs  but they are powerless as there is no right of force entry. dx    
  • 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

Received a PCN cont 30 parked longer than permitted


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2615 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

Good Evening

today I have been the recipient of a nice little piece of paper requiring me to pay £50 to the council for a parking infringement.

 

The PCN states it was contravention 30, parked for longer than permitted.

 

However I was not parked in a limited waiting area, i was actually parked on DYL which should be an 01 offence however i also had my blue badge on display....

so the question is can i appeal this pcn on the basis that the ticket was incorrectly issued on the basis of the wrong contravention code.

 

cheers

lets

ps was parked for longer than the 3 hours on the badge

Link to post
Share on other sites

so the question is can i appeal this pcn on the basis that the ticket was incorrectly issued on the basis of the wrong contravention code.

 

Yes you can. The council, of course, will reject your challenge, so the real question is whether an adjudicator would accept the arguement that when the 3 hrs allowed with a blue badge runs out, the contravention becomes parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours or that you were parked longer than permitted due to the BB exemption.

 

Your call, but personally I'd pay the discount

Link to post
Share on other sites

The code should be the offence cited and you admit overstaying. The ticket was correctly issued. The CEO could have gone for the 01 but didnt, they could have issued a ticket citing both infringements but didnt so they cant apply the 01 retrospectively. You can bet that the notes of the CEO will corroborate the ticket so the best bet is as suggested, pay up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

 

Code 30 is for staying longer than allowed in a parking bay. For DYL there's no such contravention. After the blue badge exemption expires (three hours) you are in contravention of the DYL - code 01 should be used.

 

Definitely appeal it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi All

Just to update, I appealed the PCN on the basis of the CEO used the wrong contravention code and the response I got was

" As you are aware the Penalty Charge was issued to you as your vehicle was parked in excess of 3 Hours on double yellow lines, In light of the fact however that the Civil Enforcement Officer used an incorrect contravention code i am willing on this occassion to accept your representation and i have arranged for the cancellation of this Penalty Charge Notice.

 

PCN CANCELLED

 

 

cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Jamberson ....here is the appeal I Used

 

I managed to get back to my car today at 16:30 hrs

This exact location does indeed have a parking restriction and that restriction is

the presence of 2 Yellow Lines.

with this restriction being in place a disabled driver can then park on said DYLs

for a maximum of 3 hours. with no return to that location within one hour.

The Pcn that was issued stated that contravention 30 had occurred, (parked

longer than permitted) which occurs when a car is parked for longer than the

allotted time in a restricted street, for example limited waiting area.

Therefore I believe this PCN has been issued incorrectly.

If however you do believe the PCN was issued correctly, and it is believed that I

should be paid, then I would be inclined to appeal further...and therefore I would

like a copy of the issuing officers pocket book showing details of my car and log

details a copy of the computer log from SIDem showing where and when my car

was logged in and how many times it was logged and what the vehicle valve

positions were at the times of the car being logged in. as well as this information I

would also like to see a copy of each of the photos that where taken by the CEO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...