Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Ade,   Stop speaking to them by phone and keep contact in writing only, which you've said you prefer.   Send TT a SAR by post immediately. The data you get back should enable you to see what they think you owe, and how it's made up.   Also write to BW Legal confirming you dispute the alleged debt owed to TT and have written to TT seeking data, so BWL must stop demands until TT have replied to the SAR you've sent them.
    • Please do although obviously I don’t know the facts from your side but at least I can tell you how much of a cut and paste job it is.
    • Please check back for a full reply tomorrow. However, it would help if you would introduce pergo spaces into a story full stop it's very long and especially for people with small screens it's very difficult to follow when it is so compacted.   I think this straight has become rather confused because of the third party account which we received at the outset. I think it will probably be helpful if you could repost your story but on a new thread and more openly spaced please.   Then we can start to have a closer look at it. However, as I've already suggested, I think there are two issues. The question of your liability in the accident and the problem of how you have been persuaded to take a rental car at such a high rate.    I would suggest that you hold off telephoneing anyone until we have had a closer look.before you do anything on the telephone. You have obviously had some very important conversations but you don't have any evidence of them. Although the other side may say that they have recorded them, you you may find it difficult to get hold of those recordings if in fact those recordings incriminate them in any way. for instance if they have promised you that you don't have to pay anything for the hire car, that would be an extremely useful conversation to have but you may find that it is difficult to get hold of.   please start a new thread it will be much easier to continue from there                                
    • When I sadly lost my job a while back, i reportd it immpediately to DWP as you are supposed to, but didnt realise at the time that the day I reported to them was the day before I was paid out for the last month. I was actually paid extra whem I left as it was cheaper than redundancy fort the business and at the time it was a good financial move (so I thought).   I was paid on Fri 26th Jan, they paid me out 2 months in one go. I reported to DWP on the 22nd of Han that I was made unemployed, had the letters and evidence. As they spun the story, because of their assesment dates and that, my first payment was on the 1st May and reassured that it works the other way around. That when work starts again, if I dont actually receive money from the company during the assesment period, there wont be an issue as it balances up.   Can I believe this or was it another spun story? I'm concerned that as I'll be paid monthly, (Starting on the 15th paid on the last day of the month), assment ends on the 22nd. Tha they'll take that money into consideration.   I'm just concerned due to the disparity it would cause between 4 odd months I endured with zero income because of how their system works and whatever they ahe in place to counter at this end of the claim.   Anywa, it's just awonder.   Cheers,   Ade    
    • Hi, OP sister here, im going to try and explaine in full details from start to present and see if you have any advice for me on what i can do. on 15/1/2021  at 16:25pm i was traveling along hazlebarrow cresent wich is on my estate at around 30mph, its a tight road with cars parked along the left hand side, as i proceeded through, a van ( which was parked on my left hand side, facing towards me) pulled out from the side of the road, he stopped the van wich resulted in the van being at an angled stationary position on the road. I breaked immediately but the ice and snow skidded my tyers, i skidded into the drivers side of his van, my car bounced off his van and sent my vehicle head first into the back of a parked car ( wich was originally parked at the back of the van before he set off from the side of the road. I will refer to the van driver as MR seddon. ( im going to attatch a street veiw picture and diagram wich will be more helpful in understanding how the accident accured ect) .  The owner of the parked car, which i will refer to as Mr simpson came out of his house. Myself, mr seddon and mr simpson exchanged details and took photos, then i left the scene as my first concern, understandably was to contact my midwife and the hospital. I live just round the corner from the scene of the accident so i slowly drove my car to my property. I contacted Go skippy the next day 16/1/21 and informed them of the accident and gave them all the details ect . by the following monday 18/1/21 i had a call from AX who said they was dealing with my claim as go skippy will not deal with it as i am third party insured. Over the next few days, i complied with their requests ( gave them a written statment of what happened, sent them pictures of the damage to my vehicle and mr seddons van ect). Then on the 19/1/21 AX contacted me again and asked if i need a curtesy vehicle, my first response was ' how much will that cost me?' Of which she replied ' nothing because your insurance covers the cost'. I agreed to the curtesy vehicle and the vehicle was delivered to me on the 20/1/21.  Over the coming weeks, AX and i had regular contact about my claim and updated me in regards to my own vehicle. At one point she said it could be deemed a 50/50 liability. an engineer had collectes my car, deemed in a total loss as the damage was more than 66% of its total value and written my car off . i had a call from a lady from AX and she said they have valued the car and i will be payed out £2200 . i asked when and she said ' we will send you a cheque out for £358 in the post, and the remaining balance will be payed out by Admirel but this may take a few weeks more' .  I didnt hear nothing for around 2 weeks so i comtacted AX again for an update, she told me that admirel are refusing liability and there now in dispute. Every time i contacted them they said the same thing ' admirel are refusing liability' i asked them why admirel consider themSelf not liable and she read from the notes ' mr seddon said he was driving along the road, the corsa ( my vehicle) was at high speed coming towards me , i beeped my horn and tried moving out of the way but i couldnt because of the ice and the snow and the corsa hit my van' . the lady at AX said the problem is that the damage to both our vehicles is consistant with both our stories and due to there being no witnesses, no cctv or dash cam footage- no one can prove who is at fault. I then questioned why i had been told i was being paid out £2200 and she said 'well we have to advice you the estimated value' of wich i replied 'no, there was no 'advice' - i was told it was a done deal i was getting paid £2200 and she told me i had a cheque arriving in the post!!!.  The lady then told me she had requested a ' none prejudice payment' from admirel and waiting for a response.   Shortly after this phone call, AX contacted me again and asked if i had the funds to repair my own vehicle or buy another one, ( im.assuming admirel refused to pay the ' none prejudice payment) I told them No i do not as i have a baby due and even if i did have the funds, why on earth would i fork out to repair my own vehicle when i wasnt at fault ?! . she said ok im going to pass this to managment and see what we can do .   I contacted AX again and asked for an update and expressed how unhappy i was with their service as i felt like they hadnt fought my corner, bowed down to admirel and then had the cheek to ask me to repair my own vehicle . again she said ' its still in dispute, admirel are not budging i have to pass this on to management. She then asked me for 3 months bank statements to 'prove' i dont have the funds to repair my vehicle myself. I thought this was ridiculous and stated that even if i had the funds, why would i repair my own vehicle when im.not at fault!? Obviously this has been on going since middle of january, pretty fed up. My brother come to this forum and you guys had mentioned the hire car rates may fall back on me. I contacted AX first thing this morning regarding this. I made it clear that they can collect the vehicle to stop the daily charges as i do not want to be in thousands of pounds worth of debt when i am a lone parent with a new born baby. and the lady told me ' we will try every avenue to recover the cost from Admirel for the hire car charges, if this means taking them to court, even if this is unsuccessful, considering you comply with your hire vehicle contract and you work with us with your claim ( which you have been doing) you will not be liable for this debt and if worst comes to worst and admirel will not pay, we will just wipe the debt off' . i made her repeat several times that i will not be liable for this debt and she said i have told you my name, and these calls are recordered and i am telling you that this debt will not be on you to pay . She then said that if i was to give AX the hire car back now, then it would jepordise everything. And she said ' we gave you that hire vehicle because we beleive your not at fault so you can keep using it as we know you need transport' I then questioned the need for bank statements again and she told me the reason they need bank statements is so if it goes to court - AX can justify why i needed the hire car for so long ( because i didnt have the funds to repair my vehicle or buy another one) and also so they can prove they have tried every root possible.    After the phonecall it got me thinking about how she said ' aslong as you comply with your hire car contract your not liable for any charges for the hire car' . will they find any fault with the contract just to try and lumber me with the debt? , as it seems pretty fishy how they would just ' wipe off' thousands of pounds if admirel refuse to pay.  And also, she said if i gave the hire car back it would jepodise the case . so when the lady rang me the other week asking if i had funds to repair or buy myself a new vehicle , if i had said yes, ill buy a car tomorrow and come collect the curtesy one. Then what? Wouldnt that ' jepodise' the case?    As you can imagaine, my heads spinning. Stressed and dont know what to do. I dont even care about a pay out , i just want to give the hire car back and be completely done with AX . but now im scared if i give the car back i will be lumbered with thousand of pounds worth of debt from the hire car charges.  Tomorow i am going to read thoroughly through the ' hire car contract' . i am going to give them another call and record them saying i am not liable for the debt. Any advice on how i can just give the hire car back to them without me being liable to pay the debt?  Thank you Gemma
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 856 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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

It would be easier for you to click the link and post the url for direct access.

Still comes up with no search results. It might be my mobile tho

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

Desperately trying to get some help or information on this.

Starting with checking what ever a TRO to make sure the written directive and actual directive match and where I can find the TRO register ��

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...