Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
  • 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

PCN for delivering in my car and not van (good vehicle)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1996 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

I wonder if any of you lovely people can help me?

 

I was making a substantial delivery to a restaurant in Beverly ( Catering/janitorial supplies).

I was in my 4x4 as the van was delivering elsewhere.

 

The bay did have a restriction of 'goods vehicles only' but i did not see that.

The traffic warden agreed that she could see i was making a substantial delivery but said that i was using the wrong type of vehicle and issued a ticket.

 

I appealed the ticket giving the copy of the delivery note and explaining that the goods are too heavy and many to park in the multi story and walk with them.

They have rejected my appeal.

 

I am not happy about this and feel this is restrictive to their tenants and their suppliers.

My concern is that I will need to make future deliveries in my car …

how will I do this without getting a ticket or knackering my back by parking in the multi story?

 

Does anyone have any advise or similar situations?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

Just to confirm, this week a council penalty charge notice, is it?

 

What is the exact wording of the offence please?

 

HB

 

Hi It was a council notice parking in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle'

 

I understand their point.

They did have signs up and I didn't read properly.

 

However, how can I make significant deliveries in future and how can they dictate what vehicle I should use?

 

I suppose I am disputing the sense in their restrictions.

 

It was good vehicles only.

I understand that the sign was there and I didn't read it.

However, there are a great many companies delivering to restaurants in that area that use estate cars and 4x4's to carry the goods.

 

I would like them to reconsider the merits, restriction and sense of their signs/ restrictions.

Edited by dx100uk
Merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

4x4's are not goods vehicles.

They most certainly can be. However, by the sounds of it, this one isn't.

 

The definition that the TPT will refer to is as a "goods vehicle" is defined in the Road Traffic Act, which says "a vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods or burden of any description". The important words there are "a vehicle constructed or adapted". Or possibly (though less likely) the EU definition of a "goods vehicle" which is "Category N: Motor vehicles with at least four wheels designed and constructed for the carriage of goods."

 

So if we're talking about just a normal passenger carrying 4x4 that you just happened to be using to carry goods at the time, then I'm afraid that the ticket has probably been issued correctly.

 

You can still appeal to the TPT of course, but I'd be very surprised if they ruled in your favour.

 

That said, it might be worth looking for the actual TRO that covers that loading area though to see exactly what it says. If the TRO says "loading only" but the council have put up a "Goods Vehicles Only" sign, then you might well have a much better case to get it overturned. As it's a free search, it's got to be worth a look.

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

London tribunal case ref: 2160271291

 

 

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle. The PCN was issued at 12.56pm on 27 April 2016 and the location was Lenelby Road.

 

 

The Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 sets out the contents required by the Regulations for a valid PCN served under Regulation 9.

 

 

 

Among other things, the PCN is required to state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to properly understand the nature of the alleged contravention.

The Council say that the place in which Mrs Harding's vehicle was parked was a goods vehicle only loading bay. In other words, the bay was designated for goods vehicles only. This is not, however, clear on the face of the PCN which states simply that the vehicle was parked in a place not designated for that class of vehicle.

 

 

 

A motorist reading the PCN would not understand from the wording the nature of the alleged contravention because there is nothing to explain the class of vehicle for which the parking place was designated. The PCN needs to identify, whether by wording or images, that the class of vehicle for which the bay is designated is goods vehicles only.

 

 

I therefore find that the PCN was invalid and the appeal is allowed for that reason

.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I am sorry I am not familiar with your three word abbreviations ... would you mind expanding :)

 

I would like to search the database as I feel it is massively restrictive to their tenants to restrict the type of delivery vehicles and it is entirely possible that the sign will not match the remit so to speak. Do you know what would i need to put into google to come up with their database?. Also as we are still in the EU could I not use the EU definition?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three word abbreviations?

 

Are u referring to PCN?

Penalty charge notice.

 

The only issue with that appeal was the council did not represent themselves and didn't take a pic of the road sign. That's why the appeal was allowed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only issue with that appeal was the council did not represent themselves

Yes, they did with their evidence pack

 

 

 

 

 

 

didn't take a pic of the road sign..

 

 

Not quite sure how you know that and even if they didn't, it's irrelevant as that's not the issue

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's why the appeal was allowed.

 

 

No the appeal was allowed becaues the pcn was defective i that it didn't identify the esignated class of vehicle

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you put the link up to the actual judgment please for the benefit of the OP.

 

 

What I've posteed is the verbatim adjudication from the London Tribunals site You can find it by searching the Register of Appeals with the ref 2160271291

 

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your search has no results

 

If I wasn't on my phone I could post the screen shot

 

Even a search with

 

Mary Harding v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (case reference 2160271291):

 

Or just Mary Harding reveals no results

Link to post
Share on other sites

on Tribunals Register of Appeals: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals

 

Click on 'Access the appellant portal'

 

When new Webpage opens go down to 'Statutory Registers' and click

 

It opens up 'Registers of Appeals' go down to 'Enviromental and Traffic Adjudicators (ETA) and click 'Search' (not the browse button)

 

It opens up 'ETA Register of Appeals and in 'Case reference' put the case ref number in and go down the page and click 'Search'

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi

 

Is a TRO a 'Traffic Rule Order' ?

I would like to search the register to see what they have as the restriction in that location so I can see it matches the sign - whilst I contemplate what I am to do about this.

 

In the meantime, it would seem that the council have decided that their parking restrictions are too restrictive and have put a sign up indicating a variance to the parking allowed.

 

Now allowing:

1) loading for commercial vehicles 6 am to noon -

 

2) No Stopping except Taxis between noon and 6 am

 

3) Shared use of the bay -

Good vehicles for loading 6 am to noon

Limited waiting between noon and 6 am

 

This puts me and a number of other suppliers at an immediate disadvantage if we use our 4x4 or estate cars for delivery. This I feel penalises and restricts small businesses - unless I am missing something?? HELP !.

 

I don't think I have any choice but to take this all the way otherwise I can not deliver safely to this client at the moment unless I take our van which is 1) not cost effective and 2) its often not available.

 

I have 28 days from 16th Augusts to respond to the Notice to owner.

 

ALL HELP GREATLY APPRECIATED :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

should be on the relevant council website

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

Hi CAG people,

 

I wonder if anyone can help me?

 

I was making a substantial delivery to a restaurant in Beverly ( Catering/janitorial supplies).

I was in my 4x4 as the van was delivering elsewhere. As a small company we only have one van and so I use my car when the van is not available.

 

The bay in question did have a restriction of 'goods vehicles only' but i did not see that.

The traffic warden agreed that she could see i was making a substantial delivery but said that i was using the wrong type of vehicle and issued a ticket.

 

I appealed the ticket giving the copy of the delivery note and explaining that the goods are too heavy and many to park in the multi story and walk with them.

They have rejected my appeal as I was using the wrong type of vehicle for the delivery.

 

I am not happy about this and feel this is restrictive to the tenants (Restaurant) and their other suppliers.

 

My concern is that I will need to make future deliveries in my car as I am not yet ready financially to buy anther van. Going forward I will not be able to do business with this client as the nearest parking bay that I can use is in the multi story car park round the corner and I can not park there and make multiple journeys with heavy goods.

 

Many other suppliers and small businesses deliver in estate cars and 4 x 4's for much the same reason as myself. If I can show that I am making substantial deliveries and only doing that, why can I not unload this area in the same way the vans are?

 

Does anyone have any thoughts or similar situations?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...