Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

2 PCNs for parking on the pavement


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2458 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

Hi All,

 

I recently received 2 PCN for parking on the pavement on consecutive days (the car didn't move).

 

I don't deny I parked on the pavement but (!):

 

1) the "pavement" isn't usable by pedestrians, doesn't lead anywhere and is dangerously overgrown with brambles

 

2) there are signs around the area stating that pavement parking is allowed and the markings on the pavement are now completely invisible.

 

3) although, in theory parking off this tiny section of pavement is allowed and wouldn't block the road, it would make passage harder especially for vans.

There wasn't a car parked opposite when I parked but there was one just behind.

 

As I don't live on that road I was trying to be polite!

 

4) the first PCN for was for code 62 (parking with one or more wheels on or over a footpath) but the second, issued less than 24 hours later was for code 622 (with the same description).

 

The parking site is on the rail side of Avalon Close off Whatley Avenue, SW20.

Unfortunately as I've only just joined the site I can't post a link but google streetmap shows the area really clearly thought the brambles are about a foot further out from the fence now (yes the car was pressed hard against them!

 

The front of the car was well back from the dropped curb by approximately a metre.

 

Is there anything I can do other than appeal and expect two rejections? £110 seems a lot to pay for 2 days of trying to park considerately!

 

Any thought gratefully received.

 

Cheers

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here?:

https://goo.gl/maps/Nz154tYASjq

 

2) there are signs around the area stating that pavement parking is allowed and the markings on the pavement are now completely invisible.

 

Signs are on the other side of the road in Whatley Avenue so not applicable to Avalon Close. (although GSV is from 2014) Pavement parking in London is prohibited except where there are signs allowing it.

 

4) the first PCN for was for code 62 (parking with one or more wheels on or over a footpath) but the second, issued less than 24 hours later was for code 622 (with the same description).

 

Both the same contravention. The 2 suffix on the 2nd merely indicates parked with 2 wheels on the pavement.

 

You will certainly be able to get the 2nd one cancelled on the basis of a continuous contravention

Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuous contravention decision at Ajudication, although permit parking, principle remains the same.

 

PATAS case ref: 2110166557

 

The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' parking place or zone displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011 at 09.00.

 

The Appellant's case is that the permit had not been renewed because they had not received a renewal notice from the authority. The Appellant and his wife were on holidaylink3.gif from 31 December 2010 until 23 January 2011 during which period the Penalty Charge Notices were incurred.

 

I have considered the evidence and I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents parking place displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4 January 2011. It is the Appellant's responsibility to renew their permit and they are not entitled to rely on the courtesy renewal letter, which may not have been received.

 

However I find that the Appellant's vehicle committed one contravention of parking in a residents' permit bay without clearly displaying a valid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011.

 

I find that one continuous contravention has occurred; the vehicle remains at the same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued. Further, I have taken into account that the residents' bay is operational from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday and I find that the situation would be the same if the residents' bay was operational 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

 

There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty charge notice every 24 hours or as in some of these Penalty Charge Notices less than 24 hours. An enforcement authority has other powers at its disposal for a continuous contravention, such as removal.

 

The appeal in relation to 4 January is refused all other appeals are allowed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuous contravention decision at Ajudication, although permit parking, principle remains the same.

 

PATAS case ref: 2110166557

 

Many thanks for this. I'll try starting this to the council and see what happens. Based on previous dealings I suspect they'll still reject the appeal. Is it worth paying the first one and then going through the official adjudication route for the second?

 

Cheers

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd appeal both together.

 

The 1st on the basis that you saw signs that permitted pavement parking and thought that also applied to where you parked. Ask council to use their discretion on this one occasion, very sorry, won't do it again etc.

 

The 2nd as a continuous contravention.

 

Unlikely they'll allow the first, but you never know. They may well allow the 2nd. Either way they will re-offer the discount on both, at which point I'd pay the first and wait for the NTO to make formal representation on the 2nd and take it to adjudication if they still reject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A GSV of location please? + scan of both PCNs.

 

Hi, Sorry I can't put up a link but the link above from Michael Browne shows the location. I'll scan the PCNs tonight...

 

As an update, I submitted the appeals as suggested above and they've already been declined (the speed surprised me but the result didn't!).

 

I think I'm going to pay the first and appeal the second. Any reasons not to do this?

 

Thanks for all the assistance.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their footway policy is nonsense its basically a list of roads on the website with a few conditions attatched which as a visitor you obviously wouldn't know. There are no signs as its London they just decide which ones to enforce and stick it online. https://www2.merton.gov.uk/transport-streets/parking/parking_enforcement_policy/footway-parking.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...