Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Dear xxxxx   complaint about Logbook Money Limited   The complaint Xxxxxx took out a logbook loan with Logbook Money. Xxxx told us Logbook Money didn’t carry out any affordability checks prior to the loan. Xxx said they have missed information on requesting evidence i.e. payslips and they have conflicting information about a utility bill xxxx provided them.   Xxxxxx told us xxxxx had several large payday loans which all had defaulted including a large guarantor loan to amigo, and Logbook Money should have seen this when carrying out a soft credit checks as told. Xxxxxxxx also told us Logbook Money have applied £884 in charges to an initial loan of £1000.     Details of the agreements (Logbook Loans)   Loan number Start date Capital amount Total repayable Weekly repayment Duration 31 August 2019 £1,000 £2,800.20 £35.90 18months   My understanding is the loan isn’t settled yet. Findings Our approach to considering complaints about unaffordable and irresponsible lending is set out on our website. I’ve had this approach in mind when considering what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.   Did Logbook Money complete reasonable and proportionate checks to satisfy itself that xxxxxxx would be able to repay the agreement in a sustainable way?   Logbook Money have provided us with the documents they have relied on which includes customer information, income, and outgoings, driving licence, copy of the agreement and bill of sale. They told us they used xxxxxx bank statement to complete the income and expenditure at the time, however due to the lapse of time they don’t hold the statement any longer.   The income and expenditure from the time of sale shows net income was around £2,300, this includes private rent, child tax credit and DWP and her monthly expenditure was £764. This left xxxxx with a disposable income of £1,536 of which she would be expected to make a weekly payment of £35.90.     Considering everything, I think Logbook Money completed reasonable and proportionate checks based on the size of the loan, the interest charged, the monthly repayments and length of the agreement.   Did Logbook Money make a fair lending decision?   As I think Logbook Money carried out a reasonable and proportionate checks, I have gone onto consider whether it made a fair lending decision based on the information it obtained about xxxxxxx circumstances at the time.   Since Logbook Money said they don’t hold the bank statements any longer, I asked xxxxxxx to provide me with the statements. From what I’ve seen, xxxx monthly income across the xxxxx and xxxxxxx account appear to broadly support her income of £2,333 which reflects in the income and expenditure from the time. However, the bank statement I received from xxxxxxx shows outgoings were higher at around £1,344, which indicated a monthly disposal income of around £937 from which xxxxxxx would be expected to make the £35.90 weekly loan repayment. This indicates xxxx still had enough disposable income to be able to sustainably afford the monthly payments towards the agreement.   The screen shot of the credit report xxxxxxxxx sent to me shows Vodaphone, Three and Vanquis account has worsened in August 2019, however this information isn’t enough for me to understand what the credit report reflected at the time -  for e.g. if there were any large balances outstanding, defaults, CCJ’s, accounts in arrears, or missed payments   I asked for further information on 17 November 2021 – a full credit report from the time, including the statement of the account number xxxxxx and statements for all other active account +/-3months the loan start date. Since I haven’t receive the information, I can’t say what this would’ve looked like.   I don’t think there was anything in the information Logbook Money gathered that ought to have highlighted any concerns about xxxxxxx being able to sustainably afford the agreement. I therefore don’t think Logbook Money acted unfairly in approving the finance.   Did business act unfairly in any other way   Xxxxxx told Logbook Money xxxx is unhappy the way the vehicle was repossessed and how the debt was pursued. Logbook Money told us there were two attempts made to repossess the car prior to the actual repossession on 1 August 2021. The first attempt was made on 10 June and the second one was on 5 July 2021, however both attempts were unsuccessful. This would mean xxxxxxx was aware that the vehicle was at risk of repossession. Logbook Money provided us a copy of the default notice that was sent to xxxxxx in December 2020, which outlines the importance of clearing any arrears outstanding and the risk of repossession.   From the information Logbook Money provided us, it shows the vehicle was released to xxxxxxx after xxxxx made a payment.   Regarding the personal belongings xxxxxx said she had in the car at the time the vehicle was repossessed - Logbook Money told us the recovery agent left a message for xxxxxx to contact them to arrange to collect belongings.   In reviewing this case I’ve thought very carefully about the way the business pursued the outstanding debt and considered whether I felt that business fell short of its obligations in responding to xxxxxxx situation.   While I’m sure that this situation may have caused distress and/or inconvenience, I don’t think that this stemmed from Logbook Money making a mistake or acting unfairly or unreasonably. So, I haven’t made any recommendation in relation to this.  Next steps I think this is a fair outcome in the circumstances, for the reasons I’ve explained. But if xxxxxx decides that xxx doesn't accept what I’ve said, then please let me know by 10 December 2021. If I can’t resolve things then an ombudsman here can look at everything again and make a final decision. If I don’t hear from you by that date we might not be able to look at xxxxxxxxx 
    • god this is frustrating for you.   i'll ping @Andyorch p'haps he has an idea, not one of our past history strengths that i can find.   dx  
    • In 2015 I invested £45,200 in a SIPP operated by Guinness Mahon, which is linked to Dolphin, later German Property Group. GPG went into administration to Feb 2020. My SIPP was due to mature in April 2020.   I first took my claim to FSCS. They rejected my claim, I appealed and still got rejected. Their reason was that Wellington CFS signatures were involved in my pension transfer into the SIPP. This was a surprise to me.    I then emailed and called Wellington, several times, eventually receiving an email stating I did not exist in their records.   I then opened a case with FOS. My case has not yet been assigned a case handler.  From what I learned from others caught up in GPG. Wellington are stating their signatures were used fraudulently. Yet there is evidence of them taking fees.    If you want to read more there is a GPG creditors association Facebook site. You will find others on there in the same position. I did write to Wellington CFS and never got a reply.   If you call their Ireland number you get an answer machine. Their office in Devon, does pick up but this is just a receptionist, takes a message and alas no one gets back to you.   I also heard Wellington CFS is linked to Spain. I think the best outcome is that Wellington go into administration, at this point FSCS will be the last resort. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Registered disabled - violation for parking in a disabled bay!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1528 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

5.3 Off-street car parks

 

The Blue Badge scheme does not apply to off-street car parks whether local authority or privately owned.

Advisory spaces are marked out for the use of disabled people, but they are not enforceable and there is no legal sanction to prevent other people using them. (Just above 5.3)

 

 

If you read both together you can see a great argument, as in this case, off street and Council.

 

 

 

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01360/SN01360.pdf

 

Edited by mikeymack2002
added more info

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Advisory spaces are marked out for the use of disabled people, but they are not enforceable and there is no legal sanction to prevent other people using them.

That is about on street parking, nothing to do with off street car parks.

"The Blue Badge scheme does not apply to off-street car parks whether local authority or privately owned." is true obviously but irrelevant to Sad sam's situation. He didn't get a PCN for breach of the Blue Badge regulations. He got a PCN for breach of the "rules" set by the car park operator for the use of the car park.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't get a PCN for breach of the Blue Badge regulations. He got a PCN for breach of the "rules" set by the car park operator for the use of the car park.

 

100% right.

 

Parking provision under the Blue Badge scheme is of no relevance to this situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The next reasonable adjustment needs to be made in the appeals process, where a disabled person can show they are entitled to park there due to the nature of their disability, and the council should waive the penalty.

 

It's easier all round if people apply for and correctly use Blue Badges, so that situations like this don't arise. However they aren't obliged to under DDA, and have a legal right to use the obligatory parking provisions.

 

At the end of the day if Councils permitted people to use expired badges there would be nothing to stop friends and relatives using the other one or visa versa.

 

The DDA requires councils to make provisions for disabled persons, the BB scheme fulfills that requirement.

 

The OP has already stated he used the badge in a friends car,

how is anyone including the OP to know if the friend was using the badge or not?

 

The parking was not restricted in anyway so the blue badge was not even required to enable the op to reach the shops,

it was only displayed to avoid paying

 

 

upon realising it was expired he could have simply paid the parking charge and put it down to his own forgetfullness rather than try to avoid paying fraudulently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

nice to see you around...

 

 

nothing to stop...it goes on every day in most car parks..

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

At the end of the day if Councils permitted people to use expired badges there would be nothing to stop friends and relatives using the other one or visa versa.

 

True, except it's against the law. Very hard to prevent though.

 

The DDA requires councils to make provisions for disabled persons, the BB scheme fulfills that requirement.

 

It fulfills the requirement up to a point. Say you are disabled and have a BB - the council has to make provision for you. Now your BB expires and as you rarely use a car you don't bother to re-apply. You are still disabled, the council still has the same duty to make allowances, and so you should still be able to use a disabled parking spot. The fact that the council uses BBs as a way to operate is just a practicality - not a legal absolute.

 

The OP has already stated he used the badge in a friends car,

how is anyone including the OP to know if the friend was using the badge or not?

 

They aren't - hence the CEO was right to issue a PCN. Next comes the appeals process.

 

The parking was not restricted in anyway so the blue badge was not even required to enable the op to reach the shops,

it was only displayed to avoid paying upon realising it was expired he could have simply paid the parking charge and put it down to his own forgetfullness rather than try to avoid paying fraudulently.

 

No, as I understand it, the OP needed to use the parking spaces which were well located. It wasn't about whether he had to pay for a ticket, it was about whether he was entitled to use that space to park. That's why the disabled bays are near to doors etc - nothing to do with payment, it's to do with easy access.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Dear All

 

Thank you for the advice/debate.

As I promised I would update you on the appeal process.

 

As you can see the Adjudicator covered my argument points, as unsympathetically as many on here advised (truth hurts).

This hopefully will assist others in a similar position as to what works & what doesn't.

 

This appeal concerns a PCN issued for being parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the prescribed manner.

M******** has raised a number of issues including the position of the disabled bays in this car park and the uneven surface over which disabled motorists have to walk.

 

Whilst he may or may not be correct that these issues show a failure on the part of the Council to make reasonable adjustments for the disabled, in breach of the Equality Act 2010 and other legislation, I find they are not relevant to this appeal.

 

M******** is at liberty to commence proceedings against the Council concerning these issues, if he chooses to do so, but the nub of this appeal is quite simple, namely that the contravention is being parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the prescribed manner and this is a question of fact that has nothing to do with the position of individual disabled parking bays or the car park surface.

 

A secondary issue, once the first point has been decided, is whether the signage on site is adequate to warn users of the disabled bays of the terms of use.

 

The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/682), as amended and the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 regulate the parking for disabled badge users on-street. In off-street car parks, their place is taken by the individual Councils’ Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs).

 

There is no requirement as to the provision of parking in the Equality Act 2010.

However, public bodies must not, in the exercise of their functions, “do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation” of the disabled.

 

M******** seeks to argue that disabled parking means that all disabled should be able to park in a designated disabled bay, regardless of whether or not they hold, or display, a valid blue badge.

 

However, as the government documentation that he has produced sets out: –

“There is no automatic entitlement to a Blue Badge for those suffering from a mental, cognitive or intellectual disability: autism is one of the conditions most commonly raised in this context. Entitlement will depend on whether the condition causes an individual to be unable to walk or have very considerable difficulty in walking”

so it can be seen that the entitlement to a disabled badge is actually strictly defined and is not generally available to all of the disabled.

 

M******** poses the question as to whether a disabled badge holder can make a mistake and is it reasonable to be fined for a mistake?

The simple answer is that if a disabled driver fails to comply with the terms of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) that regulates the parking in the car park that they are using, then even if that failure has been due to an innocent mistake e.g. displaying a valid disabled badge face down; knocking it on the floor when getting out of the vehicle, then a contravention will have occurred and a penalty will, in principle, be due to the Council.

 

To deal firstly with whether or not a contravention occurred in this case, under the terms of Article 12 of the relevant TRO, if a vehicle is to be left in a designated disabled bay without a contravention occurring, it has to display a valid disabled badge in the relevant position, which is on the fascia or dashboard so that the front of the badges legible from outside of the vehicle.

There is no dispute between the parties that that did not occur on this occasion.

 

M******** argues that the Council has failed to make reasonable adjustment for the disabled in the requirement that a valid disabled badge has to be displayed.

I am afraid I cannot accept this as if there was no requirement to display a valid disabled badge, anyone could park in a disabled bay and then argue that they had a disability, which would drive a coach and horses through the provision of disabled parking.

I am satisfied that the badge on display in the vehicle when it was seen by the CEO had expired on expired 1st October 2016.

I am also satisfied that having expired, the badge was no longer valid and that being so, that the contravention occurred.

 

As to the second issue, namely the adequacy of the signage on site,

the sign at the entrance to the car park shows a wheelchair symbol and then the wording “free parking for up to 3 hours”.

It is not until a motorist gets to the Tariff Board that this wording is expanded so that it sets out that in order to have free parking for a disabled user, a “valid blue badge must be displayed”.

 

It may be implicit within the use of the wheelchair symbol that a disabled badge is expected to be displayed, but the question is whether or not that is sufficient to warn disabled users that they cannot use the bays unless they have a valid disabled badge and display it in the vehicle. I do not believe that it is.

 

It is a simple enough matter to add the words shown on the tariff board to the signage at the entrance to the car park and then there would be no room for misunderstanding.

Having seen the signage as it stands, a disabled driver would be justified in thinking that he/she had no need to do anything else to comply with the requirements for the use of a disabled bay and would certainly have no need to go to the tariff board and see the conditions that that set out.

 

In all of the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the signage on site was sufficiently clear and unambiguous and that being so, I also cannot be satisfied that the contravention occurred.

That being so, this appeal must be allowed and M******** does not have to pay this penalty charge. Appeal allowed.

 

I threw the all and the kitchen sink at this.

I hope there is enough information within this thread to assist others.

 

Good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you won on the signage issue,

nice one and a bit of a curve ball for the council I bet!!

 

 

well done!!

 

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...

I had a similar issue where I forgot to display my blue badge. I was distracted whilst unloading my car and forgot to pop it in the windscreen.

 

I made an informal plea to Cornwall Council and had to forward a copy of my blue badge to the council. They cancelled my PCN but warned me not to do it again.

Frederickson - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Lost - Claiming back from post office

Connaught Collections - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Lowell - CCA sent 11/4/07 - No agreement - returned to client

Moorcroft - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Red Castle - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Copy returned but no T&C's

Robinson Way - CCA Sent 16/5/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meaning what? BB users are criminals? The council has no business coming down hard on BB users, who are exercising their lawful rights.

Are you condoning criminal activity? The OP displayed a BB that was NOT valid and was aware that it was not valid. The council acted correctly and within the law however it deemed the signage was inadequate. Was the OP actually using a the vehicle or was a mate using it? Either way none of us will know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you meant to say the council is coming down hard on people who are misusing BBs. Not coming down hard on BB users - you basically implied that disabled people are criminals who should be persecuted.

 

"No wonder councils are coming down hard on BB users!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you meant to say the council is coming down hard on people who are misusing BBs. Not coming down hard on BB users - you basically implied that disabled people are criminals who should be persecuted.

 

"No wonder councils are coming down hard on BB users!"

 

 

Twist my words to whatever agenda suits you as you know I am correct. The OP was in the wrong and abusing the BB as it was invalid and was issued a ticket correctly however they got off on a technicality regarding the signage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way i see it, The BB allows the disabled person to park in the car park free of charge for up to 3 hours in a disabled parking space

 

Aside from the disabled parking space the BB is in fact the payment for parking in the car park the same as money is for the able bodied people that use it

 

Having not displayed the correct BB having left it at home is the same to me as me not paying my £1 parking fee and when i ended up with a PNC appealing on the basis that i should be let off paying the PNC because I in fact had £1 at home

 

Also using an out of date BB must be the same as me using a fake coin in the machine

 

I very much doubt i would get off either of those

 

 

But hey life isn't fair

Link to post
Share on other sites

Twist my words to whatever agenda suits you as you know I am correct. The OP was in the wrong and abusing the BB as it was invalid and was issued a ticket correctly however they got off on a technicality regarding the signage.

 

I haven't twisted your words, and I don't have an agenda. You slandered disabled people by suggesting they should be "come down hard" on. If anyone has an agenda, it's you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way i see it, The BB allows the disabled person to park in the car park free of charge for up to 3 hours in a disabled parking space

 

Aside from the disabled parking space the BB is in fact the payment for parking in the car park the same as money is for the able bodied people that use it

 

Having not displayed the correct BB having left it at home is the same to me as me not paying my £1 parking fee and when i ended up with a PNC appealing on the basis that i should be let off paying the PNC because I in fact had £1 at home

 

Also using an out of date BB must be the same as me using a fake coin in the machine

 

I very much doubt i would get off either of those

 

 

But hey life isn't fair

 

A blue badge is nothing to do with money or payments. It's not a free parking scheme - it's about physical access to shops and services. And it's a PCN you're talking about, not a PNC.

 

A much better analogy would be that you had a valid pay and display ticket, but failed to put it on the dashboard.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...