Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2412 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 am looking for some advice on behalf of my daughter.

 

When she went to work today she and other employees have been informed half of the building where she works has been condemned due to asbestos being in the air, but they have been told where my daughter works in the building that it is safe as the levels are only low,

is there an actual safe level of asbestos or are they putting my daughters and others health at risk?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, there are TLV's and OEL's for asbestos, it is somehting like 5 particles per cc of air at the source

but this is probably clashing with the overall exposure limit, which I dont know.

 

 

Problem is that asbestosis only kicks in after about 20 years after the exposure and that there are many envoronmental and other contributing factors

 

 

for example, if a peson is a smoker and is exposed to asbestos for any appreciable length of time then the chances of getting mersothelioma, lung cancer or asbestosis is close to 100%.

 

 

Trouble again is that the people measured in this way live on top of old asbestos mines or in localities were fibrous pyriboles outcrop at the surface such as in parts of Turkey, Canada etc.

 

so safe level?

she should ask what the measured readings are and ask who did the sampling and do they still have the micoscope slides of the particles extracted from the collecting filters so she can ask for an independent opinion if necessary

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHS website says 'you would need prolonged exposure to asbestos fibres, usually over many years, before you develop asbestosis.' (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Asbestosis/Pages/Introduction.aspx)

 

It doesn't sound like there is a need for immediate panic but obviously this should be dealt with over the long term.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some experience of dealing with similar situations

- albeit a long time ago now, nothing much has changed.

 

There are different types of asbestos - it isn't just one thing.

If I recall correctly, there are several types, and whilst all are dangerous, there are varying degrees.

 

So really, her first step (assuming she has no union to do it) is to ask what type of asbestos is identified and the specific risk factors associated with it.

The employer should be issuing guidance and advising staff on what, if anything, they need to do.

 

"It's only low" isn't an adequate answer - how do they know that, what is the best way of reducing any risk, and what not to do are all things the employer should be managing.

 

For example, in the case I dealt with exactly the same thing was said (i.e. not a lot) and it turned out that the levels of asbestos in the air were low - unfortunately, the same couldn't be said for the levels of asbestos in the ground, and as a result the whole site was contaminated.

 

Brown asbestos is critically unsafe - at any level of concentration.

Blue never breaks down ever when it enters the body. And I forget the rest!!!

 

But in her shoes, whilst I would not be unduly panicking,

I do think that I would be insisting on a much better amount of information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the particularly nasty type is chrysotile or blue asbestos, because of its common colour.

There were different TLV's in the UK for blue and other asbestos but that was back in the 1980's when I was working in a building that was having its asbestos stripped and as said, the amount per litre of air/day etc has largely been replaced with an overall exposure level but even that doesnt tell the full story.

 

 

2 of my ex colleagues died of mesothelioma,

one was a smoker for 25 years after his exposure when he worked in a power station (died 40 years after working there)

and the other a non smoker with asthma who had a single exposure to a cloud of asbestos dust plus probable low dose exposures during his career as a designer of heating systems that required site visits.

 

Sangie is right about the blue asbestos never breaking down in the body,

it does its damage because of the size of the fibres and their aspect ratio-length to width- getting them deep into the lings where the bodys immume system tries to fight them but the phages that attack foreign material like bacteria, bits of organic debris and even ordinary dust acb break them down and you then get clusters of these phages being attacked by other immune response proteins and cells such as T cells

 

 

eventually this fight to the death first clogs the lungs (so you can see the shadows on x-rays) and eventually all of that irritaion causes the ever renewing cells to change and you get cancer.

 

Identification of the fibres is usually done with a polarising microscope, the fibres have very distinct axial extinction so easy to tell from fibre glass, carpet fibres etc. They are then counted and the density per volume of air calculated..

 

 

The company doing this is usually separate from the contractors stripping the building so they have no interest in the results one way or another.

 

I would reiterate that despite the Govt putting numbers to exposure levels, like radon there is no safe level because of both the nature of the material and other factors that can play a part a couple of which already mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of job is it?

 

How long has she worked there for?

 

If it's just casual employment then just get a new job. Otherwise maybe time for some annual leave to consider her options.

 

General admin type job

 

worked for over 3 years now for them

 

And all leave has been booked up as she has just joined the TA and needed time off for selection and stuff :(

 

Oh and the meeting I mentioned on the 18th was for managers only, up to today no information at at all has been passed to any of the workers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, is it associated with ceiling tiles? They were common in the 1960's and early 70's. Paper with mixed fibres and then skimmed with cement or plaster with asbestos or glass fibres.

 

Often the best thing to do with these tiles is to leave them alone if the paint is covering the tiles and they are generally sound. Of course what happens is peopel want to run computer cables through them and that creates a potential hazard.

 

She may be able to put in a FOI request for the results of the air quality tests if the governors are not forthcoming with clear information, they cant refuse. ultimately as the levels set as being "safe" are flawed the results may well be meaningless as far as they go but what should be evident is how well the dust is being controlled. so that lead to a question, what does she want out of this? It is normal for her to be offered a chest X-ray and then follow up monitoring at various times in the future.

 

Beware of a one off offer of compensation that does away with any legal responsibility for the exposure and future effects. If it were me I would be happy with the monitoring and appearing in some paperwok somewhere so if there is a problem in the future it cant be denied and proceedings dragged out.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would presume that this survey would involve poking the offending material to take small samples and to use a portable air quality machine to take samples. It shouldnt necessitate people being sent home but under the circumstance she should be paid if the o/t was prearranged

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...