Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
    • Incorrect as the debt will have been legally assigned to the DCA and they are therefore now the legal creditor. Read up on debt assignment.   Andy
  • 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 2163 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 CAG.

 

I recently got a ticket for driving in a pedestrian zone at Barking

It's a disgustingly confusing section of road that the council seem to be making a lot of money from.

I am tempted just to pay the discounted rate but lately have been floored by PCN's.

On discussing it with collegues and other law abiding decent motorist I learned I'm not alone.

 

How on Earth did it come to this where the councils are acting so despicable..?

I want to appeal this one so I can help others fight back against this robbery.

 

I turned right at the corner in the image Barking1,

there is no sign not to turn right but by the time you have they've got you.

 

the second set of signs further in (Barking3) is confused by the arrows on top telling us we have priority over oncoming traffic.

I also find the pedestiran zone sign a confusing one by itself!

 

A circle with a car and motorbike in it.

If it had a red line through it it would comunicate its meaning in a second.

But they don's want that do they :evil:

Any help greatly appreciated.

 

R

Barking2.jpg

Barking1.jpg

Barking3.jpg

BarkingPCN.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the one. I've only been driving a few years so I'm not familiar with it. If it's in the Highway code I still think it's a poor sign at signifying that the area is for pedestrians.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that junction well. Personally I think the 'No Vehicles' sign is clear - it has 'Pedestrian Zone' written above the red circle as well. It's prominently shown on both sides of the road in your photos. The reason there isn't a 'No Right Turn' sign is because right turns are not prohibited if you are a vehicle permitted to drive in the pedestrian zone. From memory that's buses and vehicles needing access to businesses in the pedestrian zone, shop deliveries etc.

 

 

Those who live there think the Pedestrian Zone is an excellent idea and would not agree with you that it's "despicable" of the council to enforce it. If you've been driving a few years I can't see that's a reason to say "...so I'm not familiar with ..[the No Vehicles sign]…". I've been driving a lot longer than that and sign has always been there in the Highway Code, and it's not uncommon on the streets either. The council couldn't put a line through it even if they wanted to. The design of the sign is decided by the Department for Transport and specified in law. I also remember that the Highway Code says most round red signs prohibit something, and most of them don't have a line through them.

 

Whether you've any grounds to appeal it I don't know. Others may have an idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think their (the councils) approach is heavy handed, and others I have talked to are as disgusted as me. Other opinions always taken on board for consideration, though £800000 off the one area means I’m not the only one who has accidently driven there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think their (the councils) approach is heavy handed, and others I have talked to are as disgusted as me. Other opinions always taken on board for consideration, though £800000 off the one area means I’m not the only one who has accidently driven there.

 

 

I don't see why enforcing a prohibition on motor vehicles is 'heavy handed' but no doubt your perspective (as the person with the PCN) and mine (as the shopper not wanting to have to dodge cars in a Pedestrian Zone) are going to be different. I was curious the source of the £800,000 the council has charged in PCNs. Where did the number come from, and what period of time does that cover?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why enforcing a prohibition on motor vehicles is 'heavy handed' but no doubt your perspective (as the person with the PCN) and mine (as the shopper not wanting to have to dodge cars in a Pedestrian Zone) are going to be different. I was curious the source of the £800,000 the council has charged in PCNs. Where did the number come from, and what period of time does that cover?

 

 

Well it’s heavy handed because £65 is lot of money to me. I’m not against pedestrian zones, I’m against so called honey traps which this has been described in some forums.

 

 

 

Some other people feel the same http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/3-600-motorists-caught-out-in-barking-pedestrian-zone-1-4892354

 

 

 

The figure came from this http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t66422.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think someone posting on a discussion forum in 2012 that "...I read somewhere Barking made £800k on this spot..." qualifies as a reliable source of evidence. If you put in an FOI request they'd tell you, although personally I wouldn't bother as I can't see how it would help you much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think someone posting on a discussion forum in 2012 that "...I read somewhere Barking made £800k on this spot..." qualifies as a reliable source of evidence. If you put in an FOI request they'd tell you, although personally I wouldn't bother as I can't see how it would help you much.

 

 

Oh dear. Well I did read somewhere and I'm sorry it doesn't pass your rigorous referencing requirements. They've probably made a lot more money by now.

Luckily the article was from 2017 http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/3-600-motorists-caught-out-in-barking-pedestrian-zone-1-4892354

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. Well I did read somewhere and I'm sorry it doesn't pass your rigorous referencing requirements. They've probably made a lot more money by now.

Luckily the article was from 2017 http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/3-600-motorists-caught-out-in-barking-pedestrian-zone-1-4892354

 

 

Sorry I didn't realise the poster you were quoting from 2012 was you under a different name.

 

 

Good luck with your attempt to avoid paying the PCN. It doesn't matter how many PCNs the Council have issued, it won't help you get yours cancelled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't realise the poster you were quoting from 2012 was you under a different name.

 

 

Good luck with your attempt to avoid paying the PCN. It doesn't matter how many PCNs the Council have issued, it won't help you get yours cancelled.

 

 

Thanks for your help. (Edited)

Edited by honeybee13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it that all round signs with a red ring on the outside are prohibitive in nature. and all signs with a blue border are compulsory in nature and you wont go far wrong.

 

 

That's the one. I've only been driving a few years so I'm not familiar with it. If it's in the Highway code I still think it's a poor sign at signifying that the area is for pedestrians.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...