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

pcn havering council


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2335 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, just some quick advice needed if poss,

 

got a pcn before xmas code 01 parking in a CPZ during prescribed hours,

 

I was parked on a single yellow no kerb markings, and no sign on the yellow lines stating prescribed times,

 

was picking up my elderly father who was further down the road

I had to have a quick search for him as he was carrying stuff, , (was parked for about 10 mins in all)

 

the place I parked was a bus lane but it was out of the bus lane hours, 4pm till 7 pm

 

I was parked in the red circled area, fig 1

 

The enforcement officer observed me from 19:30 to 19:30 hours (not even a minute)

 

I carried out an informal appeal after looking on the council website and the rules and found this statement, saying I had to have a little search for my father, fig 2

 

It came back rejected saying that “a vehicle is not allowed to park on a yellow line when restrictions are in force other than for the purpose of loading or unloading as permitted by legislation, or for allowing passengers to board or alight, in which case the driver should not leave the vehicle,

 

notes made by the civil enforcement officer show that there were no suggestion of either of these actions taking place at the time of the contravention,

(bearing in mind the ticket says I was observed from 19:30 to 19:30 not even a minute),

your vehicle was parked in contravention of a waiting restriction,,

 

the restrictions were clearly shown in accordance with traffic management act 2004 legislation,

They also included this picture of a sign that belongs to the yellow line further down the road to the left, beyond the crossing in the picture, fig 3

 

placement of the sign is neither here nor there as some half a mile down the road is the main CPZ sign with the prescribed hours, 8am – 8pm mon sat, which means the little yellow line automatically falls within the main cpz hours from what I have discovered,

 

Now I went and looked at this sign which Is placed beyond a bus stop in the middle of the pavement,

around half a mile from where my ticket was issued as you can just see it poking out,

I’m usually pretty good at reading signs and obeying the rules (or so i thought ) fig 4

 

now this sign is obscured by the bus stop and if you get behind a bus its blocked totally, add it being dark is not a good mix

 

rest of pics

 

So the question is,

do I go to the next appeal with this or do I just stump up the £65 in case I lose the next one and its £130,

 

they call the first one that was rejected an informal appeal,

now because I didn’t state all this about the main cpz sign and the other sign

does that mean they will look badly at it ??

 

informal makes you think its summit cosy when in fact it’s a propa bone fide appeal,

havering.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, you're in a CPZ during restricted times, but the boarding exemption applies and you were absent from your car because you were assisting your elederly father + luggage. The CEO's obs time is only 1 min, insufficient for him to ascertain whether you were in contravention

 

Further to that is the poorly sited single CPZ entry sign partially hidden by the bus stop. So far, so good.

 

However you say you admitted in your informal reps that you went searching for him and were there 10 mins. Is that right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt say to them i went searching,

i just i had to help him with shopping,

didnt give a time i was absent either to them

i said 10 mins on here in case that has a bearing,

 

if the ceo did make notes and stood around for say 5 mins,

not sure what they do,

but he went up to the other sign which is maybe a minute walk to get the pic of the sign

 

also a work friend is a councilor in havering and he did suggest they might say if you're in doubt about the yellow line you shouldn't have parked there then ??

 

say if he stood there made a note of the time and my reg

then trotted down to the sign got the picture

then came back and started issuing the ticket,

that could take 10 mins ????

 

sorry have written so much stuff tonight i was bound to make an error

Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially you now have to play double or quits. The council is unlikely to allow your reps to the NTO, (so it'would now be the full penalty £130 ) but you can then appeal to adjudication (at no additional cost) If you win you owe nothing, if you lose you would owe the full penalty.

 

In theory with the boarding exemption and poor signage, you should win but adjudication can be a lottery and nothings guaranteed.

 

Your choice, I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had 6 appeals all allowed at adjudication, 3 where the council pulled out at the last minute (DNC -did not contest), 2 which were strong cases and 1 where the adjudicator was very agressive (clearly did not like my arguements) and would not give his decision at the time and told me I would be notified by post so I assumed I'd lost, but surprisingly he decided to allow it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i know i shouldnt ask but i would value your personal opinion if i should carry on, i know its hard from reading on pc and not being there, £65 hurts but £130 will hurt more lol

 

like my mate threw at me with the if you wern't sure why did you park there ? which i cant help thinking is a sensible question really

Edited by essex 42
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to decide whether or not to "roll the dice". Certainly £65 is better than £130, but then, £0 beats them both.

 

Adjudicators can be a bit of a lottery, but if you feel that you have a good argument (and I think you do), then only you can really decide if you want to pay or play :wink:

 

the trouble is if i pay it i'm still going to raise a complaint about the issue of the sign being obscured by the bus stop witht havering council,

 

If you pay it first, the council will say that you've admitted the 'offence' and won't give a flying f(ig) about your complaint. Sad but true I'm afraid. :-(

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not the same issue so not relevant to your case.

 

Sometimes it is wise to put in a soft appeal and if they reject then pay up but at least you would have had one bite of the cherry.

i had several similar tickets when loading and got them all cancelled.

 

Lost one at adjudication and the adjudicator and I had an argument over the mathematics of how clocks work and the relevance of using a separate recording system to determine the length of a stay in a car park.

 

His maths were wrong

but i had clealy upset him by telling him this

so appeal rejected because the council can run a timing system that is 11 minutes out " for the convenience of the public"

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should of appealed

you had a 99% chance of winning,

 

the officer had no grounds to issue the ticket with no observation period as they had no time to rule out any exemption.

 

Councils used to give 5 mins but most London councils have cut this down to 2mins or even zero as in this case because they can issue far more PCNs as there is less chance of the driver returning.

 

The evidence against the driver is so weak a robust appeal will never fail

but Councils rely on the fact most people pay up so the evidence or lack of it is never challenged.

 

There is no requirement to remain in the car if boarding is taking place they are just telling porkies to get you to pay up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...